Ok, well not one pundit/ex professional has brought this issue up with Rooney.
Well, the penalty...?
- Thread starter kanchelskis14
- Start date
Ok, well not one pundit/ex professional has brought this issue up with Rooney.
He says "he knows he is going down" not he does
Bookmark this everyone, in case anyone ever asks you why cheating isn't more harshly dealt with. It's because fans don't really want it to be dealt with, most of them explicitly condone it, indeed praise it as a skillful aspect of the striker's craft.
There is only one instance if a player is fouled. If a player dives, and is then fouled, that's two instances, two trangressions. Just like if a player dives and then someone comes up to him and punches him.
Nope, you're (deliberately, I reckon) misunderstanding. A ref has to judge whether a player is falling because he is being fouled, or in order to make it look like he's being fouled. Sometimes it's very hard - like when a player stays on his feet after being fouled. Often they will get these wrong, and players will be unjustly denied penalties. Nevertheless, this is what the players should do.
Not irrelevant if clattering him took place after the dive, which is the question at hand. Clearly.
I said simulation for the sake of variety, and also to cover both dives and "going to ground too easily" - where calling it a dive would be begging the question. Check the thread, I've used the word dive about fifty times.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. He knows he's going down whether Almunia touches him or not, but Almunia does foul him so it's not a dive.
If I'm in an exam and I think "I'm going to pass this no matter what, even if I have to look at the next person's paper to know the answer", that doesn't mean I'm a cheat if I open the exam paper and actually know the answer, thereby not having to look nextdoor.
It is irrelevant, as in real time the above didn't happen. You've admitted yourself that it was virtually simultaneous
It is irrelevant, as in real time the above didn't happen. You've admitted yourself that it was virtually simultaneous
Again, how many times is it going to take Pletch!
You are looking silly!
Not if the player increases the risks of being injured by trying to stay on his feet whatever.
Refs has to judge what has happened, not what he thinks MIGHT be the players' intention.
Almunia clattered Rooney. Whether Rooney was in balance or not, or the reason for not being in balance if he wasn't, doesn't come into it.
What comes around goes around. Get over it gooners. Clear penalty whatever way you look at it. Just be thankful VDS wasn't fit, otherwise you wouldn't have even scored at all.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree Mike because, IMO, the reason he knows this is that he's made the decision to go down....and because of that he's dived.
I reckon there's a third category, and one into which Rooney's slots into perfectly-falling into/engineering contact so as to be fouled.
Very grey area, IMO. Rooney was undoubtedly fouled, but arguably committed an offence in bringing about that foul (though the way Almunia came out, even if Rooney had stood his ground he would have been clattered). There's an argument that the unsporting way someone engineers a foul like that negates the foul, but I'm not really sure I agree, though it depends on circumstances etc.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous debates I've seen on the Caf
It's a stone wall penalty, there just isn't any doubt about the decision
It's not even a given that Rooney was diving. He was stretching for the ball, from an angle shown on MotD but not yet displayed in this thread, his studs gets momentarily stuck in the turf as he's stretching running at full pace to nick the ball away from Almunia, which is why he was already going down... now if you're saying he's done that on purpose to try and win a penalty, ok that's an interpretation, but not the taken for granted fact that seems to be the way it's being presented in this thread
If Rooney falls there, isn't touched by Almunia, and gets straight back up without complaint, and the ref then booked him for diving, we'd all be criticising the ref. People do fall down and lose their balance you know. Especially when they're running at full pace and stretching for the ball
It's a stone wall penalty, there just isn't any doubt about the decision
It's not even a given that Rooney was diving. He was stretching for the ball, from an angle shown on MotD but not yet displayed in this thread, his studs gets momentarily stuck in the turf as he's stretching running at full pace to nick the ball away from Almunia, which is why he was already going down... now if you're saying he's done that on purpose to try and win a penalty, ok that's an interpretation, but not the taken for granted fact that seems to be the way it's being presented in this thread
If Rooney falls there, isn't touched by Almunia, and gets straight back up without complaint, and the ref then booked him for diving, we'd all be criticising the ref. People do fall down and lose their balance you know. Especially when they're running at full pace and stretching for the ball
Wrong, intent can constitute a foul (though it doesn't have to). Read the laws..."trips or intends to trip", "kicks or intends to kick". So refs often do have to work out a player's intention.
A good example is Rooney's yellow later in the game. He didn't bring him down, but clearly aimed a kick at him. If it had been normal jostling, the ref wouldn't have booked him, he booked him because he clearly attempted to trip him.
Okay, so stretch out the timing a bit...if Rooney does a blatant dive, sprawls on his face, but before the Ref can blow, Almunia comes clattering into him... penalty?
I know Brad. Seen some absolute rubbish on the Caf in my time but this is starting to take the biscuit.
Eh, the ref didn't have to judge any intentions from Rooney when he got booked. He clearly kicked out and tried to foul the player, and was rightly booked. The ref judged it on what happened, not on what he thought the player MIGHT have intended to do.
Do you really believe it wasn't a penalty, or are you just playing an arsh and devil's advocate?
It was hilarious whatever way you look at it. I said before the game that what comes around goes around, and I'd love to see us get a dodgy penalty. Turns out we got a stonewall penalty, which has still left the bitter goonies hopping mad... and with the disallowed RVP goal at the end, I'm struggling to think how his match could have been more satisfying.
I think that's probably right. Somewhere between diving, 'looking for the foul', 'going down too easy (like Cnut's mum)', lies this incident.
Nah, his right foot had just touched the ball, rather than following through the left was trailing toe-down. The only question is whether this was before or after Almunia hurtled into him.
Exactly, he 'tried to foul the player', that is the definition of intent.
