Smashley Young

Makki said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well the two situations aren't directly comparable though, for me. If you extend an arm, the only purpose it can serve, regardless of making an effort to retract it, is to stop the ball with your arm. From the very beginning, there is no intent to make a genuine, legal attempt to stop the ball. So it is punishable, and rightly so.

The way I saw it, for what it's worth, is that the defender moved his leg to stop the ball, but he was beaten for pace by Young, who kicked the ball away. The defender then, clearly, made an attempt to retract his leg, but couldn't avoid making contact with the attacker, due to Young, in my opinion, moving towards him and aiming to create contact that he was already anticipating. In that situation, the attacker has it in his mind, more than the defender, to create contact between the two. But that's just the way I saw it. I think he dived, I don't think he's a cheat and I have no issue with him.

I don't know if the third paragraph is aimed at me, but I'm not fervently defending him really.
Click to expand...

It wasn't, apologies if it seemed that way.
 
Easy V said:
Well the two situations aren't directly comparable though, for me. If you extend an arm, the only purpose it can serve, regardless of making an effort to retract it, is to stop the ball with you arm. From the very beginning, there is no intent to make a genuine, legal attempt to stop the ball. So it is punishable, and rightly so.

The way I saw it, for what it's worth, is that the defender moved his leg to stop the ball, but he was beaten for pace by Young, who kicked the ball away. The defender then, clearly, made an attempt to retract his leg, but couldn't avoid making contact with the attacker, due to Young, in my opinion, moving towards him and aiming to create contact that he was already anticipating. In that situation, the attacker has it in his mind, more than the defender, to create contact between the two. But that's just the way I saw it. I think he dived, I don't think he's a cheat and I have no issue with him.



It wasn't, apologies if it seemed that way.
Click to expand...
I agree that the handball comparison isn't perfect, but that's probably because my example was unrealistic. We see defenders sliding out to block shots and have their arms flailing over their heads, which makes it a handball for me, and that's because he's allowed his arms to get in a compromising position in the first place.

I think that if the defender's stuck his leg out he's already committed and is "in the wrong" so to speak if the attacker trips over that extended leg. The fact that he tries to retract it is a correction of the mistake but too little too late for me. If that were the case, defenders could just have a leg stuck out and then look like they're retracting it and trying to avoid contact as the attacker runs past. In any case, if a player's leg, body or whatever impedes the player so that he has to go out of his way to avoid contact, and loses his balance as an effect of it, it's a foul for me, even if he doesn't touch the player (see the "Can it be a foul without contact" thread).

But fair enough, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll give you the last words on the subject if you want to respond to this post.
 
Makki said:
I agree that the handball comparison isn't perfect, but that's probably because my example was unrealistic. We see defenders sliding out to block shots and have their arms flailing over their heads, which makes it a handball for me, and that's because he's allowed his arms to get in a compromising position in the first place.

I think that if the defender's stuck his leg out he's already committed and is "in the wrong" so to speak if the attacker trips over that extended leg. The fact that he tries to retract it is a correction of the mistake but too little too late for me. If that were the case, defenders could just have a leg stuck out and then look like they're retracting it and trying to avoid contact as the attacker runs past. In any case, if a player's leg, body or whatever impedes the player so that he has to go out of his way to avoid contact, and loses his balance as an effect of it, it's a foul for me, even if he doesn't touch the player (see the "Can it be a foul without contact" thread).

But fair enough, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll give you the last words on the subject if you want to respond to this post.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the thread regarding fouls without contact, but I probably share a similar opinion to your on that matter.

As for what you say about how defenders could try to con the referee, I guess it's just like any other instance, like players looking to con the referee with a dive, it comes down to the referee deciding how he views the genuine intent of the players involved. But there's a difference between sticking out a leg once the attacker has put the ball past you, in order to physically hinder his progress, and what I see as having happened in this instance, which is that the defender stuck out his leg to stop the ball that was moving towards him. Which is completely within the rules, and what was expected of him. It was only after Young beat him to the ball that he lost that option, at which point he attempted to retract his leg, to actually avoid colliding with the attacker. If he'd been standing infront of Young then he can make all the attempts he wants, he's still blatantly hindering his progress. In this and similar situations, that isn't the case. Which is why I think a penalty was harsh.
 
