if almunia doesn't dive out like a numpty, rooney has more time on the ball and doesn't need to rush his first touch.
Well, the penalty...?
- Thread starter kanchelskis14
- Start date
if almunia doesn't dive out like a numpty, rooney has more time on the ball and doesn't need to rush his first touch.
Question: When is a penalty never a penalty?
Answer: When it's awarded to United. I seriously cannot remember a penalty being awarded to us which hasn't been debated as to its validity. Yes, we've had some we shouldn't have and some that were debatable (just like every other team) but when I saw this one I thought "At last, no-one can argue about this one as it's so clear cut." But here we are 10 pages in, even though renowned ABUs like Alan Green and Andy Gray think it's stonewall, even though Lee Dixon and Mark Lawrenson have no problem with it - we are still told by a few that it is no penalty.
Rooney might have been off-balance slightly from the stetch, but his body was still upright although his legs were fore and aft of his body at the time he was clattered. There's absolutely no hint of a dive so this argument bewilders me. It was a penalty, and there would have been far less argument if it had been awarded against us in the same situation.
Answer: When it's awarded to United. I seriously cannot remember a penalty being awarded to us which hasn't been debated as to its validity. Yes, we've had some we shouldn't have and some that were debatable (just like every other team) but when I saw this one I thought "At last, no-one can argue about this one as it's so clear cut." But here we are 10 pages in, even though renowned ABUs like Alan Green and Andy Gray think it's stonewall, even though Lee Dixon and Mark Lawrenson have no problem with it - we are still told by a few that it is no penalty.
Rooney might have been off-balance slightly from the stetch, but his body was still upright although his legs were fore and aft of his body at the time he was clattered. There's absolutely no hint of a dive so this argument bewilders me. It was a penalty, and there would have been far less argument if it had been awarded against us in the same situation.
Totally agree, and this is a much more interesting issue (to me at any rate) than Rooney's penalty. it's interesting because it's quite apparent from these discussions and the ones the pundits have on telly and radio that no-one really knows what a foul is.
Listen to the stuff they come out with whenever there's a contentious incident, it's like they're randomly generating phrases that have something to do with fouls, but with no sense of any coherent concept of what one is. So one will say, "simple - there's clear contact there," even though you can have contact without it being a foul, and a foul without there being contact. Or they'll say, "harsh from the ref - no real intent there," even though a trip is still a trip if it's made in good faith. Or they'll invoke some vague idea of justice - "that was a dive but he's been brought down three times before that so the ref's right to give it"... or as you say, a foul will take place when the ball's clearly going out, and we all instinctively feel something's wrong there even though it's not in the rules (in fact, the co-commentator on the Rooney incident said something similar about how he was never going to get to the ball).
I tried to address this issue, including why it 'seems weird' here, and it's even more to the point now because there's no FA Law 12 specifying 'contact' as the issue, there's just the FIFA Laws which don't. I might turn it into a blog to try and foment some discussion.
A lot of people seem to think he dived - even a lot of Man Utd fans
Yes he did
Yep .......and I wonder why that would be
Ten pages ? probably 5 of which are taking up by you chundering on about his foot being 'stuck in the fkin mud' and 'he fell'
Yep........... finally
What a fking bell-end
Yep Plech
Fking amazing that the connection between the two is causing such a proliferation of utter mongness
Jopub you are a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime, and a complete wanker
Just cause your team is full of cheats. Never had an honest player pull on the colours have you.
Just cause your team is full of cheats. Never had an honest player pull on the colours have you.
Nah he knows Plech, that's why he's trying to stretch to get just anything on the ball and doesn't care where it's going. Almunia commits himself, unless he's planning on breaking the laws of physics, Rooney knows what's coming
You can't compare it to Owen. When Owen does that, his whole body goes down, and he does cheat, I think that's fair assessment. Rooneys still going for the ball and getting it, with his front leg taking his weight, after he's lost balance on his back leg. I think there's little doubt he'd go down there, but I think there's enough evidence to show he went down as a result of stretching for the ball at pace, rather than trying to con the ref into giving him a penalty
As I said, can't have it both ways. He's either been clever and got in there too quickly for Almunia to win the penalty, or he's cheating because he doesn't think he's gunna get the ball and get clattered. And for me it's blatantly the former. I think you're just assuming too much when claiming he's dived
It's funny this incident. The indignation from Arsenal is making me laugh, given that Eduardo and Eboue have committed diabolical dives within a few days of one another.
