Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
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.
Exactly as I called it at the time
Lets all get the stills and the videos from different unseen angles, jeez some of you lot sound like Liverpool fans trying to defend the Suarez non handshake. It was a dive, he dived, he looked for contact then threw himself in the air. How could that possibly have been a natural way to fall over? Should have been booked.
End of.
Like Gary Nev said: "Was it a penalty? Yes. Was it a dive? Yes.".
This still going on then?
The above is obviously true, as most sane people have said all along.
There seems to be a lunatic fringe on either side that think the answer to oen of those questions is "no" though.
Besides all that, he's fitting into the team well isnt he? Useful player to have around the place.
Wow a post about Young as a footballer aint seen that in this thread for awhile...
For what its worth I agree. He's really picked up his form recently. Not as devastating as Valencia but especially in the first half at the weekend he was ghosting through on that left flank.
Defensively specially is where he's impressed.He's not shy to make an effort and with Evra in such a terrible form, it's a good thing to have
Very much so, Nani is obviously the better player but it means the left wing isn't as defensively solid so it's a bit of a trade off. He's a massive improvement on Park who was used for the same purpose for a long time.
It's just a shame we bought the first ever player to overexaggerate a challenge
Very much so, Nani is obviously the better player but it means the left wing isn't as defensively solid so it's a bit of a trade off. He's a massive improvement on Park who was used for the same purpose for a long time.
It's just a shame we bought the first ever player to overexaggerate a challenge
What makes him the first? Im fairly sure over exaggeration is not only a fairly common practice, but that it is widely accepted pretty much everywhere barring Britain.
Young is no angel when it comes to excessive reaction, but let's not pretend he is breaking new ground here. There have been hundred's of players in the PL who choose to over elaborate when they are challenged. Young is far from the first, and i doubt very much whether he will be the last either.
Whoosh
He needs to work more on taking his man on and driving to the byline and then cutting the ball back with his left. Right now he always stops, and brings it onto his right foot and that makes him predictable.
There was more of a foul on Young than when Charlie Adam went down. Still, Young is too theatric.
Is that a typo?
It all stems from the definition of dive. Diving is feigning contact, so going over when there is no contact whatsoever. When there is noticable contact it can only be seen as exaggeration. But many on here seem to have been debating whether the contact was sufficient to go down, which is purely subjective and cannot be proved one way or the other, as Uefa found out to their embarrassment.
I have maintained all along, there was contact and he left his trailing leg in to exaggerate the fall, and ensure Halsey made the correct decision. Which imo he did.
If people want more honesty from strikers, then they should expect no less from defenders who foul players and then imply they dived to prevent a penalty. Still cheating the ref, but no-one seems as bothered by the defensive equivalent compared to the attacking version.
Furthermore REfs should start to reward players who stay on their feet more. There is currently very little to gain by staying on their feet, compared to the implications of going down, ie penalty and card of whatever colour for the offender. Until it becomes advantageous to stay on their feet, the vast majority will look to take the most beneficial route for their team.
If the ref saw contact the dive is irrelevant. He can't give the freekick/penalty and book the attacker apparently.
What I worry about is how much we attack down the right when he is in the team. He tends to drift inside a lot, which results in the ball being always given out wide to Valencia, which makes us somewhat predictable. I'm hoping the return of Nani will bring balance back to the team.
This has been our pattern regardless of who is out there - Park, Nani, Young, Welbeck and even Giggs.
I do agree with you in that it would be nice if we can use the full width on both sides rather than sticking to mostly trying to get the ball out to the right. A few times recently I've seen a player centrally get the ball and they don't look to the left side when we have a player that is quite open. While we do change it up, it does seem quite predictable in that our goal is to get the ball out wide to Valencia.
Re Penalty and Dive
The best people on here should do is to watch this:
and to read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-dive-laugh--zero-tolerance-wont-ground.html
And then decide on whether Young's penalty given was justified. The debate can go on and on when it comes to dive but it is a matter of degree isn't it? It is not an easy task for referees mind as I am sure within their referees meetings, they have gone over and over such issues many times.