Easy V said:
I haven't read the thread regarding fouls without contact, but I probably share a similar opinion to your on that matter.

As for what you say about how defenders could try to con the referee, I guess it's just like any other instance, like players looking to con the referee with a dive, it comes down to the referee deciding how he views the genuine intent of the players involved. But there's a difference between sticking out a leg once the attacker has put the ball past you, in order to physically hinder his progress, and what I see as having happened in this instance, which is that the defender stuck out his leg to stop the ball that was moving towards him. Which is completely within the rules, and what was expected of him. It was only after Young beat him to the ball that he lost that option, at which point he attempted to retract his leg, to actually avoid colliding with the attacker. If he'd been standing infront of Young then he can make all the attempts he wants, he's still blatantly hindering his progress. In this and similar situations, that isn't the case. Which is why I think a penalty was harsh.
Click to expand...

It was harsh on the defender, but an impediment doesn't have to be intentional to be a foul. If that incident had happened anywhere else on the pitch i doubt anyone would have moaned about a free kick being given.
 
apotheosis said:
It was harsh on the defender, but an impediment doesn't have to be intentional to be a foul. If that incident had happened anywhere else on the pitch i doubt anyone would have moaned about a free kick being given.
Click to expand...

I suppose it comes down more to my view on this specific incident, where I do think Young was able to not only avoid contact, but his subsequent movement towards the defender, encouraged the contact that occured. The attacker shouldn't have to make an attempt to avoid contact, but if he has made an attempt to create it, that is where the blame lies with him. In that kind of situation, when the defender has attempted to move out of the way, I think it is harsh to award a penalty. On the other hand, if he makes a genuine attempt to get the ball, but instead puts his leg in the path of the player, clearly blocking the attacker's genuine attempt to pass him, then it is a penalty. Even if there is no contact.

But again, that puts us back on the topic of whether Young played a part in creating contact himself, which has been discussed to death, and I'm reluctant to get sucked into. I don't mind discussing fouls and dives in general though.
 
apotheosis said:
It was harsh on the defender, but an impediment doesn't have to be intentional to be a foul. If that incident had happened anywhere else on the pitch i doubt anyone would have moaned about a free kick being given.
Click to expand...

Maybe not but the thing that needs to be changed is that these cheap free kicks need to be stopped given at other places of the pitch, not that minimal contact should result in penalties.

Cheap free kicks all over the pitch that break up the flow of the game is one of my personal peeves, and I wish refs would have the balls to stop giving free kicks to defenders who act "experienced" and fall when hardly nudged at all. At least the penalty area is still a place on the pitch where some contact is allowed by most refs.
 
Easy V said:
I suppose it comes down more to my view on this specific incident, where I do think Young was able to not only avoid contact, but his subsequent movement towards the defender, encouraged the contact that occured. The attacker shouldn't have to make an attempt to avoid contact, but if he has made an attempt to create it, that is where the blame lies with him. In that kind of situation, when the defender has attempted to move out of the way, I think it is harsh to award a penalty. On the other hand, if he makes a genuine attempt to get the ball, but instead puts his leg in the path of the player, clearly blocking the attacker's genuine attempt to pass him, then it is a penalty. Even if there is no contact.

But again, that puts us back on the topic of whether Young played a part in creating contact himself, which has been discussed to death, and I'm reluctant to get sucked into. I don't mind discussing fouls and dives in general though.
Click to expand...

Tbh in terms of whether the pen should have been given all i would say is that given his angle, and the fact there was contact, i doubt whether Halsey had much choice. He had a great view, but for me even now after all the benefit of replays, etc it is still inconclusive. From some angles it looks like i first perceived it, that the defender's foot prevents Young from lifting his leading foot, from others it could easily be interpreted that Young puts his foot into the defenders.

more than likely the vast majority of refs, given Halsey's view of the incident, would have given a penalty. Most people on here suggesting it wasn't a pen, have probably reached that conclusion with the benefit of at least one replay. Not all before anyone jumps in, but most. From my first viewing it looked a clear pen, and although i believe Young did exaggerate the initial contact to ensure he got the decision he, and tbh most of us at the time, wanted.
 