Wayne may have played for the contact and may have been going down before the contact, but the point is that Almunia rushed out, was not in control and made contact with Wayne Rooney without touching the ball. Had Rooney not already been going down then Almunia would have bought him down anyway - so what's the problem?
Also - on the Fletcher incident, the Gooners scored straight away anyway. And as he said, he is due some luck with pennos against Arsenal.
Wayne may have played for the contact and may have been going down before the contact, but the point is that Almunia rushed out, was not in control and made contact with Wayne Rooney without touching the ball. Had Rooney not already been going down then Almunia would have bought him down anyway - so what's the problem?
Also - on the Fletcher incident, the Gooners scored straight away anyway. And as he said, he is due some luck with pennos against Arsenal.
A lot of people seem to think he dived - even a lot of Man Utd fans
Yes he did
Yep .......and I wonder why that would be
Ten pages ? probably 5 of which are taking up by you chundering on about his foot being 'stuck in the fkin mud' and 'he fell'
Yep........... finally
What a fking bell-end
'Man Utd' fans eh? fecking cretin
The rest of his body didn't drop, he's still putting weight on his front foot and winning the ball. You're simply wrong
He'd have gone to ground because he's losing his balance
The pictures show he did get his foot caught in the ground, you look like a retard denying what everyone can see on the footage
And no one ever denied he was falling first. Just like no one ever denies you're a complete fecking tool. The only 'utter mongness' being displayed here is by you and your bitter Arsenal supporters who can't accept they conceeded a stone wall penalty to tie the game, and then gifted us the winner. And all this after the Eduardo incident in Europe, and the clear and blatant dive by Eboue. Oh so typically Arsenal
And for all the cry baby Arsenal fans, tough luck.
What a brilliant end to the game yesterday - couldn't have scripted it better. Was in a pub half and half with cockneys and mancs. Some fat cnut turned round when RVP scored at the end giving it large and didn't click on for ages that everyone was laughing at him as the flag had gone up. Silly silly cockney idiot.
It is always everyones fault but Arsenal's! Solskjaer dived into the elbow in his face, van Nistelrooy dived for his penalty that hit the bar, the challenges were too rough, Keane made Viera cry etc etc
What a brilliant end to the game yesterday - couldn't have scripted it better. Was in a pub half and half with cockneys and mancs. Some fat cnut turned round when RVP scored at the end giving it large and didn't click on for ages that everyone was laughing at him as the flag had gone up. Silly silly cockney idiot.
It is always everyones fault but Arsenal's! Solskjaer dived into the elbow in his face, van Nistelrooy dived for his penalty that hit the bar, the challenges were too rough, Keane made Viera cry etc etc
Rooney having to go down by having to rush to beat the keeper (Kevrockcity), or him getting his foot stuck in the turf (Brad) really are possible and represent clean play, but to my viewing, it didn't look like it (totally subjective of course). I'm reluctantly in the "he went down to draw a penalty" crew.
Anyway, that's not what I really take issue with. It's more that the tone of some of the opinions seem to show how (understandably) cynical things have gotten. That notion that he did well to earn a penalty is a bit sad. Hearning that strikers are trained to trail their leg in the box, etc. What happened yesterday on that occasion can in no way be equated with the talent and effort required in scoring from open play. He worked very hard (as always) to outsprint a keeper that made a poor decision. That's it. In the end, it had nothing to do with scoring a goal.
Honestly, Rooney's my favorite player in the world (though Fletch is catching up fast) for his laudable traits of determination, creativity, passion, and selflessness, and Arsenal are easily my least favorite team, but none of that makes what he did yesterday right. I didn't like it when he fell over Campbell a few years back, and I didn't like it yesterday.
I reckon it all comes down to what is essentially a bad, though perhaps necessarily simple enforceable rule. It's a shame though as it was likely implemented to make the game less cynical re. just hacking down a player that gotten into a threatening position. Rather like watching the Brazilian league where attackers routinely run by defenders only to be "professionaly" taken out. If anything though the rule has just delineated a boundary outside of which a defender can afford to be cynical, and within which an attacker seemingly can't afford not to.
