posted Nov 19, 2009

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

Of course it was a dive but contact was made and if it had been referred to a video ref, rightly or wrongly a penalty would have been awarded.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

chipleader - the contact has to be deemed strong enough to bring the player down - unless you're suggesting a freekick should be awarded every time a player touches another?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

Chipleader"Of course it was a dive but contact was made and if it had been referred to a video ref, rightly or wrongly a penalty would have been awarded".
_______________________________________________

Anelka kicked Given with his "trailing" leg, no one in their right mind would have awarded a penalty on video evidence of that incident.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

Avellino

Anelka dived and was going down when the contact was made, the goalie didn't cause Anelka to fall over. The thing is that this happens day in day out and when analysed by pundits they always concentrate on the fact that contact occured and therefore a penalty should be awarded...nonesense I know but that is the current thinking.

Ngog for Liverpool got a penalty recently when no contact was made and this was ruled to be correct because the intent was there !!
Therefore if a player attempts a tackle misses the ball (and man) then a foul has been committed... its madness, but Gerrard got a penalty against Sheffield Utd in just this way a few years back.

My point is that if you have video evidence be prepared to get awful but correct decisions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

In fairness Damien Duff does this all the time including in the 2002 world cup when we got our penalty against Spain.

Anelka looked for the penalty last night and the referee correctly didn't give it. I wouldn't go calling Anelka a cheat over it. I think that's going a bit far. It wasn't nearly as bad as the handball incident.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

"Ngog for Liverpool got a penalty recently when no contact was made and this was ruled to be correct because the intent was there !!"

who ruled it to be correct?? Liverpool supporters

if there had been video evidence neither penalty would have been given, both players would have been booked - both would have thought twice before trying it again

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

"Anelka looked for the penalty last night and the referee correctly didn't give it. I wouldn't go calling Anelka a cheat over it. I think that's going a bit far. It wasn't nearly as bad as the handball incident."

Bridgepeople - sorry but both are attempts to gain an unfair advantage - both are cheating

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

Avellino

"Who ruled it to correct?"

The referee gave his reasons for giving Ngog's penalty i.e intent, he was not shot down in flames or called incorrect by the lawmakers...that is the reality I'm afraid.

Diving, handball, shirt pulling are all cheating in my book and the only reason handling the ball is not as rife as the others is because it harder to get away with.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 19, 2009

"The referee gave his reasons for giving Ngog's penalty i.e intent, he was not shot down in flames or called incorrect by the lawmakers...that is the reality I'm afraid."

Clearly Ngog was not evaiding a dangerous chalenge, he was just diving to get a peanalty - but again it comes down to what the referee thinks he has seen - maybe from where he was standing the challenge looked dangerous and so he awarded the penalty - this is the problem referees have , without technology they can only go on what they see, (or think they have seen).

add comment | complain about this comment