Some horrendous shit being spouted here. Hated the QPR one, hated that again today. It's cheating plain and simple, conning the ref. Every time a ref fecks up to our cost, we're up in arms and yet it's ok for one of our men to buy a decision like that? There's right and there's wrong. That was wrong.
Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
In fairness some don't bitch at all when other sides get good decisions. Myself being one of them
At least this one looked like a penalty on first viewing, and wasn't also offside. Maybe last week's one was so bad he's having to come back down in stages?
I've always thought cheating was either built in to a player's make up, or just an act of desperation, which is what made it stupid. We were going to win the game anyway. They were crap. Why not just win it without making a fool of yourself?
I've always thought cheating was either built in to a player's make up, or just an act of desperation, which is what made it stupid. We were going to win the game anyway. They were crap. Why not just win it without making a fool of yourself?
See it's this conning the ref bullshit i take issue with. one of our own exaggerates contact to win a penalty for out team in a gmae we had to win. yet he is a cheat because he has conned the ref?
How many times in a football match do you see players pulling shirts, appealing for throw ins, corners, goal kicks, free kicks, penalties, handballs, offsides etc, when they know perfectly well the decision should be given against them?
Yes all the time, in fact every time there is a decision made it happens by both sets of players and their fans and managers. In truth the whole match revolves around everybody involved with both clubs trying to influence the ref into giving your team the most advantageous decisions.
So why should one particular type of incident be deemed worse than any of those others?
Mata and Terry both appealed for a goal today, that incidentally was given, when the ball never even crossed the line. Should both now be widely castigated by the world of football for blatant cheating and conning of the officials? Probably but they won't be will they, because apparently some types of cheating and conning of the ref is much more palatable than others. Bizarre logic in my view!
He was looking for the pen and the defender left his foot there. There was contact and such pens are given, thats ok with me (unlike the other one). However, he fell very theatrically, and soon enough he wont get anything from the refs if he isnt careful
We had that problem with Ronaldo and its really not helping Young
We had that problem with Ronaldo and its really not helping Young
It's pure logic? Conning the official is cheating ?
con 4 (kn) Slang
tr.v. conned, con·ning, cons
To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.
n.
A swindle.
adj.
Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a con artist; a con job.
it makes Look pretty stupid as from that angle he clearly is going to get to the ball after his turn
rival fans ay."Cheated and dived your way to the title"
"We dont give a feck, we dont give a feckkk, how we win them, we don't give a feck
".It's a milky penalty but he felt the contact and went down as any player is obliged to do.
At such high speeds I still don't know why defenders dangle their legs around like that.
And when did this, "players are obliged to" fall over if someone blows on them bollocks start becoming an actual argument?
IT'S A feckING CONTACT SPORT! It's not touch rugby.
IT'S A feckING CONTACT SPORT! It's not touch rugby.
Do United have to cheat to win? Is it me or did the '94 or '99 teams steer away from this? I didn't like Ronaldo's cheating, I didn't like Nani' whinging a few seasons back and if Young thinks this is his niche is the team, I'd rather he'd feck off.
United fans can (and do) give out about the Drogbas and the Suarezes on the field, cheating and complaining and whinging. We shouldn't accept that in the club. I hope Fergie fecking read him for it.
United fans can (and do) give out about the Drogbas and the Suarezes on the field, cheating and complaining and whinging. We shouldn't accept that in the club. I hope Fergie fecking read him for it.
Yes i got that bit thanks Moses, but why the outrage over one type of conning, when it happens continually by everyone from the fans to the coaching staff and players. We have all done it, shouted for a decision and most of the time we are not even sure we are right, but we try anyway to influence the referee.So exaggerating is no different than appealing for a handball when you know the ball has hit the player's hand instead of the player moving his hand toward the ball. you are conning the ref to gain an advantage, and it happens en masse in the vast majority of those circumstances.
For me it is all opportunism, every bit of it. If you don't try it on, you won't get anything, so players and fans try it on repeatedly to con, mislead or cheat the ref into giving them the decision. I just feel the added emphasis placed on diving incidents by the broadcasters and media in general, to a public with a heritage of not condoning diving, plays a bigger part in shaping people's opinions against 'exaggeration',than other widespread forms of blatant referee conning which are not as condemned by the media and pundits and are therefore somehow deemed generally acceptable.
So exaggerating is no different than appealing for a handball when you know the ball has hit the player's hand instead of the player moving his hand toward the ball. you are conning the ref to gain an advantage, and it happens en masse in the vast majority of those circumstances.
For me it is all opportunism, every bit of it. If you don't try it on, you won't get anything, so players and fans try it on repeatedly to con, mislead or cheat the ref into giving them the decision. I just feel the added emphasis placed on diving incidents by the broadcasters and media in general, to a public with a heritage of not condoning diving, plays a bigger part in shaping people's opinions against 'exaggeration',than other widespread forms of blatant referee conning which are not as condemned by the media and pundits and are therefore somehow deemed generally acceptable.
So Henry's infamous handball is the same as appealing for a throw in? Not for me.
I don't get the moralising that goes on around diving (or that afformentioned handball either), but there is a middle ground.
After watching the incident quite a few times, it almost looks like Young steps into the defenders left foot on purpose. It would seem Young could of easily cut back and gone by the defensive player. But there was contact, ref was always going to give it. One thing is for sure, Young looked like a total cnut with his theatrics after the contact.
I can't believe people are defending it
'Falling over' and 'going down' are completely different.
I might defend him tomorrow to the city fans at work, just for a laugh. Dunno if I'll be able to keep a straight face though.