Bit of a ramble there, sorry. Yes that might be the way the game is played, but it doesn't mean you have to like it or excuse it.
Anyway, that's not what I really take issue with. It's more that the tone of some of the opinions seem to show how (understandably) cynical things have gotten. That notion that he did well to earn a penalty is a bit sad. Hearning that strikers are trained to trail their leg in the box, etc. What happened yesterday on that occasion can in no way be equated with the talent and effort required in scoring from open play. He worked very hard (as always) to outsprint a keeper that made a poor decision. That's it. In the end, it had nothing to do with scoring a goal.
Honestly, Rooney's my favorite player in the world (though Fletch is catching up fast) for his laudable traits of determination, creativity, passion, and selflessness, and Arsenal are easily my least favorite team, but none of that makes what he did yesterday right. I didn't like it when he fell over Campbell a few years back, and I didn't like it yesterday.
I reckon it all comes down to what is essentially a bad, though perhaps necessarily simple enforceable rule. It's a shame though as it was likely implemented to make the game less cynical re. just hacking down a player that gotten into a threatening position. Rather like watching the Brazilian league where attackers routinely run by defenders only to be "professionaly" taken out. If anything though the rule has just delineated a boundary outside of which a defender can afford to be cynical, and within which an attacker seemingly can't afford not to.
Bit of a ramble there, sorry. Yes that might be the way the game is played, but it doesn't mean you have to like it or excuse it.
Against Campbell it was a blatant dive and it was wrong of him. Yesterday though it was a stone wall penalty with clear contact which was missing in 2004 so I don't really see the problem and the situations can not be contrasted.
Very good post, Brad-Dyrak, I agree entirely. This trend of excusing, and even praising, cynical play is a really sad development. It can never be excised from the game but it should be deprecated, not encouraged, players and clubs should be ashamed of executing it, not proud.
There was contact in 2004 (it was still a dive), and anyway contact is neither necessary nor sufficient for a foul to be given.
There was contact in 2004 (it was still a dive), and anyway contact is neither necessary nor sufficient for a foul to be given.
And you know you're in ropey punditry territory anyway when blathering on about 'contact'
The Campbell example is fine, because that was a dive by Rooney, which won a penalty. It shows, albeit he does it rarely, the player is capable of it. Which I hate, I hate diving. And so I'd be the first to come down on him if I thought he had. But I think what t'other Brad and Plech are bemoaning in this instance, is something I think is entirely fair. Almunia is to blame, he went in rashly. It's not a crime for Rooney to see this developing and nick the ball away from him. Nothing has been invented here, no 'conning' has gone on, the onus is on Almunia to make sure, if he's coming out like that, he damn well gets something on the ball
If folk want to be critical of Rooney being cynical in that fashion, fair enough, their prerogative. But you can't confuse the two issues in the one instance. He's either dived to win a penalty, or he's been 'clever' and got in quick enough to get the ball and cleaned out by Almunia. Some of you are trying to have it both ways, just doesn't work
The Campbell example is fine, because that was a dive by Rooney, which won a penalty. It shows, albeit he does it rarely, the player is capable of it. Which I hate, I hate diving. And so I'd be the first to come down on him if I thought he had. But I think what t'other Brad and Plech are bemoaning in this instance, is something I think is entirely fair. Almunia is to blame, he went in rashly. It's not a crime for Rooney to see this developing and nick the ball away from him. Nothing has been invented here, no 'conning' has gone on, the onus is on Almunia to make sure, if he's coming out like that, he damn well gets something on the ball
If folk want to be critical of Rooney being cynical in that fashion, fair enough, their prerogative. But you can't confuse the two issues in the one instance. He's either dived to win a penalty, or he's been 'clever' and got in quick enough to get the ball and cleaned out by Almunia. Some of you are trying to have it both ways, just doesn't work
I'm holding out hope for more cards being shown (a necessary evil) this year for it. Maybe it will clean things up a bit.
Oh, and fair play to Dean for giving Eboue the yellow. Well done.
Good post. I don't know which it was, a dive or 'playing for the penalty'. I don't really agree that it's some binary thing, I think there are shades in between, as in the incident that happened to me in 5-a-side that I described above.