Brosstan said:
Cheap free kicks all over the pitch that break up the flow of the game is one of my personal peeves, and I wish refs would have the balls to stop giving free kicks to defenders who act "experienced" and fall when hardly nudged at all.
Click to expand...
Plus they get the trainer on to make it a two-minute stoppage if it can be construed as an 'injury'.
 
Brosstan said:
Maybe not but the thing that needs to be changed is that these cheap free kicks need to be stopped given at other places of the pitch, not that minimal contact should result in penalties.

Cheap free kicks all over the pitch that break up the flow of the game is one of my personal peeves, and I wish refs would have the balls to stop giving free kicks to defenders who act "experienced" and fall when hardly nudged at all. At least the penalty area is still a place on the pitch where some contact is allowed by most refs.
Click to expand...

Ideally i would agree. but the fact remains that most of this uncertainty stems from Uefa's inability to prove the case against Eduardo. From that moment on, Uefa's stance as i understand it, is that it is impossible to determine how much contact is required, however minimal it may seem, to justify a player going down from one incident to the next.

Not what we like to hear in Britain, but that just about sums it up. Wenger predicted as much as soon as he heard Uefa would be charging Eduardo. He said it was impossible to prove and he was right. But that has opened the door, to any contact whatsoever being exaggerated to win a favourable decision for their team.

What puzzles me is why exaggeration is so frowned upon, when there is very little honesty in football generally. Everybody appeals for everything, even when they know the decision should go the other way. Yet when it comes to strikers in the penalty area, everyone expects some manner of honesty or morality rarely present anywhere else on the pitch. Bizarre logic imo, and probably why we don't get the honesty we seem to covet in this scenario. I don't believe footballers see themselves as cheats when they con the ref into giving them a decision they don't deserve, they just see it as trying it on in the hope of getting lucky.
 
peterstorey said:
Plus they get the trainer on to make it a two-minute stoppage if it can be construed as an 'injury'.
Click to expand...

The trainer coming on and the player having to leave the pitch, was an attempt to combat such behaviour. A good thought but it will never work, because again nobody can be properly punished for it, because no-one can prove they do not require treatment. Annoying, but what can be done really?
 
apotheosis said:
Ideally i would agree. but the fact remains that most of this uncertainty stems from Uefa's inability to prove the case against Eduardo. From that moment on, Uefa's stance as i understand it, is that it is impossible to determine how much contact is required, however minimal it may seem, to justify a player going down from one incident to the next.

Not what we like to hear in Britain, but that just about sums it up. Wenger predicted as much as soon as he heard Uefa would be charging Eduardo. He said it was impossible to prove and he was right. But that has opened the door, to any contact whatsoever being exaggerated to win a favourable decision for their team.

What puzzles me is why exaggeration is so frowned upon, when there is very little honesty in football generally. Everybody appeals for everything, even when they know the decision should go the other way. Yet when it comes to strikers in the penalty area, everyone expects some manner of honesty or morality rarely present anywhere else on the pitch. Bizarre logic imo, and probably why we don't get the honesty we seem to covet in this scenario. I don't believe footballers see themselves as cheats when they con the ref into giving them a decision they don't deserve, they just see it as trying it on in the hope of getting lucky.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Almost every time the ball goes out of play you see the player from either team putting their hands up and appealing for the decision. Also, if a player does go down under minimal contact, you always see the defender straight over there shouting at him to get up. Yet when they do foul the player, that same defender will always claim the player dived. Both actions are trying to con the referee.
 
finneh said:
It was never a penalty, imagine if something similar gets given against us at City...
Click to expand...

Totally agree, can't stand to see players ''going down so easily'' which I think means diving. :nono:

Sorry Ashley, cut it out. The only exception to this rule is if you get away with it against Shitty or the Dippers. ;)
 
ERICSAGOD said:
Totally agree, can't stand to see players ''going down so easily'' which I think means diving. :nono:

Sorry Ashley, cut it out. The only exception to this rule is if you get away with it against Shitty or the Dippers. ;)
Click to expand...

Think they are two separate things. Going down easily implies contact, diving implies that there was no contact - at least that's how I view it.

If a defender makes enough contact go disrupt the striker, then if they stay on their feet and try and continue, they are likely to have been disadvantaged because of the contact...but they will never get a freekick or penalty.

If they go down, even though they could have stayed on their feet, then they will almost certainly get a freekick, and often a penalty.

