Well, the penalty...?

[Marching]

The question IMO isn't whether there was contact with Rooney and Almunia (there was)but when it occured. The cameras quite clearly show Rooney on his way down as Almunia reaches him so Almunia did not bring Rooney down...he was on his way down anyway.

But with split second timings a ref would have to be super human to spot it whereas we have the benefit of slow motion cameras from every angle.

Most forwards would have done exactly the same - some would get away with it and others would be booked. The deciding factor yeasterday was that Rooney got the ball and at speed from where the ref was it looked like the goalie took the player out....which he did, but after Rooney was already falling.

All pointless debate anywhere....great win for MU.

 

[TheReligion]

There was contact, he wipes him out for fecks sake - no ifs or buts - it was given...

What more do some of you people want?

If I fell over into a punch I would have still been assaulted. Someone still threw a punch, and still hit me with intent. Alumina got it wrong. He went in full blooded for the ball and knew he would hit Rooney. He didn't get the ball.

 

[dmode]

both were penalties... please fletch stop tackling in the surface area...

 

[Plechazunga]

There was contact, he wipes him out for fecks sake - no ifs or buts - it was given...

What more do some of you people want?

If I fell over into a punch I would have still been assaulted. Someone still threw a punch, and still hit me with intent. Alumina got it wrong. He went in full blooded for the ball and knew he would hit Rooney. He didn't get the ball.

It's quite simple, 'falling into a punch' isn't a transgression according to the laws of the land, diving is a transgression according to the laws of the game. Almunia did indeed get it wrong and 'wipe him out', there was indeed contact (which is irrelevant anyway, it could be a foul without contact), but that occurred after the initial transgression, which was Rooney's. Free kick for Arsenal, yellows for Rooney and Almunia.

 

[TheReligion]

It's quite simple, 'falling into a punch' isn't a transgression according to the laws of the land, diving is a transgression according to the laws of the game. Almunia did indeed get it wrong and 'wipe him out', there was indeed contact (which is irrelevant anyway, it could be a foul without contact), but that occurred after the initial transgression, which was Rooney's. Free kick for Arsenal, yellows for Rooney and Almunia.

Your talking shit.

Sorry.

 

[Plechazunga]

That's alright, it's actually a pleasure to be proved wrong by so compellingly presented an argument.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It's quite simple, 'falling into a punch' isn't a transgression according to the laws of the land, diving is a transgression according to the laws of the game. Almunia did indeed get it wrong and 'wipe him out', there was indeed contact (which is irrelevant anyway, it could be a foul without contact), but that occurred after the initial transgression, which was Rooney's. Free kick for Arsenal, yellows for Rooney and Almunia.

Following your line of reasoning, surely if the foul is given to Arsenal because of Rooney's 'dive', then the play is stopped at that instant and Almunia shouldn't be given a yellow card, unless it was a dangerous challenge. Which it wasn't.

Seriously though, looking at the video again, I still have no idea what you're talking about. It's a penalty. Every time.

 

[TheReligion]

Nothing to prove

You have poor eyesight.

Hard to argue what is right to someone who only sees what they want to see.

 

[TheReligion]

Following your line of reasoning, surely if the foul is given to Arsenal because of Rooney's 'dive', then the play is stopped at that instant and Almunia shouldn't be given a yellow card, unless it was a dangerous challenge. Which it wasn't.

Seriously though, looking at the video again, I still have no idea what you're talking about. It's a penalty. Every time.

Exactly.

Talking rubbish.

 

[Plechazunga]

Following your line of reasoning, surely if the foul is given to Arsenal because of Rooney's 'dive', then the play is stopped at that instant and Almunia shouldn't be given a yellow card, unless it was a dangerous challenge. Which it wasn't.

As far as I know a yellow can be given when the ball's dead, even when it's not dangerous play. If I just blatantly trip the keeper up while waiting for a corner to be taken I can get a yellow, surely?

 

[TheReligion]

Get to Specsavers Plechazunga

 

[Plechazunga]

Nothing to prove

You have poor eyesight.

Hard to argue what is right to someone who only sees what they want to see.

Nah, I'd much rather see Rooney not dive, I don't like it when anyone dives, but particularly not characters like Rooney, it just doesn't seem right.

I do indeed have poor eyesight, but not so bad that I can't see a screen right in front of me when I've got my lenses in. He started falling before Almunia arrived, as many in this thread recognise.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

As far as I know a yellow can be given when the ball's dead, even when it's not dangerous play. If I just blatantly trip the keeper up while waiting for a corner to be taken I can get a yellow, surely?

Yes, that would be ungentlemanly conduct. Almunia's was a genuine challenge, albeit badly timed. If the play is stopped then you surely can't book him.

 

[Plechazunga]

Maybe, I dunno. Either way, the first transgression came from a United player. It was a tough call but with the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't give the pen.

 

[O'Sheady]

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.

Spot on!

 

[TheReligion]

Did Alumina foul Rooney? Is everyone agreed on this answer being yes?