Football's a beautifully simple game, and I don't really like much in it that's not an honest attempt to get the ball in the net or stop the other team doing so. That includes playing for a foul. You can invite a challenge of course, but it's incumbent on you to try to get past it, because your aim should be continuing the move and scoring, not winning set-pieces. An example is what Ronaldo used to do sometimes - show the ball, move it and take the foul. He was good enough to move it and avoid the foul, but he wanted a free-kick. Not right - play as well as you can.
I also don't like goals like the one Henry scored a few years ago, where he checked with the ref and then bent a free-kick in before the opposition was ready. That's not football. In football, you try to get it past their defence, who try to stop you, it's a test of skill, athleticism etc. That goal was nothing of the sort, it's just gaming the conventions of football to squeeze an advantage out.
To be honest, I don't even like the offside trap. The offside rule was brought in to stop goal-hanging. No-one anticipated that a few years on entire defences would stand in a line, then at a synchronised moment all run forward a yard with their arms in the air, pointing out that the attacker was therefore technically a few inches in front of them when the ball was played. It takes a certain amount of skill and organisation to do it, but it's fundamentally nothing to do with football. It's just taking advantage of a sort of loophole in a rule intended for something else entirely.
There's a place for guile and even deceit in football but it's the territory of the reverse pass, the body-swerve, giving it the old eyebrows - not gaming the rules.
Agree that contact alone can't be used to determine whether a foul is a foul. I guess it's whether or not player A impeded player B without winning the ball.
The other interesting one is handballs, especially in the area. You'll hear people say that it was accidental, or that it was 'ball it hand', or that it was a handball but didn't prevent a goalscoring chance etc.. So what if the striker belts it at the defender's arm on the goal line from point blank range?
Yeah, that's spot on for me. Good post as well Brad.
Pretty simply, it's probably not a penalty
I think the problem is defenders deliberately put there arms up to block the ball now. And obviously when the ball then hits their hands in that instance, it's deliberate, even if it may be struck from close range. If the players arms aren't by his side, or in a natural position, there's a question to be asked
As ever, it's down to interpretation
It's funny how something that is nothing to do with football has become the basis for the whole game. Everything is built around the offside trap - formations, defenders holding a line, strikers timing runs, midfielders threading passes, defences charging forward on set pieces.You see, I think it should be a penalty. Surely if the defender's arm has stopped the ball from going in the goal, then it's irrelevant whether or not he meant it.
If the player didn't intend to use his arm, and it's been smashed at him at point blank range, he hasn't committed any offence against the rules of the game though. So why should they be penalised?
I see what you're saying, but I don't like the idea of it being a free kick or penalty for any occasion the ball hits a hand. Then you'd get a whole new game of players deliberately looking to win a handball decision
Great post
have United ever had a penalty that wasn't "controversial".
ffs, Ronaldo would regularly get cut in half and still we never got pens. I'll take whatever we get cos we sure get a lot of nailed on pens turned down and probably get around 5 per year which is similar to l'arse or Chav$ and them feckers down the road get 14 in one season, a third of their games against 10 men and they still complain. Still, it doesn't stop pricks like Wenger and the media implying we get easy pens at OT
Manyoo get far too many pens
I think we should analyse this cos I'm not sure that was a pen
Arsenal deserved a penalty for Fletcher's tackle - it looked clumsy in real time, and the replay shows it was a clear handball.
As for our penalty, we were lucky, but it was still a penalty. It was poor judgement from Almunia. People seem to assume that a foul is only a foul if a player is in a position to retain possession - which clearly isn't the case with most awarded fouls. For instance, if a player makes a clearance into the stands just milliseconds before being taken down by a late challenge, it will be a foul, not a throw-in. I remember an instance in the first half where Clichy cleared the ball over his own touchline, but a free-kick to Arsenal ws awarded because of a late challenge by Valencia. As for claims that Rooney was diving...I think it's pretty ridiculous. Whether or not he was already going down in the milliseconds before Almunia made contact is irrelevant, because Almunia was always going to be taking him down with his mistimed attempt for the ball.
As for our penalty, we were lucky, but it was still a penalty. It was poor judgement from Almunia. People seem to assume that a foul is only a foul if a player is in a position to retain possession - which clearly isn't the case with most awarded fouls. For instance, if a player makes a clearance into the stands just milliseconds before being taken down by a late challenge, it will be a foul, not a throw-in. I remember an instance in the first half where Clichy cleared the ball over his own touchline, but a free-kick to Arsenal ws awarded because of a late challenge by Valencia. As for claims that Rooney was diving...I think it's pretty ridiculous. Whether or not he was already going down in the milliseconds before Almunia made contact is irrelevant, because Almunia was always going to be taking him down with his mistimed attempt for the ball.