I agree that people who dive (go down when there has been no contact) should be retroactively punished. But if there is contact, I do not see how they can punish the individual after the fact.

The Young incident against QPR - the one thing almost everyone said was that there was "minimal contact", so in my mind he may have gone down easily, but it was not a dive.

The incident at the weekend is harder, because some people say there was contact by the defender, some say there was not or that it was instigated by Young. In such a case, I do not think the FA could punish a player.
 
Young is not a diver like Di Maria, however, Young goes into challenges looking for the foul. It's not illegal as written down by FIFA, however, I think it's cowardly and I think it hinders our attack. For ever penalty or foul you draw, you'll get the "wave play on" signal from the ref five times as much. If you're looking for the foul every time, you won't reach those 50/50s and you'll give up on the attack, expecting the foul. Rooney did this for awhile but thankfully has cut it out.

It's better to bulldoze your way through and more manly to just get up off the ground and continue attacking. Embellishing attacks like that are for women, Argentinians, and Barca players. Funnily enough though, I don't ever see diving in the women's game.
 
Yep, like he says it's because it's United, people love to hate us and push the myth that we get all the decisions.
 
Its over the top because we are Manchester United and as the flagship of the Premier League our players are expected to act honorably and not resort to pathetic gamesmanship.

No one cares what plastic clubs like Chelsea are up to, and Ribery plays in Germany so obviously his diving doesnt have as much media appeal as Young's

Nice to hear that Frogi has had a word with him about it anyways.
 
Devil may care said:
Fergie makes a good point about how it's become a bit over the top regarding Young when you compare it to the antics of Ribery and Drogba this week alone.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I genuinely can't believe we're still talking about Young going down softly a week later...When it's United it's always a story.
 
I dont understand why he is singled out so much.Its not as if he is the only person who has dived.

Its ridiculous.

Also ridiculous how every neutral is making up stories about how we get all the decisions and how we dive and cheat our way to success.

Can't blame them, probably don't have any sensible accusation against us.

Anyone else see the similarity between Barca and Us? Both are hated and accused of unfair things by neutral and both clubs have been so successful recently?
 
"Ashley I think you went down easily."

"Perhaps. I just felt the contact which disrupted my stride, and I went down."

"Fair enough."
 
This is ridiculous.. Drogba is being hailed as player of the game a couple of days ago, after spending 88 minutes rolling on the floor, and Ashley Young is scrutinized for two questionable incidents in two games..

Leave the man alone, losers! You just can't take it that we're close to winning #20 (hopefully)..
 
Danny1982 said:
This is ridiculous.. Drogba is being hailed as player of the game a couple of days ago, after spending 88 minutes rolling on the floor, and Ashley Young is scrutinized for two questionable incidents in two games..

Leave the man alone, losers! You just can't take it that we're close to winning #20 (hopefully)..
Click to expand...

Yup, all the pundits are laughing off Drogba's showpiece yet making Young public enemy number one.

Probably because Drogba's was against Jonny foreigner.
 
Phil said:
Yup, all the pundits are laughing off Drogba's showpiece yet making Young public enemy number one.

Probably because Drogba's was against Jonny foreigner.
Click to expand...

Its much simpler than that. If Drogba played for United they'd be all over it and yet if Young dives in the Euros and gets a peno that allows England to go through to the next round they'll say nothing about it. :rolleyes:
 
peterstorey said:
Exactly, he's a notorious diver who cheated in the first minutes of two important games.
Click to expand...
All games are important, but he did it in two easy games that we would have won anyways. Not sure if that makes it worse or better though...

And RVP dived today. Ban him?
 
#07 said:
Its much simpler than that. If Drogba played for United they'd be all over it and yet if Young dives in the Euros and gets a peno that allows England to go through to the next round they'll say nothing about it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

oh stop it - take the red tinted specs off. the media tore Drogba apart for his antics mid-week.
 
Randall Flagg said:
Indeed, classic case of selective hearing
Click to expand...

You clearly missed people like Henry Winter lionising Drogba then? Can't recall Ashley Young being cut quite so much slack. Nothing to do with selectivity. Even today on Sky's Soccer Saturday panel they completely glossed over the midweek antics and focused entirely on Ashley Young. If you wear the red shirt they come at you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.