No, it's obstruction
Yes, it's obstruction
If you take on a player? Take out, you mean?
I think you might be too American, in another thread yesterday you were saying it had to be deliberate to be a foul...
Well, the penalty...?
- Thread starter kanchelskis14
- Start date
No, it's obstruction
Yes, it's obstruction
If you take on a player? Take out, you mean?
I think you might be too American, in another thread yesterday you were saying it had to be deliberate to be a foul...
It reminded me of this from Steve Me
Rooney knew exactly what he was doing, and did a better job of making contact with the keeper. Both players are there to invite the keeper to come out and challenge for the ball and hope that they get some contact off them for a peno.
Rooney knew exactly what he was doing, and did a better job of making contact with the keeper. Both players are there to invite the keeper to come out and challenge for the ball and hope that they get some contact off them for a peno.
Really? I'm genuinely interested to know. Normally if two infringements take place in quick succession, the first one is penalised, though the second can still be regarded as foul play and, for instance, carded. Is this not the case when the first incident is unsporting behaviour and the second a simple trip? I can't find any such notion in the Laws.
Or is 365 talking its usual bollocks?
In real time, which one of your two infringements is the more obvious to the referee?
Not the point, the issue is whether he got it wrong, not whether he's to blame for getting it wrong
Of course it's not his fault, most people would probably have given it based on what he could see
Why's everyone being so evasive? Either he dived or he didn't, if he did it seems clear that this infringement preceded the foul.
Of course it's not his fault, most people would probably have given it based on what he could see
Why's everyone being so evasive? Either he dived or he didn't, if he did it seems clear that this infringement preceded the foul.
He got it spot on.
Realizing you are going to take a hit and preparing for it( dragging your leg ) is diffrent to pretending you have been hit and taking a dive ( simulation ).
You can't blame Rooney for knowing that Almunia was travelling to fast to avoid him.Is it up to Rooney to avoid the collision if he can? Maybe but it's a grey area in my mind at least.
You can't blame Rooney for knowing that Almunia was travelling to fast to avoid him.Is it up to Rooney to avoid the collision if he can? Maybe but it's a grey area in my mind at least.
That's more like Eduardo's than Rooney's.
Then you don't think he dived. In which case why did you post this:
It was a question asking your mind which one of your two theories was the more obvious to the referee, i thought that much was obvious.
Can't believe people are debating this. It's a clear foul. Wouldn't mattered if the player's intent in this particular situation was going to dive, it'll still be a foul. A foul is a foul.
It is a penalty
If you dont think it is then you got issues.
If you dont think it is then you got issues.
The man himself
And a dive is unsporting behaviour - a punishable infringement.
If he was diving, that preceded Almunia totaling him. Not just the intention, he actually starts to fall.
I can understand people thinking it wasn't a dive. I can't understand people thinking it doesn't matter if it was a dive.
It wasn't a dive...but the ball was unretrievable (sp. plech?) after Wayne's touch so Almunia wasn't stopping a goal scoring opportunity...Unless you reason that him coming off his line encouraged wayne to take a heavy touch.
I'd be annoyed if it was given against us...But I understand it. The fact it's debatable at all means plenty feel the same
I'd be annoyed if it was given against us...But I understand it. The fact it's debatable at all means plenty feel the same
It means Arsenal fans are bitter about losing, a foul in the box is a penalty. Almunia should have been sent off as well if you ask me
The only justification is that Rooney went to ground early to minimise the effects of an inevitable collision. I think he went to ground too early in an attempt to over-egg the manufactured situation.
are you still arguing this even though every ex-pro and ex-ref say clear penalty..........amazing.
So fecking what? They demonstrate their stupidity on a daily basis.
And even most of the Arsenal fans seem more upset with Almunia than the ref or Rooney.
and you think supporters don't ----------- for fecks sake most are complete idiots as this thread has proved by pages of discussion on as clear a penalty as you are likely to see.
There was no dive, two players both thought they could get to the ball first Ronney did by a split second therefore was fouled. Where the ball ends up is irrelevant when a player brings another down, without touching the ball first its a foul wherever it occurrs on the pitch and when its in the area its a penalty.
There's a difference between whether it was a penalty and whether it should've been a penalty though, which is what many of us are discussing. It was a penalty under the letter of the law yes, but under the letter of the law what happened with Wenger was the correct decision also....morally, I don't believe instances like that warrant a pen, much like taking your shirt off doesn't warrant a yellow. However officially, both do.
Well all that's fine except I wouldn't give a pen if the player has no longer got the ball within reasonable distance/control (not in the rules but should be) nor would I if he dives before contact (in the rules and penalisable).
So you think fouls inside the box should be called differently to outside and if it is unlikely to result in a goal a penalty should not be given.