This clip conveniently starts after the ball possibly hits the keepers hands and bounces away?
This clip I mean
Its pretty clear that almunia doesnt get the ball. Rooney 'selling' the penalty is the issue.
Im almost over it.
Strikers are taught to get the ball and drag their legs to make sure there is contact. Its been that way for decades. Perfect execution from Rooney, sucks to be a Gooner.
The fact that Rooney may already be going over doesn't stop it being a foul, just makes it less likely the ref will give it. I think most referees still would. Arse fans should blame Almunia for poor judgement.
Eboue's dive was far worse than what Rooney did.
Fletcher's tackle on Arshavin may have been a pen but Arsenal scored from the attack anyway so it made no difference.
It's good to see that Rooney has the bottle and composure to be our penalty taker.
I still think SAF missed a trick in not signing Arshavin.
Eboue's dive was far worse than what Rooney did.
Fletcher's tackle on Arshavin may have been a pen but Arsenal scored from the attack anyway so it made no difference.
It's good to see that Rooney has the bottle and composure to be our penalty taker.
I still think SAF missed a trick in not signing Arshavin.
Interesting to get a 'neutral' take on it from the Guardian.
Written by Barney Ronay, a self-confessed 'neutral' - for this game anyway (Chelsea fan) in his minute by minute coverage on Saturday.
Written by Barney Ronay, a self-confessed 'neutral' - for this game anyway (Chelsea fan) in his minute by minute coverage on Saturday.
Absolutely. At first watching it at normal speed I thought it was a pen. I then watched the replay in slow-mo and you can clearly see Rooney start diving before being contacted by Almunia. With that and the fact that the ball was gone, it shouldn't be a penalty. But how the feck a ref can see that all in normal time is what allows for the decision to be given.
But I would like to see all the media cnuts dissect it like Eduardo's penalty. IMO Eduardo did the same thing in waiting for the contact from the keeper before going down.
Our penalty shout was as clear-cut as they come. Quite incredible that it wasn't given but seeing as Arshavin cunted the ball into the net 25 seconds later it's kind of forgotten.
431 posts so far over a stonewall penalty!
The arse fans are really getting pathetic now. For a club that has not won a trophy for years their sense of entitlement is just plain weird.
The arse fans are really getting pathetic now. For a club that has not won a trophy for years their sense of entitlement is just plain weird.
Really nice post and I especially agree with the part in bold.
I personally hate it when a player is given offside because of either great movement on his part, or the fact that the defenders have not been able to keep up with him.
If this wasn't a justified penalty, we will not see one in any match for at least 10 years, probably more. There also can't have been any real penalties in my lifetime so far, and I'm an old 'un.
Clear penalty, as was the Arshavin/Fletcher one (although I only picked that one up on replay). This thread is embarassing.
Clear penalty, as was the Arshavin/Fletcher one (although I only picked that one up on replay). This thread is embarassing.
I think this post shows that having another offical making judgements, on goalmouth incidents, based on video footage during the match is something I would not like to see. Even with video evidence and a day to think about it people still can draw different conclusions. Over the season in usually evens itself out. Arsenal get a penalty following Eduardos dive against Celtic and a decision goes against them on Saturday. With the Utd pentalty I think Rooney invited a foul and the Arsenal keeper obliged unlike the Celtic keeper, who I thought, showed remarkable skill in pulling his arm away and avoiding contact.
again yep
I remember the Henry goal from that free kick. The referee was actually standing in a position that blocked the ball from the goal keepers view and then literally jumped out of the way just before Henry took the kick.
As for the offside rule I have mixed feelings on this one. Its always pretty frustrating seeing defences stepping out but I suppose it adds a tactical dimension to the game. One the other hand its very satisifying when the opposing team gets it wrong and leaves itself open. Or the linesman gets it wrong. On Saturday I loved the offside rule. Seeing Wengers face on Saturday after the goal was disallowed and his humiliation having to stand in amongst the United fans, especially the United fan offering Wenger his glasses, priceless.
There's not much that needs adding to this.