Afterall, everyone is biased when it comes to supporting their team. But once you state your position as an objective observer, there is no need to go on and on and on finding faults. Football is a game full of controversy anyway. The beauty is we can all mock the opposition and condemn our own without fear, but surely do not go overboard because when it comes to United, we know very well we have our house keeping alright at the end of the day. Nani is a good example.
The best people on here should do is to watch this:
and to read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-dive-laugh--zero-tolerance-wont-ground.html
And then decide on whether Young's penalty given was justified. The debate can go on and on when it comes to dive but it is a matter of degree isn't it? It is not an easy task for referees mind as I am sure within their referees meetings, they have gone over and over such issues many times.
Afterall, everyone is biased when it comes to supporting their team. But once you state your position as an objective observer, there is no need to go on and on and on finding faults. Football is a game full of controversy anyway. The beauty is we can all mock the opposition and condemn our own without fear, but surely do not go overboard because when it comes to United, we know very well we have our house keeping alright at the end of the day. Nani is a good example.
What's funny about that?
Contact in box =/= penalty. Yes there was contact, but it was not enough to bring Young down. Hence it should have never been a penalty. But we're not going to see eye to eye on this.
In essence this has actually been the case since we had Beckham. We've been attacking down the right for over a decade. The only time that changed was when Ronaldo decided to switch to the left as when Ronaldo was in the team we'd give it to him. Its not a case of always going Valencia because of Young its a case that the team opts to go down the route they feel is shortest to goal. Valencia gets balls into the box more consistently than anyone else and so he tends to get fed more than anyone else. Not Young's fault really Valencia is arguably the more reliable right sided midfielder in the league. Nani is the better player but I think Young's done himself a lot of justice on the left flank barring his mid season dip. We'd have been a lot worse off without him during Nani's recent injury that's for sure.
In your opinion, and I still don't see the source of your amusement. Mark Halsey saw contact and gave the penalty, based on what he saw and what i saw on the initial viewing i think he was correct to give a penalty. How many ref's would not have given that considering the view he had?
Did you have the view you obviously have now on your initial viewing of the incident, or has hindsight and numerous slowmo's from a variety of angles given you a different perspective?
We don't have to see eye to eye, but just because you have a different view, doesn't mean mine warrants mockery. What makes your interpretation so superior or definitive, that anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves derision?
Everyone should watch that !
It's a matter of opinion isn't it? Read post 2862 and watch Gary's analysis and read his article. Why are you so obsessed with this topic. Enough have been said already.
imo - Young runs into the defenders leg whose only action is to lift his foot and put it down again, he never moves it to any side.
Not penalty....but very smart by Young. Reminds me a bit of a penalty someone got against us a few seasons back...I think it was Zhirkov who ran into Smallings leg
Not penalty....but very smart by Young. Reminds me a bit of a penalty someone got against us a few seasons back...I think it was Zhirkov who ran into Smallings leg
No one but the blinkered Man Utd fan thinks it's anything other than a dive.
Why do you know everybody Pete, and been busy asking them for their opinions? Having gathered all this data, is that the general concensus?
The defender clearly retracts his leg and tries to plant his foot on the floor. Young clearly moves his left leg towards the defender to make sure of contact. Even if you can't agree on that, there's no way the leap into the air was caused by any contact, it was unnatural and ridiculous: A dive.
If this exact incident had occured involving Suarez, Gerrard, Torres or Tevez, would people be taking stills and analysing at detail, the moment of collision, the movement of limbs etc. Or would these same people simply say "cheating cnut"?
He dived. Just like there is at least one dive in almost every game of football I have ever watched; some of which result in nothing, some in a freekick, a penalty or red cards. The reason this discussion has dragged on so much, and become viewed as an actual issue, is solely due to people for some strange reason, feeling the need to blindly defend it to the hilt as though they're defending him against accusations of mass genocide. It was a dive, let's get over it and move on.
If this exact incident had occured involving Suarez, Gerrard, Torres or Tevez, would people be taking stills and analysing at detail, the moment of collision, the movement of limbs etc. Or would these same people simply say "cheating cnut"?