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Maybe, I dunno. Either way, the first transgression came from a United player. It was a tough call but with the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't give the pen.

Actually no. If we're being that pedantic, look at this:

Rooney is yet to go down, yet Almunia is already in a position that means Rooney has to hurdle him. Therefore, as 'making a player hurdle you' is a foul, the first transgression is from Almunia. Penalty.

 

[TheReligion]

Actually no. If we're being that pedantic, look at this:

Rooney is yet to go down, yet Almunia is already in a position that means Rooney has to hurdle him. Therefore, as 'making a player hurdle you' is a foul, the first transgression is from Almunia. Penalty.

And thats the end of that chapter.

Thank you.

 

[Plechazunga]

Did Alumina foul Rooney? Is everyone agreed on this answer being yes?

Yes

What are you getting so menstrual about?

Actually no. If we're being that pedantic, look at this:

Rooney is yet to go down, yet Almunia is already in a position that means Rooney has to hurdle him. Therefore, as 'making a player hurdle you' is a foul, the first transgression is from Almunia. Penalty.

Rooney's left foot's already started trailing by this point, he's on his way down. He makes no attempt to hurdle him, so the ref can't tell whether Almunia would have made him. Eventually Almunia clatters him, but by this point he's already started his dive.

To you guys it looks obvious that Rooney didn't dive, to me (and many others) it's just as obvious he did. That we can have such disagreements even with slo-mos and freeze-frames shows how hard these split-second decisions are.

They'd be easier if players tried to stay on their feet mind...

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Rooney's left foot's already started trailing by this point, he's on his way down. He makes no attempt to hurdle him, so the ref can't tell whether Almunia would have made him. Eventually Almunia clatters him, but by this point he's already started his dive.

This is nonsense. Rooney is clearly on the stretch for the ball and that's what's causing his left foot to be behind him.

 

[Plechazunga]

Nah, he's already spooned the ball towards the Stretty by that point, he's dropping to his knees

 

[TheReligion]

Pletch, you are flogging a dead horse. , MikeUpNorth has got this pretty much spot on in everything he is saying.

Rooney is stretching for the ball. You have just admitted he was fouled so what are you on about? If you are fouled in the area it is a penalty. Simple.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Nah, he's already spooned the ball towards the Stretty by that point, he's dropping to his knees

Spooned the ball? It's less than a metre away from him! Dropping to his knees? He's clearly still on his feet, albeit in a lunging position as he just reached the ball a millisecond ago.

Rooney has yet to 'dive' in any way, yet Almunia is already fouling him by making him have to hurdle if he wants to avoid contact.

 

[Plechazunga]

Pletch, you are flogging a dead horse. , MikeUpNorth has got this pretty much spot on in everything he is saying.

Rooney is stretching for the ball. You have just admitted he was fouled so what are you on about? If you are fouled in the area it is a penalty. Simple.

As far as I know you penalise the first transgression, which was Rooney's simulation.

 

[Red_Jamie]

It's a nailed-on penalty. Anyone who doesn't think it is doesn't know what they're talking about (or moreover the rules of the game)

 

[Spoony]

Yes

What are you getting so menstrual about?



Rooney's left foot's already started trailing by this point, he's on his way down. He makes no attempt to hurdle him, so the ref can't tell whether Almunia would have made him. Eventually Almunia clatters him, but by this point he's already started his dive.

Almunia shouldn't have gone for the ball. . . so it was always going to result in a penalty. And yes, Rooney played for the penalty, but that doesn't mean it wasn't one. More importantly, it looked like a stonewall penalty which is why the ref gave it.

 

[Ixion]

As far as I know you penalise the first transgression, which was Rooney's simulation.

Rooney was falling because he expected an impact, if either of his legs were planted on the turf and Almunia clatters into him it could proper injure him.

 

[Spoony]

Rooney was falling because he expected an impact, if either of his legs were planted on the turf and Almunia clatters into him it could proper injure him.

Yep, he made his mind up when he saw Alumnia charge out for the ball.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

And what's all this business about Rooney being 'on the way down' in that photo. Earlier you were saying that the ref can't assume the keeper will make the player have to hurdle because he doesn't know what will happen.

At the instant in that photo, Rooney could just as easily try and keep his feet. So logically no 'dive' has occurred. Going by your earlier logic, the ref has to wait until the player is 'beyond the point of no return'. Rooney isn't, he could still stay up. Almunia is, he is already in a position of fouling Rooney.

 

[Plechazunga]

Spooned the ball? It's less than a metre away from him! Dropping to his knees? He's clearly still on his feet, albeit in a lunging position as he just reached the ball a millisecond ago.

Rooney has yet to 'dive' in any way, yet Almunia is already fouling him by making him have to hurdle if he wants to avoid contact.

He did spoon the ball, it was a heavy touch that he'd never have got to, and he knew it immediately and dropped, we've all done it.

Almunia shouldn't have gone for the ball. . . so it was always going to result in a penalty. And yes, Rooney played for the penalty, but that doesn't mean it wasn't one. More importantly, it looked like a stonewall penalty which is why the ref gave it.

