How anyone can not think this is a pen is beyond me.
Well, the penalty...?
- Thread starter kanchelskis14
- Start date
How anyone can not think this is a pen is beyond me.
Well you only need to see the direction of Rooney spinning clockwise to confirm the contact made by Almunia
Clear pen, you will see many like that given in every season, goalkeeper comes out stupidly and player nicks the ball and goes over him, it clear as day and whats more every striker in world football looks for the contact in that situation.
We know you don't like Rooney and have strange sympathies but do you have to continually spout nonsense ---- every pundit i have so far heard has said stone-wall penalty including Lee Dixon ex-Arsenal and the most biased anti-united scouse Micky Quinn who came out with " nobody can seriously claim that was not a penalty"
The question isn't whether Almunia made contact or not because to debate it would be admitting that you're blind.The question some ask themselves is whether Rooney threw himself before the charging keeper collides with him.
In the decision of a penalty that question is irrelevant. If Almunia didn't make contact then that question would be valid.
So technically it's a dive by Rooney and a clear fault by Almunia right ?
Almunia made contact with Rooney & didn't get anywhere near the ball. Therefore a penalty & a yellow card.
Why the feck are there so many posts about this? If theres this much "debate" over a stonewall penalty like that then God help us with a penalty that actually hard to call.
Arsenal fans claiming it was not a penalty days after claiming Eduardo's was is frankly embarassing.
Arsenal fans claiming it was not a penalty days after claiming Eduardo's was is frankly embarassing.
Alright, I'm fully convinced now.I've had my doubts since last night but having rewatched the video for the 20th time now I know it
I sometimes wonder how many have watched a game let alone played it--- as you say embarassing!
You can't sprawl yourself in front of a player after the ball has gone past and expect not to concede a foul. Bit gay how Rooney was clearly going to dive anyway, but that doesn't make it not a foul. It's really not up for debate.
Mind you, I thought Fletcher was going to be sent off when he made that challenge
Mind you, I thought Fletcher was going to be sent off when he made that challenge
Definite penalty. I can't believe there's even a debate.
I can think of someone on the podcast who won't agree with you
Don't forget to ask him about that 'average, mid-table standard' midfielder that tore his team apart for the third time in four months aswell.
Rooney's bent knees before contact certainly suggests he had no intention staying on his feet and played for the penalty seeing Almunia was stupid enough (amazing instincts from Rooney). Anyway all arguments what occured before Almunia clearly hit him are moot - a clear penalty.
The Arsenal fans should be asking questions of their goalkeeper - what was he thinking of rushing out like that with no danger of Rooney ever retrieving the ball with the heavy touch.
The Arsenal fans should be asking questions of their goalkeeper - what was he thinking of rushing out like that with no danger of Rooney ever retrieving the ball with the heavy touch.
I can think of someone on the podcast who won't agree with you
Don't forget to ask him about that 'average, mid-table standard' midfielder that tore his team apart for the third time in four months aswell.
I don't think he tore them apart. He was the only player in the United midfield bothered to turn up and likely saved United from embarrassment.
Rooney as gone looking for it, there is no doubt about that I don't think, he's done well to win it too. Andy Gray of all people described it best when he said "there is nothing in the rules that says the attacker has to jump out of the way of a outstretched leg or foot."
It wasn't a dive for me as they was clear contact. If you want to see a dive, see Eboue's effort.
It wasn't a dive for me as they was clear contact. If you want to see a dive, see Eboue's effort.
Rooney saw the fool coming and made no attempt to hurdle him and so avoid the penalty. How unsporting can you get. He should be ashamed of himself taking advantage of a simpleton like that. Utd should ring the FA and ask to have the match replayed without Rooney who will be serving a lengthy suspension. Fairs fair after all.
Dramatic effect Sultan, dramatic effect.
I'll rephrase it to 'put in yet another Man of the match performance' then.
This thread is brilliant, resident Arsenal fans providing some great laughs!!
How anyone can not think this is a pen is beyond me.