He dived. Just like there is at least one dive in almost every game of football I have ever watched; some of which result in nothing, some in a freekick, a penalty or red cards. The reason this discussion has dragged on so much, and become viewed as an actual issue, is solely due to people for some strange reason, feeling the need to blindly defend it to the hilt as though they're defending him against accusations of mass genocide. It was a dive, let's get over it and move on.
Well, it's also a penalty, like Neville said. Get over it and move on!
I didn't say it wasn't a penalty. I don't personally think it was, but nevertheless, I'm not getting into that pointless debate with you. I'll move on now though, cheers.
That could be said to more than him in fairness.
My apologies, that post just tickled me. I didn't mean to laugh
No the reason it has dragged on is nobody can prove one way or the other whether the contact was enough for Young to go down or not. Uefa tried to tackle this with the Eduardo incident, which was such a laughably blatant dive, Uefa felt they had to act, and they still couldn't prove how much contact justified going down.
All you saying definitively that he undeniably dived as though it is an absolute truth, should remember it is only your opinion. There is only one man who knows whether that initial contact forced him down or whether he went down of his own accord, and he won't be telling.
Couldn't a penalty be awarded for the trip on Young's right leg (which IMO was a foul) and then a yellow be brandished to Young for the kicking motion with his left leg, which was clearly an attempt at further deceiving the ref?
Is that in the rules, or where have you read that? Surely he could do that if he feels that there are two separate incidents there, ie one incident where the defender trips up his right foot and one where Young throws his left leg out.
For example, imagine that a player pulls me back, and the ref shows advantage, then when I break free from the player holding me back I fold up like a sack of shit, the ref could then give a foul for the initial foul that he waved play on and gave advantage for, but book me for the subsequent dive.
In my opinion, if the attacker makes any effort to create contact, especially when the defender is making an equal effort to avoid contact, then it is the attacker who has hindered his own progress. In such a case, I think it's ridiculously harsh to award a penalty, but I guess it's all down to interpretation of the rules and how strict you choose to be. I don't really have much of an issue with people saying it was a penalty, even if I do disagree, and I was certainly happy to see us score.
I remember an incident earlier in the season, against Chelsea, where Welbeck won us a penalty, after the defender tried to pull his leg back and plant his foot, but Welbeck moved his leg to create contact. Most people here accepted that it was a dive, and most likely not a deserved penalty.
I just don't understand the fervent defending of Young in this incident. It's not like anybody is looking to vilify him, or like he's being slaughtered by every media outlet in the country. People are just saying he dived. Then others are returning with videos they have carefully inspected, and freeze frames of exact moments, to fight off such accusations. Is it really necessary to go to such lengths? Does that not make it appear more of an important issue than even his critics were suggesting?
Anyway, apologies if I've contributed to reviving the discussion, and I'll make my way out now.
Like Neville said, if a defender leaves his leg out there then it's an invitation for the defender to run onto it. He left a leg out quite a bit from his body and I don't agree with the notion that he made an effort to avoid contact (before he realised that he'd put his leg out there and then tried to correct his mistake, at which point it was too late). It's like handballs, if you have your arms spread out in a star jump fashion you can't say that the ball struck you and you had no time to react, therefore making it unintentional and not a foul. That's maybe what it says in the rules, but it's not how it is (and should be) interpreted these days.
So in that sense, if you spread your arms out and the arm is struck by the ball, then you're at fault for having your arm there in the same way that the Villa defender gave Young an opportunity to trip over his foot.
I don't know if the third paragraph is aimed at me, but I'm not fervently defending him really. I think he knew what he was doing and he could've probably avoided contact if he had really wanted. I don't think that it's a case of "attempting to make contact", but a player shouldn't have to go out of his way to avoid contact and put himself in a worse position if a player puts his body across your path so that he could foul you if you're taking the shortest route to the goal. I've also been saying that he should've got a yellow card for the kicking motion he does with his left leg which is as blatant as they come.
Compare this to the Ronaldo yellow against Fulham where Niemi slides along the ground, misses the ball, Ronaldo jumps over him to avoid the tackle and loses his balance and falls over. Had he kicked Niemi he would've got a penalty, but he went out of his way to avoid the contact, lost his footing in the process and was punished for it with a booking instead of getting a penalty.