If he'd just buffeted him with no intent to trip him, the ref would never have called that a foul and carded him. The intent was clear. Intent is not necessary for a foul to be given but it is sufficient.
I'm not sure about the pen, not playing devil's advocate, you though are deliberately misunderstanding and caricaturing my argument like a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime, I'd call it being Devilish's advocate.
Is relevant, you said "Almunia clattered Rooney. Whether Rooney was in balance or not, or the reason for not being in balance if he wasn't, doesn't come into it", but in my example the fact that he dived before getting clattered (which is why he's 'off balance') clearly negates the clattering, same thing here, just closer in time so harder to judge. It's a pen if you think Almunia's action caused him to dive, not if it followed his dive.
Rooney first touch and posture at contact are both done with the correct assumption that the keeper can't stop and will be trundling through him very shortly afterwards. If the keeper doesn't come out that fast (i.e. too fast to stop) Rooney would have time to do something different. This is almost always the case when the keeper throws himself full length at a ball he can't win.
I seem to remember Dennis Irwin did the same in a cup final and nobody thought that was cheating
I seem to remember Dennis Irwin did the same in a cup final and nobody thought that was cheating
So he did what Eduardo did but judged it better?
It was a stonewall penalty. Eduardo and Eboue are a disgrace to football. Get over it. Arsenal don't have any kind of moral superiority to make up for their trophyless seasons.
Your delusions really belong somewhere like RAWK. Maybe you should post over there instead.
I don't think the point about Eduardo blatantly diving for a penalty, while Rooney was off balance and cleaned out by Almunia, is being stressed enough here
It's only retarded Arsenal supporters trying to make comparisons, and some particularly misguiding United supporters displaying little understanding of the game backing them up somewhat
It's only retarded Arsenal supporters trying to make comparisons, and some particularly misguiding United supporters displaying little understanding of the game backing them up somewhat
This is the point I was making in the matchday thread... I don't get why it's so hard to see, especially to those playing as strikers...
i'm astounded this is even being debated.Rooney got to the ball first and the kepper made clear, 100% contact with Rooney. It doesnt matter if the ball was booted in a harmless direction, out of play or that Rooney was already on his way down.
Classic example of a legal way to win a penalty, Almunia should have never been rushing out to that anyway.
We wasn't clever, he got clattered! Eduardo faked his
Anyone who's been in that situation knows you stretch to get anything on the ball before Almunia gets there. It's not diving, and I think it's daft that it's being taken as a given by some people that that's what Rooney is doing there
It's a stonewall penalty and this entire debate has been a frankly embarrassing farce for many of the protagonists
He saw Alumnia come out for the ball and played for a penalty. I don't think it's the biggest crime in football. All intelligent footballers/strikers do it. As I said above, it was a penalty but Rooney new what he was doing.
If you're saying he saw the keeper coming out and bust a gut to get something, anything on it, yeh he did. And that's entirely fair
If you're saying he's dived before the keeper got to him to try and buy a penalty, that for me is something else and personally think it's a nonsense
To anyway compare it to what Eduardo did, or either what Eboue did in the same bloody game, is just so typically Arsenal
Yes, but also he didn't dive on the floor without being touched which is, I think, the point.
Why make such a fuss about it when it is much easier to blame Eboue for all that is wrong in the game? Attempting to get players sent off by diving when not even challenged would be the place to start looking first at the right and wrongs of the game on Saturday.
Naw not really, he got what he deserved for diving, referee got the call right, so there really was nothing wrong with the whole eboue dive situation.
You can't really justify getting worked up about whether Rooney was a hundred percent straight up on the penalty claim, while ignoring it.Well you can do if no one keeps bringing it up.
...yes particularly you, with your insane 'foot stuck in mud' and 'he fell over' observations, which are in fact only your view! Funny as fk
You can't really justify getting worked up about whether Rooney was a hundred percent straight up on the penalty claim, while ignoring it.Well you can do if no one keeps bringing it up.
Its more what resulted from both, Eboue got what his cheating ways deserved, Rooney got his team back into the game with what i claim to be a dive. Thats why i dont really touch on it.
Funny as fk
His studs get caught in the turf Jopub, and the video evidence absolutely 100% confirms that. And he's busting a gut to get to the ball first and poke it away from Almunia, of course he's off balance doing it
If I'm the only one going off the actual video evidence, rather than satisfying their 'Arsenal have been cheated yet again the worlds a fecking disgrace' agenda, then so be it
Dont think cleverness comes into it really
Quite different scenarios - Rooney and Almunia although not fully head on were nothing like Eduardo who was going past the keeper at a much slower speed.
Nomatter what happened with Rooney he and the stupid beyond belief Almunia were one way and another gonna end up a tangled mess especially as Almunia had decided he was commited to the plunge in and this was clearly going to result in a penalty
he went down easily back when we broke up chelseas run did he not?
Brad, no-one's denying he got clattered. What you're saying is, you don't think he was mid-dive when it happened. Everything else in your posts - 'anyone who's played the game... anyone thinking otherwise has little understanding of the game... stonewall... embarrassing farce... "a nonsense"... video evidence 100% confirms it... typical Arsenal...so be it' - is just pure rhetoric.
You don't think he fell over, some agree, others don't. Some, like brophs, Spoony, manufanatic and me, think it was in some sort of middle ground whereby he "played for the penalty". No-one knows for sure, except Rooney, maybe. There's no more to it than that.
You don't think he fell over, some agree, others don't. Some, like brophs, Spoony, manufanatic and me, think it was in some sort of middle ground whereby he "played for the penalty". No-one knows for sure, except Rooney, maybe. There's no more to it than that.
He played for it but so what? Almunia made the mistake of rushing off his line. At the end of the day it's still a Peno and Arsenal fans need to understand this. Contact was made.