Guys, he was fouled.
/thread.
/thread.
I can't actually believe anyone that saw that penalty thinks it was anything other than an outrageous dive. When it was shown on the TV replay in the concourse in the ground, there were a lot of oohs and aahs and they weren't followed by 'Cantona'... Face facts, Young dived like a hungry otter...
I don't really care if he was or wasn't. I don't like to see him making that much of such a little contact but the guy is trying his hardest to be a United player and that is all I ask.He played quite well in general and I was happy at that.
People are always going to talk about the 'dive/milk' regardless. I wish he wouldn't do it but it isn't going to change anything.
Rival fans are always going to moan, the contentious decisions are all they remember. Not that we totally pipe-cleaned Villa in general.
Impeding isn't "he touched me slightly, and he did it first, so na na na"...Impeding is stopping someone from advancing. As in not being able to advance because someone's stopped you. Young was not impeded, he could very easily have stayed on his feet, he chose to go down on feeling contact because he's a massive hairy fanny, and he feigned throwing himself to the floor to dishonestly con the referee into thinking he was impeded.
Yes
There's probably a gif for this. Or a meme. Or something. I'm far too lazy to try and find it though.
Honestly, some of you are fecking nuts. The israeli secret service should kick you in the shins.
Yes, Young seeks contact with his left leg. But that's after he was fouled on the right foot. He was already going down, but he got his body into the defender a bit more for emphasis.
I'm not bothered at all, it was a foul.
I'm not bothered at all, it was a foul.
Take that Robben one in the box where he's clearly kicked in the shins and continues on.
Is that a foul?? He was kicked in the shins and could continue. Then decided to 'fall over'. Do you watch much Spanish league Mock?
If he was kicked in the shins and feeling contact he probably would have won a deserved penalty despite 'going down' with the benefit of hindsight it showed he could clearly have continued.
The worst thing about this is that Young probably won't even care if Fergie gives him the hairdryer.
Ashley Young wasn't kicked in the shins. He wasn't kicked anywhere.
If there's a RedCafe goes into Meltdown thread somewhere on the internet, they're probably balls deep in green smilies by now.
If there's a RedCafe goes into Meltdown thread somewhere on the internet, they're probably balls deep in green smilies by now.
Curiosity has got me here, what makes you think that?
Impede means to "Delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them". Young was impeded - he progress was delayed and affected by the contact.
Nobody can really say how much it should've affected him - replays slowing the game down so much don't help. At that pace minute contact can be significantly off-putting. Obviously he exaggerated the fall, but otherwise he wouldn't have got the penalty he seemingly felt he deserved.
His progress was delayed by throwing himself on the floor like a hairless fanny. Not by the defender pulling his leg away to try and not kick him. A "ball to hand" handball impedes the ball, but it isn't given for precisely the same reasons this shouldn't have been.
When did people start interpreting penalties like this? Did I miss a memo?
When did people start interpreting penalties like this? Did I miss a memo?
feck's sake, some of you lot would defend Hitler... all the contact, including the first touch on the right foot, was initiated by Young. He actually ran away from the ball to stand on the defender's foot, then clipped him on the way down with his other foot. It was an outrageous dive and he should have been booked for it!
Unfortunately we have a new starfish in our team. He really doesn't need to resort to blatant diving in those instances, he's got himself in a fantastic position to score or set up a goal, why ruin your reputation by going down like a starfish?
When the ref's stopped giving freekicks for players being "honest" but gaining no advantage.
In terms of a generally unimportant throw in, then that particular incidents influence on that particular result then no. But in terms of intent to con the ref to gain an advantage for your team, then yes there is no literal difference in the intent to manipulate events in your favour, in my view. Ref conning is just that and whatever it's guise, it is still blatantly unlawful opportunism by any standard.
If we look at the flip side, how many times do we see a defender who has fouled in the box try to convince the ref he has not fouled and the striker dived? Almost as often i would suggest, yet how often does a defender get castigated for doing so? Not very often by comparison. So how can conning a ref to not give a penalty, be reasonably deemed somehow more acceptable than conning a ref to win one?
I just find it strange how so many can take the moral high ground with some incidents, but not others where the intention to con is almost ever occurring, and in a variety of ways can be just as important in influencing the outcome.
I think other forums will find the posts inventing new rules like "impeding a player is a penalty" to justify diving more funny than those who reasonably just want him to cut diving from his game and feel embarassed by his antics.
That's how you change direction at pace. Otherwise Young either falls over or keeps running towards the back post.
Mockney, come on now clarify yourself man, even your female genitalia analogies are contradictory! When UEFA had to back down over the Eduardo incident, after being unable to determine how much contact was required to justify a player going down. Since then 'some' contact (or 'touching' if you prefer,
) is now enough justification to go down, only feigning contact or intentionally instigating contact is deemed cheating, and therefore punishable.totally agree
10 new pages today......what a joke
Oh don't talk bollocks, even I have a better turning circle than that and my knees are fecked!
It isnt contradictory. He IS a massive hairy fanny. But on this occasion he dived and rolled about LIKE a bald fanny.
Diving was tantamount to lying about how hairy he is.
No sorry Simon, i disagree completely. It was clearly evident in the slow mo from various angles that Young was today and is renowned for being, actually bald as feck. There are many examples backing my claim, from various angles and both before and after the said incident.
Therefore it can only be that on this particular occasion, he 'exaggerated' his penalty claim like a massive hairy fanny! Before of course resuming his customary hairlessness!