Yeah there is a marginal area between diving and being fouled, where you put yourself in a position where you know you're going to be fouled. But Rooney also collapsed rather than hurdling it or taking the hit, = dive.

 

[TheReligion]

As far as I know you penalise the first transgression, which was Rooney's simulation.

Rooney is stretching for the ball!

How is that a "transgression"?

As pointed out to you just before, Alumina is already sprawled across him at this point...so by your reckoning, Alumina has made the first transgression..

 

[Marching]

Since when has it been an offence to make a player hurdle over another?

 

[TheReligion]

He did spoon the ball, it was a heavy touch that he'd never have got to, and he knew it immediately and dropped, we've all done it.



Yeah there is a marginal area between diving and being fouled, where you put yourself in a position where you know you're going to be fouled. But Rooney also collapsed rather than hurdling it or taking the hit, = dive.

Rooney did "take the hit"

What on earth are you talking about?

If he didnt take the hit, then yes, its a dive (see Eduardo), but he did, and you have even said he did earlier. So dont quite follow your logic. Now you are saying he didnt touch him?

 

[Spoony]

He did spoon the ball, it was a heavy touch that he'd never have got to, and he knew it immediately and dropped, we've all done it.



Yeah there is a marginal area between diving and being fouled, where you put yourself in a position where you know you're going to be fouled. But Rooney also collapsed rather than hurdling it or taking the hit, = dive.

Yep, he played for it/dived, call it what you want but it was a penalty nonetheless. Players aren't daft, they know what they're doing most of the time. I actually think Euardo was very unlucky. . .sure he dived but it was no way near as bad as what the media led witch hunt would have you believe.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Since when has it been an offence to make a player hurdle over another?

Since always. You don't have to be hacked for it to be a foul. The other player just has to impede your progress without winning the ball.

 

[Spoony]

Since when has it been an offence to make a player hurdle over another?

Obstruction.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Yep, he played for it/dived, call it what you want but it was a penalty nonetheless. Players aren't daft, they know what they're doing most of the time. I actually think Euardo was very unlucky. . .sure he dived but it was no way near as bad as what the media led witch hunt would have you believe.

If the Arsenal v Celtic game was not so high profile and they were playing some team from Ukraine for example the media would never have made such a big deal about it.

Eduardo is unlucky and as Wenger pointed out it will cause UEFA more harm than good now if every club appeals every decision

 

[Plechazunga]

Rooney was falling because he expected an impact, if either of his legs were planted on the turf and Almunia clatters into him it could proper injure him.

You think it's one of those. I know what you mean, I alluded to them earlier. I don't think it is one personally, but it's very tough to call.

And what's all this business about Rooney being 'on the way down' in that photo. Earlier you were saying that the ref can't assume the keeper will make the player have to hurdle because he doesn't know what will happen.

At the instant in that photo, Rooney could just as easily try and keep his feet. So logically no 'dive' has occurred. Going by your earlier logic, the ref has to wait until the player is 'beyond the point of no return'. Rooney isn't, he could still stay up. Almunia is, he is already in a position of fouling Rooney.

Almunia still hasn't reached him here, by the time he does Rooney will have dropped another few inches, not sure why you're taking this pic as the acid test. But anyway, I think you have it the wrong way round, by this point Almunia hasn't quite reached him, but Rooney's already started to fall.

Yes, my point was that simulation should be deprecated because it stops the ref telling whether a challenge is enough to stop him doing what he wants to do, which in my definition constitutes a foul. (My definition's not the actual FIFA definition, which is why I'm arguing this on its, and your, terms. Eg under my definition, the fact that he would never have reached the ball anyway is crucial, but that's not how the game is currently adjudicated so I'm leaving it out).)

Rooney is stretching for the ball!

How is that a "transgression"?

He's not, he's dropping, the ball's gone and he knows it the moment he spoons it.

As pointed out to you just before, Alumina is already sprawled across him at this point...so by your reckoning, Alumina has made the first transgression..

Going for the ball isn't a foul, stopping the man without touching it is, he does eventually stop Rooney but not until Rooney's started collapsing.

 

[F-Red]

But anyway, I think you have it the wrong way round, by this point Almunia hasn't quite reached him, but Rooney's already started to fall.

He's stretching for the ball, the trailing leg would always have that kind of action & wouldn't be upright.

The photo used is a poor one, the best angle to judge is behind Rooney.

 

[Plechazunga]

Since when has it been an offence to make a player hurdle over another?

It's in the laws, neither contact nor intent is necessary - 'kicks or intends to kick', 'trips or intends to trip'.

Imagine a player running through on goal, and the opponent dives across him at knee height, nowhere near the ball. The attacker jumps over him, but the keeper gets the ball in the meantime and there's no advantage. Clearly a foul, even though he doesn't touch the man.

Of course, making the opponent hurdle is fine if you get the ball (not counting dangerous play), as keepers do all the time.