Jump to content
Lapskaus

Wanted: Suarez - video proof of diving

Recommended Posts

I love Lurtz telling my my opinion is a "crock of shit" then playing the victim when challenged on his opinion being wrong. Great stuff.

 

What you said was a crock of shit. Sorry if you don't like it but it was. And what's this "playing the victim" bollocks then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reckon about 10% of the people who watch and play football understand most of the laws.

rodwell00bkl.gif

 

Foul or not?

 

Infact, dive or not? would be a better choice of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reckon about 10% of the people who watch and play football understand most of the laws.

 

The problem with that statement is that most of the laws of the game are open to interpretation.

 

Using your example - how much contact is enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Contact isn't a foul. I'm not sure how many more time I'd have to say this before you'd think about it.

 

Simulation is pretending to be fouled. So...pretending to be tripped when you've had slight contact. If you can't see that most of the tackles in these clips have not knocked Suarez off balance at all' date=' and that he could have carried on running with no problem at all (ergo, he wasn't tripped, merely brushed), then no amount of words from me will make you see it.

 

I love Lurtz telling my my opinion is a "crock of shit" then playing the victim when challenged on his opinion being wrong. Great stuff.[/quote']

 

Spot on. One of the things I hate most in the modern game is people saying a free kick or penalty should be given because "there was contact". No there shouldn't, football is (for the time being) a contact sport and contact itself isn't illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodwell00bkl.gif

 

Foul or not?

 

Infact, dive or not? would be a better choice of words.

 

Overeaction to contact!

 

It wasn't a foul which is the most important point. But he did catch him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Foul or not?

 

Infact' date=' dive or not? would be a better choice of words.[/quote']

 

Neither on both counts.

 

Rodwell wins the ball but catches Suarez on the way through, which undoubtedly hurt, hence Suarez going down.

 

Edit: therefore a poor refereeing decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Garcia a few years ago?

 

Called a diver by Prentice for the free kick and then someone showed a picture of the tackle which should have been a sending off? Garcia had a reputation as well, nearly got his leg broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whilst the debate about whats a dive and what isn't rages on.

 

Can we all at least agree Suarez has been vilified in a manner which many other chronic divers havn't.

 

Surely we can all see theres a problem there? No matter what side of the fence you're on surely you can see that an agenda has been pursued against Suarez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you said was a crock of shit. Sorry if you don't like it but it was. And what's this "playing the victim" bollocks then?

 

You called my opinion a crock of shit. You then moaned about people not allowing you an opinion.

 

Then you negged me like a mong.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodwell00bkl.gif

 

Foul or not?

 

Infact, dive or not? would be a better choice of words.

 

You could quite easily call that a foul or not based on an individual referees interpretation of the force of Rodwell's tackle. I'd say it's not a foul, the ball was won cleanly with little force by the time they connected.

 

There's enough of a knock to make me think Suarez needed to jump over it but it's simulation. You can't book him because of the little doubt that he actually has hurt himself that much but deep inside you know that's a very, very slim cance.

 

The reaction is embarrassing. I'd send him off to get treatment and forget to let him back on the pitch for about five minutes, at which point his leg miraculously unbreaks and he's sprinting again.

 

Just to note, he jars his ankle that badly in the tackle that he uses it to land on. Not likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing being made of Barnett asking for a yellow when he KNEW he fouled Suarez. That is as big, if not bigger issue than diving as it is attempting to be every bit as deceiving as a diver.

 

And that Mike Jones has no case to answer for that shocker of a non-decision (I'd rather Jones booked Suarez for simulation instead of not making a decision either way, just highlights the incompetence of that moment.) Terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree - until they start showing some yellow for gesticulation after two fellas getting legally stuck in it will always, ultimately, be a more difficult game to handle for the refs. You would think they would have figured that out by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how Suarez reacted to that elbow in the Norwich game.

Didn't throw up his arms and didn't even appeal to the ref. Just pulled his socks up and got on with it.

I think he's realised he'll never get a decision over here and that the waters have been poisoned by influential managers. If he reacts by scoring goals then great as those managers and hacks in the media have just pissed off a very good player.

It will also embarass the FA and refs and there's nothing wrong with that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You called my opinion a crock of shit. You then moaned about people not allowing you an opinion.

 

Then you negged me like a mong.

 

Cheers.

 

Read it again. I said we are allowed opinions.

 

And now you're complaining like a big ponce about being negged. Diddums. Who's playing the victim now? I negged you for being so up your own arse you must be able to see out of your own nose. It's a position in which you spend much of your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reckon about 10% of the people who watch and play football understand most of the laws.

 

I played against a player in our 5aside Powerleague the other week who - and I shit you not - thought a direct free-kick meant you HAD to shoot on goal. The goon.

 

The worst thing was he was a decent player too. Just an absolute braindead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing being made of Barnett asking for a yellow when he KNEW he fouled Suarez. That is as big, if not bigger issue than diving as it is attempting to be every bit as deceiving as a diver.

 

And that Mike Jones has no case to answer for that shocker of a non-decision (I'd rather Jones booked Suarez for simulation instead of not making a decision either way, just highlights the incompetence of that moment.) Terrible.

 

Good point. And whilst Chris Foy is banished to Accrington for spoiling Ferguson's day, the ever-incompetent Mike 'beach ball' Jones gets to referee - West Brom vs QPR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
Overeaction to contact!

 

It wasn't a foul which is the most important point. But he did catch him.

 

No foul, no dive. His foot gets trapped as he's jumping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of seasons ago when berbatov's foot was brushed by agger at OT, he fell over, won the penalty, they scored.

 

There was certainly contact but nothing that would cause a man to fall over. One is allowed to make contact with another player because it is a contact sport. contact is not necessarily a foul.

 

This was a dive (IMO)

 

However what annoys me is when co-comentators suggest that 'if he's not given a pen then he needs to book him for diving'

 

No he fucking doesn't. if its not a pen then the refs opinion is that there wasn't enough force in the contact to cause him to tumble, but there's enough doubt to let play go on. It doesnt HAVE to be one or the other. I think its this projected necessity for it to be either a pen or a dive that causes much of the uproar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couple of seasons ago when berbatov's foot was brushed by agger at OT, he fell over, won the penalty, they scored.

 

There was certainly contact but nothing that would cause a man to fall over. One is allowed to make contact with another player because it is a contact sport. contact is not necessarily a foul.

 

This was a dive (IMO)

 

However what annoys me is when co-comentators suggest that 'if he's not given a pen then he needs to book him for diving'

 

No he fucking doesn't. if its not a pen then the refs opinion is that there wasn't enough force in the contact to cause him to tumble, but there's enough doubt to let play go on. It doesnt HAVE to be one or the other. I think its this projected necessity for it to be either a pen or a dive that causes much of the uproar.

 

Makes for great telly that skyfan mongs can get up and shout at the ref through their tv's about though doesn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×