My favourite dive of all time still has to be Vieira v Liverpool. Look at him, he can't even be arsed selling it.
Which led me to this beaut
Which led me to this beaut
Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
I stand corrected. Though that only has 3 pages whilst we're currently on 10+ from yesterdays incident here (not that that is necessarily reflective of anything, as many are just debating whether it was a penalty or not).
Good point... twice in a week has certainly ramped everything up. As I said, the man's got audacity to burn.
That one is great, it's like he couldn't decide whether to do it or not. Yet did it anyway.
Yeah, you can see the moment when he realises he's gotten it all wrong.
Bannan deliberately broke the rules. That's as obvious an example of cheating as you can get.
Not only do the laws say nothing about how much force of contact is required, they say nothing about contact. It can be a penalty with no contact at all and it can be no penalty with contact. It's a foul for a player to kick or attempt to kick an opponent. The problem with the Young incident yesterday is that it was Young who did the kicking, that's why it shouldn't have been a penalty but rather a free kick to Villa and a yellow card for Young.
Except he wouldn't be right. Utd would've won those games regardless.
It was a penalty. However, Young should give up on dramatics.
It's giving the media an public an opportunity, and excuse to downplay United's achievements.
It's giving the media an public an opportunity, and excuse to downplay United's achievements.
Then the media should shape up...we were denied a clear penalty and don't forget Given handling the ball outside of the area on purpose...both were instances of cheating, the Given one specially.
Don't see any columns written about United having to overcome that
You seem to be judging people on a hyopthetical there. Was there Utd fans calling him this before he signed for Utd?
Only cos the ref made a mistake and gave it...
Yes, it does. And it was by all probability matches we would've won regardless.
Plus, it's going to cost us.
I think the debate about cheating to win is a bit like the debate about the brand of football - would you be content with winnig ugly? Would you enjoy winning the league playing destructive football, Stoke-style? I think I get more pleasure and joy out of seeing United play attacking football, even if we don't win the league.
Similarly, if we cheated notoriously and systhematic, would I prefer that (and winning the league) to keeping our acts clean, and not win? No, I wouldn't, because that would be hollow success.
Obviously Young diving in two matches aren't the equivalent to us cheating our way to a title championship, but you get my wider point. I prefer honesty to cheating, even if it means missing out on a trophy or two. If you win something due to cheating, what does the success mean?
What an absolute cockend Ryan Taylor is.
feck him.
Pussy.
feck him.
Pussy.
You said this two pages ago.
and now this. I don't know how to break this to you, but I suspect Ryan Taylor doesn't read this forum. A toilet wall in a pub near his house might be your best bet.
and now this. I don't know how to break this to you, but I suspect Ryan Taylor doesn't read this forum. A toilet wall in a pub near his house might be your best bet.
Obviously, you can debate if Young was looking to win the penalty, or was impeded. I would say he was looking to win the penalty both yesterday and against QPR.
Edit: The referees have an impossible job. I had no doubts both were penalties watching at the ground. By the letter of the law, they likely are penalties. however, watching them at home I can sympathise with the opponents.
He didn't even try to go for the ball. He might very well have had decent chances on both occasions, if he'd decided to have a go instead of throwing himself to the floor.
Just saying mate
I know, I'm just joking with you. I don't think anyone, including his family, have ever felt so strongly about Ryan Taylor.
No - Despite something of an attempt to get out the way, the defender's foot still caught and tripped Young's right foot. This fact isn't altered by Young's theatrics that followed.
I think Phil McNulty's BBC blog sums it up well:
Young was actually clipped by Villa defender Ciaran Clark and referee Mark Halsey was correct to award the spot-kick, but the United attacker's flying tumble made life hard for the official
At this stage in the season, I don't care how we get the goals. Young goes looking for them, well done, Young. It's not his fault the defenders and/or refs. are naive clowns and most will take advantage of it. Two 'dives', two pens., two goals. Well done, Young!
Can someone link a video of the incident again if they have it handy please?
this x 1000
Come on, he wasn't clipped.. he kicked his right foot into Clark, actually changing direction instead of going for the ball, then left his trailing leg as well. It's clear as a day, stop making up excuses.
He dived, it was cheating, I'd wish he didn't cheat, but he did. And it's not the first time. Hope Fergie has a word with him and sort him out.
I thought the one yesterday was a penalty watching from the Stretford End but it wasn't exactly the best view. When I saw it full speed on the TV at half time for me it was a pretty obvious dive. The following slo mo just confirms that. Young actually chooses to run to the defender and kicks his foot rather than going after the ball which he'd pushed away from the defender. Then throws himself into the air and kicks the defender with his other foot in mid air. Quite spectacular. Correct decision would have been free kick to Villa for Young kicking the defender and a yellow card for Young for simulation.
The QPR one was a penalty as the defender grabbed Youngs shirt (well pinched it between his fingers rather than grabbed maybe)... Young did his swallow dive to make sure the ref bought it. Very soft though and not usually given.