IMO refs ignore many fouls inside the box choosing not to give a penalty, however blatent fouls like that commited on Rooneys would almost certainly result in a booking anywhere else on the pitch so you really are stretching the rules.
Wenger was sent to the stand because that is the strict interpretation of a rule as you say however if I had been the 4th official and had to put up with Wenger moaning in my ear disputing every decision that went against Arsenal for 90+ minutes I could not have resisted either (to be honest I would have been tempted to smack the twat much earlier)
What happened with
the ball was not within a reasonable distance of rooney because almunia was about to foul him.
That's simply shit logic - the ball was miles away because Rooney was manufacturing a foul. The rationale was: I nick the ball (who gives a feck where it goes) and wait until he clatters me. But in fact he didn't wait to be cleaned out but 'enhanced' things by diving first.
People need to stop overthinking these things in super slow motion.
It was a foul in the box by any definition of the laws of the game and it was therefore a penalty. That you might suspect that Rooney wasn't exactly upset at being fouled from the slow motion replay, although I'm not convinced either way, is irrelevant. He didn't get the penalty for slightly trailing his foot and there was no simulation offence. You don't deny actual fouls based on what the fouled player may or may not have been thinking. You punish simulation where there is no foul to punish. It was a goalkeeping error that resulted in a penalty. The position of the ball is again irrelevant even if some referees sometimes incorrectly ignore fouls where the ball is running out.
It was a foul in the box by any definition of the laws of the game and it was therefore a penalty. That you might suspect that Rooney wasn't exactly upset at being fouled from the slow motion replay, although I'm not convinced either way, is irrelevant. He didn't get the penalty for slightly trailing his foot and there was no simulation offence. You don't deny actual fouls based on what the fouled player may or may not have been thinking. You punish simulation where there is no foul to punish. It was a goalkeeping error that resulted in a penalty. The position of the ball is again irrelevant even if some referees sometimes incorrectly ignore fouls where the ball is running out.
What happened to Wenger is also irrelevant. The 4th official had a drama queen moment and the ref took his advice since he didn't see the incident as he should do.
In fact the more I watch it the less I think that Rooney did anything wrong at all. His back foot is being dragged because he stretches to get the ball, which he does and is then fouled by the keeper. Either way it is a clear penalty and no way could Rooney have avoided the keepers hands because he was stretching.
when almunia came diving out, a foul was inevitable. should rooney have tried to control it and put himself under threat of injury by a numpty keeper?
Spot on
Yes. They're different in the box precisely because of penalties. The result of saying it's a foul is virtually to give the other team a goal. This is right, it feels like decent justice, when we feel they've been 'robbed' of a goal-scoring chance. But when they'd never have got to it anyway it feels wrong, at least to many of us. They should be punished from tripping the man or whatever, but a penalty is too severe.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that is the current law, or that it should have been used by this ref in this specific instance, given how the law stands. Just that the law here is missing something important.
Also, I'm not referring either to dangerous play. Obviously you can't give defenders carte blanche to just go round banjoing strikers in the area.
Possibly, it's hard to tell even in slo-mo
i think the yellow was fair. it's not as if rooney was going to score there.
absurd. a player should not be expected to keep a ball in an attacking position under threat of immediate injury.
You need to elaborate on this idea of "a penalty is unfair punishment". There are lots of penalty area penal fouls which did not prevent a goal. Handball? Holding? Do you just ignore them or are you suggesting some new category of direct free kick in the area? Defenders get away with all sorts of fouls in the area anyway, so perhaps a penalty, even though there is no danger to the goal, is a way of keeping defenders (more) honest. And goals are a good thing, so I don't mind seeing defending teams occasionally suffer excessive punishment as a result of the sheer Almunia-like stupidity of their defenders.
It's up to the ref's judgement, like most fouls, whether the player's trying to avoid injury or simulate a foul. Sometimes it's very hard, sometimes he'll get it wrong, such is the life of a ref.
As I tried to point out above, the mistake which informs a lot of these discussions is the idea that you can define what a foul is by a bare description of the events. You can't, see my example above - no contact, no intent, still a foul. What should define a foul is the events combined with ref's sense of fairness... What happened there? He was trying to get past, the defender stopped him, without getting the ball... Did he do it in a fair way, or was it too rough for the game? Too rough - right, foul. The player was trying to get the ball, and he got tripped - penalty. The player saw the keeper coming and tried to con me - dive, yellow card. Somewhere in between, he knew the keeper was coming, he played for it, he'd never have got a shot off, but he did get feckin banjoed... errrrrrr make a decision.
Nah, I think in the b&w days if the ball was already in the stand you'd get precisely feck all. I bet you cleaned out a few forwards in your time but if they weren't doing anything it's no pen.