Diop pulled his kicking leg. Nunez initially stretched his left leg to got to, and nicked the ball away. His momentum prevented him to direct himself and run into Diop. Nunez tried to fall on Diop kicking leg for sure, but not be able to. Nunez stretched out his trailing left leg to get that contact while going down. Nothing Diop could do in that situation. It's at best coming together after Diop withdrew his kick foot out of the way.Disagree. Nunez right foot avoids the outstretched leg of the defender from when he swang, which is why his left stretches back to counter balance. Difference of opinion I guess but seems to me if Nunez wanted to dive he just runs into the defenders leg which is swung right infront of him.
Nunez right leg swings out to avoid Diops (which was being withdrawn). Watch the last angle in the clip posted. The rest of the movement counter balances himHe literally wouldn't be able to because Diop withdraws his leg before Nunez gets there.
Nunez stretched his left leg first and nicked the ball. He didn't try to avoid nothing. The trajectory of his body is slightly to the right. So the right leg moment was to counter balance that left leg stretching movement that slightly nicked on the ball.Nunez right leg swings out to avoid Diops (which was being withdrawn). Watch the last angle in the clip posted. The rest of the movement counter balances him
Not that it applies in this situation. But it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that you can foul/impede an opponent without actually making contact.Begs the question, if contact is no longer needed for fouls, how far away can you be and still get the decision? A yard? 10 yards? If flinching because you’re expecting some contact that never arrives counts as a foul then why not?
That is nonsense. Not if a malicious tackle thrown and you avoid playing to evade that tackle.Not that it applies in this situation. But it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that you can foul/impede an opponent without actually making contact.
Nunez stretched his left leg first and nicked the ball. He didn't try to avoid nothing. The trajectory of his body is slightly to the right. So the right leg moment was to counter balance that left leg stretching movement that slightly nicked on the ball.
It’s a decision that wouldn’t bother me in the slightest pre-VAR. Looked nailed on in real time. So is one of those rare occasions when VAR could help justify all the shit we put up with since it’s been implemented. But oh no…
That is nonsense. Not if a malicious tackle thrown and you avoid playing to evade that tackle.
Agree to disagree here. I saw him make his lower body bigger stretching his left leg while landing his right on the ground.Yes I know he nicked the ball with his left, but Im talking about the movement after which quite obviously caused his left to stretch (since he was off balance) which again is perfectly normal.
What was your tagline prior to the current one?Disagree. Nunez right foot avoids the outstretched leg of the defender from when he swang, which is why his left stretches back to counter balance. Difference of opinion I guess but seems to me if Nunez wanted to dive he just runs into the defenders leg which is swung right infront of him.
“Whilst landing his right on the ground”. No shit his right has already moved and his body is already counter balancing.Agree to disagree here. I saw him make his lower body bigger stretching his left leg while landing his right on the ground.
Even when giving Nunez trailing left leg a benefit of doubt, Diop tried his best in that split second to withdrew his kicking leg. The rest is his natural body movement. So 2 natural body movement with intention to do their own thing: getting out of the way, and landing the running foots safely; it's just coming together.
BlankWhat was your tagline prior to the current one?
Asking for a fiend.
So if tackler miss the ball, diver can easily simulate and fall for a foul. That should not be how it works.Can’t have played much football. If you dive into a tackle and the attacker has to hurdle you to avoid contact and falls its a foul, you don’t need to make contact. That obvious because you have impeded the player illegally, its a bit like obstruction and its why the rules say there doesn’t have to be contact. Again this wasn’t the case in this situation though
Simulation and avoiding contact are quiteSo if tackler miss the ball, diver can easily simulate and fall for a foul. That should not be how it works.
Defenders need to be allow to attempt to tackle the ball. Adjust getting out of the way in situation where he miss the ball.
The problem with VAR is obvious. Its the fact they have the same clowns making the decisionsI like VAR, overall, despite its flaws. I think it's been great for offsides. They really can't seem to be consistent yet with what the threshold is for overruling what is/isn't a penalty though.
In this situation, there was not even tackle, or impede.Simulation and avoiding contact are quite
obviously not the same thing.
Simulation (there was never going to be any contact). I mean its quite simple really. Yes players need to be allowed to tackle, no they are not allowed to impede their opponents.
