Disagree. His two feet are too close together to properly change direction to his right. He almost tucks his right foot in under himself.
Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
Disagree. His two feet are too close together to properly change direction to his right. He almost tucks his right foot in under himself.
Sailing West to Go East?
Come on, he could have easily avoided contact if he wanted to, if not he's a much worse footballer than I gave him credit for previously. If he honestly couldn't ride that 'challenge' he's shit.
I can understand the 'he was right to go down' brigade, but that he couldn't do anything about it? Seriously?
Touching and doing enough to impede a run are two different things.
It was never a penalty, imagine if something similar gets given against us at City...
Where have I said that? If his main priority was to stay on his feet, I'm sure he could have, but at the risk of repeating myself, that's true of about 80% of penalties.
The thought process of "do I change my movement to avoid this foul, or keep going and let myself go down once we connect?" has a pretty predefined answer amongst professional footballers these days. Whether that's something that should and can be fixed is another question, but for me, it's not something a player can be vilifed for in today's game.
I save the vilification for players who either entirely fabricate contact (eg Carol v Newcastle), or initiate the contact themselves, which I don't believe Young did on the initial foul. For some reason he then felt the need to do so with his other foot - maybe he thought he'd get two penalties if he could persuade the ref he'd been fouled twice?
I think the opposing argument was that it wasn't a foul, even if there was contact as the contact was mainly due to Young wanting there to be contact. And it is possible for contact to happen with no foul or no impediment. Contact itslef is not a foul.
Sense.
And so we're back to "touching someone in the box is a foul" regardless of how the contact came about.
Sense.
And so we're back to "touching someone in the box is a foul" regardless of how the contact came about.
Fsakes - that is funny
The commentators are in stitches
"he's gone loco" "spectacular"
I think from that gif it's absolutely obvious that Young deliberately steps on the defender's foot, he's got no intention of going after the ball
The commentators are in stitches
"he's gone loco" "spectacular"
Yeah but over there they love that sort of thing. It's really only our arrogant xenophobic superiority complex that makes us dislike it. We should really just get with the times man. Or something.
He's been diving his whole career he's bound to get labelled sooner or later
IF he had touched his right foot how would he not have impeded him, if you're shifting your weight and turning how are you not going to be imbalanced from not being able to plant your foot properly?
It's dubious because Young goes in to make the defender do what he did, not because the contact is dubious. If that had been under different circumstances it's a blatant pen.
No one answered me last time but I swear Evans has conceded a similar penalty. It's stupid defending to leave your leg out when you can't get the ball.
There's a clip of it here that shows two different angles, one at the start and one towards the end.
http://watchhighlightsonline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/video-ashley-young-down-in-box-penalty.html
The disapointing fact about Young two debatable dives is that they take the gloss off two games we were expected to win and did. However all the talk is about United always getting soft penalties.
He's been labeled according to a couple of Villa fans I know. They warned me about this. He's been pretty awful throughout his career, apparently.
You think that contact was enough to impede his run and was enough to unbalance him? If yes, well I can't change your opinion, I'm not sure why people are even debating this but he yo each to his opinion.IF he had touched his right foot how would he not have impeded him, if you're shifting your weight and turning how are you not going to be imbalanced from not being able to plant your foot properly?
It's dubious because Young goes in to make the defender do what he did, not because the contact is dubious. If that had been under different circumstances it's a blatant pen.
No one answered me last time but I swear Evans has conceded a similar penalty. It's stupid defending to leave your leg out when you can't get the ball.
There's a clip of it here that shows two different angles, one at the start and one towards the end.
http://watchhighlightsonline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/video-ashley-young-down-in-box-penalty.html
I saw a great reader comment on one news story, saying that if he played for a smaller club like Newcastle or Aston Villa, he'd be getting crucified, but because it's United nobody says anything.
I don't know how some people manage to turn a computer on, they're that thick.
Correct. He's done it for England a few times too.
The AV player was on Young's left hand side and his foot touched Young's right foot (this video shows very clearly). How can you say the contact was not enough to impede his run??!! If it is Young's left foot that he touched, it would have become apparent Young can still retain his balance by using his right foot to stand.
Whether such imbalance is enough to let Young go down theatrically (like SAF observed) is another matter but the contact is good enough to justify a penalty for sure. Soft but you can argue against such decision. People should watch this video more carefully.
I know who Rooney and Aguero are, but who are R and P?
?
Anyway, this should be a poll.
It seems like the new thing to do to win a penalty is to extend your leg to make sure there is contact. Sometimes they are given and sometimes they are not. Where Ashley Young went wrong, and Sir Alex said the same thing, is the fact that he was overly theatrical in the way he went down. It went from a debatable penalty (The old "You've seen them given" argument) to he cheated, solely because of the way he went down.
Have you seen the contact? It wasn't like he stepped on young's foot or tripped him. There was hardly much contact to unbalance him. I've seen the video but I don't see the kind of contact which would be enough to unbalance him.
He was shifting his weight from his planted left to his right quickly, if you're impeded and can't plant your right foot properly then the momentum means your going to lose balance. Whether in this instance it was enough I'm not sure, he was always aiming to go down so it's hard to say.
I'm arguing with your point that you a touch wouldn't send you off balance which isn't true at all. He didn't need to go towards the defender like he did but I can't understand those saying you could recover from such a touch.
The angle I saw showed the defender standing on Young's foot.
Again saw the video you provided, look at the first replay which shows the touch clearly. Young had some of his boot on the defenders boot. Yes his momentum was in different direction to his movement but still he had most of his foot on the grass and little on top of the defenders boot probably, I don't think that would make me slip or impede my run and that shouldn't be a penalty.
http://watchhighlightsonline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/video-ashley-young-down-in-box-penalty.html
3oth to 37th second look closely.
Haha... You have to be blind to not see the contact, albeit very quick and sharp. Did you see the offender even bended his left knee to impede Young's movement?!!!! Watch again, in slow motion and in pause. End of discussion.
Very annoying. You can end the discussion for you part by just not posting. Anytime you like.
If you are annoyed you should go elsewhere... The discussion should be about whether the contact is enough to cause the fall, and not whether there was contact. Whether it is a penalty is a matter of opinion whereas the "contact" itself is a matter of fact. We all watch the same video and I see contact so as far as I am concerned the contact issue is not disputable.
So, if you are annoyed by this suggestion, you don't have to read my post. Thanks
I apologise. Is there any other part of the site moderation that doesn't meet your standards?
infract him, moses.The discussion is over, moses, ffs didn't you read his post?
Tell Dwayne, I'm outa here. I'm in way too deep.
What? It's really over? Noooooooooo!!!!
I blame Ashley Young for being too fast for opposition defenders.
Nothing in that video to change my view.. yes there was contact. Young stood on the defender's foot and then took off into the air.
Just a magic 24 hours or so. Thanks everybody.
Could come back to bite us on the arse. If its doing the rounds now that he's a diver then it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will get his next stonewaller turned down. Probably against City.
Depending on Nani's fitness and how well he does against Everton, Young might not play at City.
That just confirmed what I saw the first time TBH. The defender stood on Young's foot. In looked like that on a 70 inch HDTV at the weekend, and that is how Gary Neville broke it down on Sky with ultra slow motion.
Definitely a penalty and a spectacular fall to ground by Young.
Its shit video but if you freeze it here the defenders toe comes down on Young's foot and his leg is out impeding his path. That is pretty much the angle the ref had as well.
