Well, the penalty...?

Alex said:
He deliberately went for the ball, and missed it thus peno, just like Almunia
Click to expand...

Come on mate, that's not what deliberate means, it refers to the thing you're doing. You don't say "he deliberately crashed his car" when someone accidentally crashes his car while deliberately driving to the shops.

Not all fouls are deliberate, it's obvious. Many are accidental. They're still fouls. The Laws actually make this distinction.
 
Plechazunga said:
Well that's like saying if you're convicted of bestiality because in court the evidence for it is more persuasive than the evidence against, that means you did in fact bone the llama in question. Even if you didn't, and even if evidence that later comes to light suggests you were just good friends.
Click to expand...

It kind of does mean that. It also kind of means that the kind of people who bang on about whether or not I really boned the llama, despite the fact that they can never know, are probably even weirder than me. I just happen to like hanging around with Peruvian animals, and so what if they like to have rough cuddles every now and then? It's the people up in the cabins with binoculars in one hand and their cocks in the other that you need to watch.
 
So Plech are you saying that to do the honorable thing Rooney should have tried to control the ball and hurdle the challange and whatever happens happens.Non avoidence of the foul is dishonorable.(The fact that he had started to drop before the challange is incidental as he would have had to jump to avoid Almunia imo).I dont think rooney is being dishonorable if he sees a reckless challange and doesn't avoid it. A rash challange is as much of a mistake as a misplaced pass and is there to be taken advantage of without being dishonorable to the spirit of the game.
 
O'Sheady said:
So Plech are you saying that to do the honorable thing Rooney should have tried to control the ball and hurdle the challange and whatever happens happens.Non avoidence of the foul is dishonorable.(The fact that he had started to drop before the challange is incidental as he would have had to jump to avoid Almunia imo).I dont think rooney is being dishonorable if he sees a reckless challange and doesn't avoid it. A rash challange is as much of a mistake as a misplaced pass and is there to be taken advantage of without being dishonorable to the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it's less wrong than a straight dive, maybe slightly more wrong than 'making the most' of a foul challenge that's already hit you.

Unless you're actually trying to protect yourself, you should try to get the ball under control, evade the challenge, score.

If you watch videos of Best, say, riding late challenges and keeping the ball, there's something 'higher' about it than Ronaldo beating two men and then playing for a free kick. I'm not saying Best never dived or played for fouls, and he was blessed with ridiculous balance... but when he's in that mood, it looks like he's playing for love of the game, the joy of beating his man and heading for goal. Not trying to game the opponent's miscalculations to win set-pieces.

If Rooney did what you're saying, which I think he probably did, it's not like it's the worst sin the world, and it's not like you could ever devise rules that stopped it happening. But it's not what Wayne Rooney should be about.
 
llama-obey.jpg

I would.
 
Plechazunga said:
Well that's like saying if you're convicted of bestiality because in court the evidence for it is more persuasive than the evidence against, that means you did in fact bone the llama in question. Even if you didn't, and even if evidence that later comes to light suggests you were just good friends.
Click to expand...

You can always argue that the llama was in love with you.
 
surf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in most of those circumstances the player being obstructed, fouled, prohibited, has control of the ball in the penalty area, thus has a chance (how ever small) of scoring, or creating a scoring chance....If you've already lost possession when the fouls made you are in no such position

I do conceed it's a minefield because if we start giving the Ref license to award free kicks in the area for fouls that don't stop a scoring chance then we're instigating even more scrutiny of the refs decisions...

Basically, common sense should be used in all decisions, as each is invariably different in the context of it's own unique situation...

Dr. Dwayne said:
You can always argue that the llama was in love with you.
Click to expand...

You could never prove it though....unless you had it in writing
 
Plechazunga said:
It's a good point, I've addressed it a bit above but not completely satisfactorily I admit.



I agree, a lot of the time that's what refs do. I don't think the Laws as they stand really account for the way refs actually judge play, or how fans do for that matter. We judge fouls on what we think was going to happen had they not taken place. If they have had no significant effect (or wouldn't have had the player not dived), we don't regard them as fouls. But that concept is absent from the Laws.

Personally I think this has been one of the more interesting threads in the MU of late, and the funny thing is that some of the people who've been most irritated by it have contributed a lot to it. You're irritated because you're focusing on the Rooney pen., but that's the least interesting part, you see it one way or the other.
Click to expand...




I guess I have concentrated too much on Rooney but it was because some constantly try and equate Rooney's penalty with Eduardo and to me there is no relationship -------- Eduardo tried to con the ref- he cheated, Rooney played the game like it has always been played.
Now whether the game could be made fairer etc imo is a different argument altogether.
 
Plechazunga said:
Come on mate, that's not what deliberate means, it refers to the thing you're doing. You don't say "he deliberately crashed his car" when someone accidentally crashes his car while deliberately driving to the shops.

Not all fouls are deliberate, it's obvious. Many are accidental. They're still fouls. The Laws actually make this distinction.
Click to expand...

So why don't you think it was a penalty then?
 
Jopub said:
Okay okay I'll admit I'm an 'oddball' :D

I think he dived and I think it was a penalty but that's based on the pure speed of it . I cant see the ref having any realistic chance of giving anything else unless his lino steps in with a really confident call on anything else

This lino position in all of this is something that never seems to help these matters. Its much easier to be up with the play and you're only really looking for offsides and incidents in the box. How in fksnames they cant seem to ever really see whats happening in these incidents is ridiculous imo

Ive done a bit of officiating many many years ago at a low level and found reffing to be challenging in respect of seeing everything although easy in dealing with the players but linoing - fck that was much easier - its actually quite hard to miss anything that's happening in your 'region' - offsides being the only calls where you really have to have all your wits about you
Click to expand...

Jopub, you raise an interesting point about whether the linesman might have intervened. I would say it is unlikely in this case as Rooney was on the right side of the area and the linesmen would be on the left touchline, meaning that the referee is a lot closer to the incident. In the diagonal system of refereeing, linesmen usually only flag for fouls on their side of the field unless it is something blatant that the ref has obviously missed. Rooney's possible dive was marginal and hard to spot in real time, and I don't see any linesman on the opposite side raising a flag for it if the referee hasn't already spotted it. Under the current system, this one was up to the referee. It could be one for the goal line observers that UEFA/FIFA have been talking about.
 
"despite analysis of the crucial penalty he won against Arsenal last weekend revealing he may have dived"

Have to say that's one of the most amateur articles I've seen on the BBC
 
reddevilcanada said:
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.
Click to expand...


wtf.

gerrard dives twice in that video he drags his left leg to try and gain contact with friedel and then when friedel moves out of the way to avoid contact he kicks out his right foot to try to make contact with the keeper.

the only similiarity is that it was in the same location as the foul on rooney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.