In this situation, there was not even tackle, or impede.
Not that it applies in this situation. But it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that you can foul/impede an opponent without actually making contact.
No. At this point you're only showing yourself moving the goal post around, where there is no impeding action.Note the very start of the post you quoted. At this point, you are just arguing with yourself
My intention on that particular post had nothing to do with Nunez and I even pointed that out. No matter how much you want to make shit upNo. At this point you're only showing yourself moving the goal post around, where there is no impeding action.
Your intention is explaining away Nunez's left trailing leg as natural, while accusing Diop as impeding. The rule was written vaguely and sloppily. The interpretation then ever inconsistently and changing.
For someone who played football that much, it's easy to distinguish an intent to impede vs coming together with the falling player simulating his trailing leg.
So You just brought up other stuff, and the the written rule, and your own playing experience, to distract from the debate sutation. Everyone know the written rule is flawed, the written rule has been ever revised. Interpretation is inconsistent. So moot point.My intention on that particular post had nothing to do with Nunez and I even pointed that out. No matter how much you want to make shit up
Considering also that there was actually contact in the Nunez case for feck sakes
Or I responded to a question the op asked which was a general question about contact and fouls…So You just brought up other stuff, and the the written rule, and your own playing experience, to distract from the debate sutation. Everyone know the written rule is flawed, the written rule has been ever revised. Interpretation is inconsistent. So moor point.
And your post didn't help. The rule doesn't distinguish come together situation with intentional impending.Or I responded to a question the op asked which was a general question about contact and fouls…
Like I said previously. Anyone who has played football knows you can foul/impede an opponent without making contact. You don’t need to read written rules to know it, you just need to have experienced it yourself or apply common senseAnd your post didn't help. The rule doesn't distinguish come together situation with intentional impending.
I pointed out the flaw in the written rule. Why saying I made thing up, where you brought up flawed text book situation that doesn't cover everything that can happen?
Which is a massive grey area, is it not?Not that it applies in this situation. But it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that you can foul/impede an opponent without actually making contact.
Which is a massive grey area, is it not?
That would fall under the banner of wreck-less or violent conduct though, making it a foul in and of itself. In this instance Diop simply missed the ball when trying to kick it, and proceeded to kick thin air instead.Not really no. However with the type of refs we have in the PL I see why you say that.
Example if I have to jump out of the way to avoid getting my leg broken then I have been impeded and its a foul even though I avoided the contact. Nothing grey about it a foul is impeding your opponent not contact, you can even get a touch on the ball and still impede and foul your opponent if the touch isn’t enough to disposes them and you bring them down.
It was an example. Surely you get the point that a player being forced to avoid contact is a foul. And why are you talking about Diop? i didn’t say this applied in the Diop caseThat would fall under the banner of wreck-less or violent conduct though, making it a foul in and of itself. In this instance Diop simply missed the ball when trying to kick it, and proceeded to kick thin air instead.
It is a massive grey area.Which is a massive grey area, is it not?
Not really, unless it’s for wreckless play. Otherwise it’s a genuine attempt to win or play the ball, and you’re supposed to take the contact in order to defend/contest the ball with the other person who wants the ball off you. If you do it successfully, you either keep possession or gain the foul.It was an example. Surely you get the point that a player being forced to avoid contact is a foul. And why are you talking about Diop? i didn’t say this applied in the Diop case
Not really, unless it’s for wreckless play. Otherwise it’s a genuine attempt to win or play the ball, and you’re supposed to take the contact in order to defend/contest the ball with the other person who wants the ball off you. If you do it successfully, you either keep possession or gain the foul.
What does one of these incidents look like without wreckless play? It probably looks a lot like the incident we saw with Diop tonight.
Hence the grey area I mentionedIf its significant enough its a foul.
Hence the grey area I mentioned
Yeah, and it’s the source of thousands of controversial decisions every week! But you can’t outlaw contact, it’s part of the game. You can however, very easily not award penalties to players who go over after minimal to no contact.Its not really a grey area, its quite obvious when it happens.
Similarly contact does not always equal a foul. The contact has to be significant enough to impede the player. Do you think thats also a grey area then?