I agree the refs have an impossible job with this though. Witness the Tevez incident in the City game which I thought was a clear penalty when I first saw it and was delighted when the ref booked him (wrongly) for diving!
No. Young went looking for the contact and initiated it. Young fouled Clark.
See this is the annoying thing. We played fantastic yesterday. I thought some of our best football this season. I just picked up the paper, what's the focus of our game? All about Young's dive. We were going to cruise the game anyway but that gets all the focus now and nothing about how well we played. I know it's partly the papers but why give them ammo? No need to go down like a spastic jellyfish everytime he gets touched.
Right, I've deleted all the off topic nonsense from me and acumber9.
The focus is from us. I actually havent seen much in the media that actually gives much of a shit
Technically if Ciaran Clark had committed a foul and clipped Young (which I'm not sure of at all), surely Young's theatrics made life easier for Halsey as he is able to see some something happened. I don't think a referee has ever awarded a penalty to a player who stumbles and stays on his feet.
Sorry I got a bit lost in the last page or two, what was it you was trying to say again?
Exactly - unless a player goes down they know they are extremely unlikely to be given a penalty even if they have been fouled. The general impression of referees seems to be that is a player is fouled, but able to stay on his feet, then it can't have been too bad so should play advantage.
The problem here is that the advantage rule needs to be changed to how they use it in rugby union. The referee should be able to see if the advantages is genuine by letting play develop, rather than having to decide immediately whether to either give the free kick or to let play go on.
There doesn't have to be much contact to disrupt a player - but unless they go to ground the defender will 9 times out of 10 get away with it.
I'm sure Evans has conceded a very similar penalty this or last season but I can't remember it, anyone?
Anyway I just had a scouser saying a Liverpool player would never cheat like that against their old club. Short memories or what
Anyway I just had a scouser saying a Liverpool player would never cheat like that against their old club. Short memories or what
Why is that for my benefit?
Utterly embarrassing from Vieira, I've never thought otherwise
Are people actually saying that the defenders left foot didn't move towards and impede Young?
I may need to look at it again as I thought that much was obvious. I thought Young had only thrown his trailing leg towards the defender which is why it looked so unnatural.
I may need to look at it again as I thought that much was obvious. I thought Young had only thrown his trailing leg towards the defender which is why it looked so unnatural.
69 pages
You should watch it from all the angles in my view it was a clear dive. Yesterday I thought he dived but it was a penalty, now it doesn't even seem like a penalty to me, having said all that I don't understand this outrage over here. People are just too obsessed with diving and all.
69 pages
Please tell me you don't think they're all about the dive?
I haven't seen it again since the dozen or more replays yesterday but, from my perspective, Young knocked the ball past the defender and then his leading foot got caught by the defenders? I don't recall seeing him go 'looking' for the defender's foot as such, just that the genuine contact was emphasised by Young's theatrics and his trailing leg being flung out at a ridiculous angle.
For me, the original contact was a penalty. The defender certainly didn't mean to kick Young but he was duped by Young's skill in pushing the ball past him and, in putting a foot out to try and stop the ball (hence why I can't see how Young would have deviated from his course towards the ball; that's the reason the defender had his foot there in the first place) he caught Young's foot as it planted into the ground.
Could Young have stayed on his feet? Absolutely.
Was he impeded enough by the small contact that was made so as to inhibit him from getting to a ball that he would otherwise have got to? Possibly.
If he had tried to get to the ball, and failed, following the contact, would he have got a penalty without going to ground? Definitely not.
For me, the original contact was a penalty. The defender certainly didn't mean to kick Young but he was duped by Young's skill in pushing the ball past him and, in putting a foot out to try and stop the ball (hence why I can't see how Young would have deviated from his course towards the ball; that's the reason the defender had his foot there in the first place) he caught Young's foot as it planted into the ground.
Could Young have stayed on his feet? Absolutely.
Was he impeded enough by the small contact that was made so as to inhibit him from getting to a ball that he would otherwise have got to? Possibly.
If he had tried to get to the ball, and failed, following the contact, would he have got a penalty without going to ground? Definitely not.
I think it was an impediment to Young's progress. There was initial contact by the defender, no doubt about it in my view. The issue on whether it was sufficient justification to go down is a moot point. It cannot be proven as Uefa found out when they attempted to tackle this issue, so any debate on the amount of contact is purely subjective and with no real chance of a satisfactory judgment.
My argument is (irrespective of whether i personally agree with the morals of it or not) when you examine the flip side. A defender pulling back a striker will imply a striker dived to con the ref into not giving a penalty, knowing full well he has deliberately fouled the striker.
So i ask you why defenders are not castigated for such blatant cheating and manipulation, deliberately intended to con a ref into giving an unjust decision? It is exactly the same in principle as a striker pretending there was contact, when in fact there was none.
It is exactly the same action done for exactly the same reasons. Both are intended to con the ref into believing their opponent has committed a punishable offence when the opposite is in fact true. So why should diving or over elaboration on the part of the striker, be deemed less palatable than it's defensive opposite?