It's obviously a penalty, there's no question there
I don't think he's diving either though. You can see there, the reason his leg is bending is because he's stretching to get to the ball before Almunia. MotD showed another angle where you see his foot momentarily get stuck in the ground. I think he's just loosing his balances, as players stretching for the ball - and the heaviness of his touch shows he was no-where near having it under proper control - do sometimes
In reality, everyone is making an assumption. The only way you'd know if Rooney was diving was if Almunia made no contact, and he still appealed for the penalty after going to ground. Alas Almunia has cleaned him out, so it's a non issue and a stone wall penalty
The daft thing is all the nonsense attention being directed to Rooney here, and then you get the Eboue incident where there's absolutely no doubt the guy intentionally faked a dive in order to get his man sent off
Whys this thread so long? Rooney looked for it but it was a penalty. Alumunia is a total plank for even getting that close IMO. It was only going to result in one thing.
Arshavin also should have had a penalty
Arshavin also should have had a penalty
Why do people keep saying "it was a dive, but still a penalty"? Surely you penalise the first transgression - in this case the dive? If the second transgression merited a yellow, then you give the yellow, but where do the laws state that you overlook the first transgression if the second would have given a penalty?
I don't agree with you about removing the penalty box as a cut-off point. You have to draw the lines somewhere - beyond a certain distance from the goal it's not possible to say whether or not the player would have got into a goal-scoring position. Any line will be arbitrary, but the penalty box is reasonable and has tradition on its side.
However, I do agree with your wider point that the rule is silly. As I've tried to argue on here before, there's a fundamental wrongness with the conception in the rules of what a foul actually is. This comes to the fore whenever we have an incident in which the ball is clearly lost before the foul. We instinctively feel there's something wrong (except in cases of dangerous play), and the reason is that we associate a foul with stopping someone proceeding with what they were trying to do. This should be reflected in the rules.
This is also the reason why people are wrong to say, "Rooney made the most of it/didn't try to avoid it, but he had every right to". The problem with this is that if players don't try their best to keep their balance and proceed, it's very hard for refs to tell whether they've been stopped from doing what they were trying to do. Of course players will always do what Rooney did, but it is not acceptable, and that's the reason why.
I don't agree with you about removing the penalty box as a cut-off point. You have to draw the lines somewhere - beyond a certain distance from the goal it's not possible to say whether or not the player would have got into a goal-scoring position. Any line will be arbitrary, but the penalty box is reasonable and has tradition on its side.
However, I do agree with your wider point that the rule is silly. As I've tried to argue on here before, there's a fundamental wrongness with the conception in the rules of what a foul actually is. This comes to the fore whenever we have an incident in which the ball is clearly lost before the foul. We instinctively feel there's something wrong (except in cases of dangerous play), and the reason is that we associate a foul with stopping someone proceeding with what they were trying to do. This should be reflected in the rules.
This is also the reason why people are wrong to say, "Rooney made the most of it/didn't try to avoid it, but he had every right to". The problem with this is that if players don't try their best to keep their balance and proceed, it's very hard for refs to tell whether they've been stopped from doing what they were trying to do. Of course players will always do what Rooney did, but it is not acceptable, and that's the reason why.
Anyone but Rooney and it would have been "clever" but since it was Wayne not much is made of it. He did dive the way he left his leg to drag was silly because he could have just carried on and Almunia would have clattered him. Terrible goalkeeping.
The Arshavin one was a pen, at first i thought "no-way Fletch got the ball" but when you see the reply he gets the ball with his arm and take Arshavin out with his legs. The hand to ball argument doesnt hold water here either. A hard one for the ref but you could have had no complaints if it was given.
The Arshavin one was a pen, at first i thought "no-way Fletch got the ball" but when you see the reply he gets the ball with his arm and take Arshavin out with his legs. The hand to ball argument doesnt hold water here either. A hard one for the ref but you could have had no complaints if it was given.
Clear penalty.
Well technically, he didn't actually dive, since he was still only starting to when Almunia swiped his legs away from under him. He could just as easily say he saw the keeper coming and didn't have time to hurdle, so was attempting to pull out of the challenge. Eduardo could say the same, except the keeper ended up not touching him. Dodgy road to go down this.
The problem is that the refs rarely give penalties if the players don't fall down. Do you think it should be a penalty if Wayne stayed on his feet, but lost his balance and let the ball cross the line?
Don't be silly Merman. Players don't lose their balance in the penalty area. They only dive you see
Almunia is cleaning Rooney out whatever he's doing there. Silly goalkeeping he didn't have to commit like that
I'm glad we've had this thread though, has shown up some of the Arsenal fans for their usual selves. If something isn't going their way, they simply resort to lies to try and make their case
Looks to me like Rooney is going 'limp' as it were because he knows an impact is coming, if he had his foot planted on the ground when Almunia hits him that could hurt both of them.
How anyone can not think this is a pen is beyond me.
There are some similarities with the Eduardo situation:
- both players get to the ball ahead of the keeper and are already thinking "penalty"
- both players anticipate the contact with the keeper and both go down. Both take "evasive action" - nobody wants to be clattered by a keeper with their leg planted in the ground unless they're wanting a serious injury.
The fundamental difference is:
- Boruc makes very little contact, while Almunia wipes him out
I agree with the principle of what you're saying here. However, the likelihood of getting injured in challenges like these increases significantly if you don't take some sort of evasive action when you know a heavy challenge is coming in.
- both players get to the ball ahead of the keeper and are already thinking "penalty"
- both players anticipate the contact with the keeper and both go down. Both take "evasive action" - nobody wants to be clattered by a keeper with their leg planted in the ground unless they're wanting a serious injury.
The fundamental difference is:
- Boruc makes very little contact, while Almunia wipes him out
I agree with the principle of what you're saying here. However, the likelihood of getting injured in challenges like these increases significantly if you don't take some sort of evasive action when you know a heavy challenge is coming in.
Penalty.
How anyone can not think this is a pen is beyond me.
This
If you don't think thats a penalty then you are an odd cnut to say the least
It was a penalty. Rooney played for it, but he was fouled and he did not dive. It was a clear penalty.
It was a stone wall penalty.
There are no two ways about it really.
There are no two ways about it really.
Well we already are down that road. The reason it's a problem is that players 'go down easy'/'make the most of challenges', ie cheat. In a perfect world, where players always tried to hurdle challenges and/or keep their balance, refs would have no problem deciding whether a challenge was a foul or not. We don't live in a perfect world, but it annoys me the way people try to make such behaviour morally neutral... "it's his right" etc. It's cheating.
When we watch a video of George Best, and see how amazing he was at keeping his balance, we admire not just the athleticism but the intention, the fact that he keeps going whatever comes at him. Rooney should be one of those players.
It's true there are occasionally marginal cases, usually two-footed challenges, where a player pulls his studs out the ground for safety and lets his legs get taken away. It's kind of a dive, but it's a situation where not doing so would actually be dangerous. I'm fairly sure Rooney's wasn't one of those, he spooned the ball and dropped.
Where the player stays on his feet and keeps the ball with a good chance of continuing, refs are right to play advantage. Where the player is prevented from proceeding, that should be a pen. It's true refs aren't very good at those, probably because unless they're 100% sure they're scared to give it. Judging what happens in fast-paced games of football is hard - as this thread shows. But that doesn't mean you should milk the difficulty to your advantage. Of course, it's a high-stakes competitive game and such things will always go on, but they should be deprecated not excused.
I disagree with you Plech because I think 'making a player have to hurdle you' is a foul in itself. If you go in for a challenge, you have to win the ball.
This is, by the definition in the rules, absolutely correct.
Boruc didn't make any contact whatsoever.
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
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
"Making the player hurdle you" is indeed a foul. The problem with falling over in anticipation of that is that the ref can't know for sure whether you would have had to hurdle him and often (though not yesterday) whether the opponent would have touched the ball after or before he made you hurdle (in which case making you hurdle isn't a foul, unless it's dangerous play).
The honest thing is to actually try to hurdle him. If you succeed, the ref can play advantage, if you fail he can give a foul, if the opponent hasn't managed to get the ball.
If you can be arsed to read that thread I linked to I explain what in my view is the problem with the actual law in more detail.