Wanted: Suarez - video proof of diving

[Code]

 

 

 

Racist.

[Code]

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.

 

Its a foul as its dangerous play, if Rodwell gets to the ball first means fuck all as long as he takes out the opponent in the process.

[Hand Shandy]

 

Its a foul as its dangerous play' date=' if Rodwell gets to the ball first means fuck all as long as he takes out the opponent in the process.[/quote']

 

As usual, you're talking rubbish.

 

I'm on my phone so can't see the gif, but as I recall Rodwell doesn't go in two-footed, he doesn't have his studs showing, and he doesn't go over the top of the ball.

 

His momentum takes him into Suarez.

 

Using your premise, there'd be no 50-50 challenges...

[Code]

As usual, you're talking rubbish.

 

I'm on my phone so can't see the gif, but as I recall Rodwell doesn't go in two-footed, he doesn't have his studs showing, and he doesn't go over the top of the ball.

 

His momentum takes him into Suarez.

 

Using your premise, there'd be no 50-50 challenges...

 

Thats the rules, learn to live with it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

Thats the rules' date=' learn to live with it.[/quote']

 

It's not the rules he has an issue with, it's the incident. You don't need any contact for it to be a foul, let alone not get the ball.

 

That's not the issue.

[Hand Shandy]

 

Thats the rules' date=' learn to live with it.[/quote']

 

Given the FA overturned the decision and rescinded the red card, I'd gently suggest you wind your neck in.

[Code]

Given the FA overturned the decision and rescinded the red card, I'd gently suggest you wind your neck in.

 

Using an FA decision to back up your argument really is clutching at straws is it not, especially one where Suarez is involved?

[Hand Shandy]

 

Using an FA decision to back up your argument really is clutching at straws is it not' date=' especially one where Suarez is involved?[/quote']

 

Rodwell's red card was rescinded on 4 October. The Suarez-Evra incident, which I assume you're using as evidence of the FA's vendetta against Suarez, didn't happen until 15 October.

[TheHowieLama]

Please stop with the fucking facts - I'm serious. Please.

[Hand Shandy]

Please stop with the fucking facts - I'm serious. Please.

 

Who are you talking to? Me?

[Code]

Rodwell's red card was rescinded on 4 October. The Suarez-Evra incident, which I assume you're using as evidence of the FA's vendetta against Suarez, didn't happen until 15 October.

 

So I assume you mean The FA were like a fountain of objectivity before that then?

[TheHowieLama]

^^^^^

 

Image Detail for - dapper_dancing_penguin.gif tap dancing penguin

[Hand Shandy]

 

So I assume you mean The FA were like a fountain of objectivity before that then?

 

I'm not aware of them having had a particular issue with Suarez before that, no. Your initial response suggested that they did.

 

I don't recall any accusations being levelled at Suarez in relation to this incident, either by the FA or by Everton. The issue was the referee's decision, which was wrong.

 

And Howie Lama, I appreciate that you're getting irritated but what am I supposed to do?

[TheHowieLama]

I'm not aware of them having had a particular issue with Suarez before that, no. Your initial response suggested that they did.

 

I don't recall any accusations being levelled at Suarez in relation to this incident, either by the FA or by Everton. The issue was the referee's decision, which was wrong.

 

And Howie Lama, I appreciate that you're getting irritated but what am I supposed to do?

 

I am supporting you fella - super sneaky like.

[phc1965]

Ill? It's on fucking life-support!

 

If this was a thread on a Manc forum about Young we'd be pissing our sides, rightly so. It's no different, no matter how desperately some mugs cling to slight brushing contact as a life-preserver.

 

that isnt the point though is it. no one is saying (at least im not) that suarez doesn't go down with minimal contact. the whole issue is that every single player in the league does it given the opportunity. suarez gets the opportunity more than most because he is in dangerous positions more than most. opta says so anyway.

 

the complaints on our part are that why is no one else being singled out for the same treatment that suarez is on the end of. dont tell me that its because he is the worst because thats rubbish. there are now and have been in the past players who are far worse that have been and are still judged on the merits of each individual challenge they are on the receiving end of. suarez i believe is the first player in football history that is being denied what is justifiably his based on how he is perceived.

 

what other explanation is there for the ref denying him a pen at norwich. and why do other teams continue to get decisions despite everyone knowing the likes of rooney young and bale are the biggest con artists currently in premier league.

 

 

there is also the point about minimal contact not meaning a foul to be debated. im afraid you are a few years too late bringing that up, as that has been the way of things for many a season. if minimal contact doesnt mean a foul why do refs continue to award free kicks and pens for exactly that.

 

and when we see a replay of a debatable foul why do fans and commentators trot out the line ''well there was contact''.

 

because in modern football contact (or drawing the foul) means its a foul.

 

 

pete

[Stu Monty]

Its a foul as its dangerous play, if Rodwell gets to the ball first means fuck all as long as he takes out the opponent in the process.

 

In your opinion. Given that he'd pretty much stopped travelling and had his foot planted studs down when contact was made there's just as good an argument for a ref to say it wasn't dangerous and wasn't with excessive force. He didn't take Suarez out, he barely touched him.

 

When you state that it's a fact it's a foul, that's when it'll annoy people.

[Stu Monty]

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.

 

You were clearly being sarcastic, you strange individual. Unless it actually does make you happy that people tell you what opinions you are allowed to have? Does it? No; because that would make you a fucking lunatic.

 

You got arsey about being told what opinion you're allowed to have after calling mine a crock of shit. Then negged me in your very own inimitable style (I couldn't give a shit about being negged it's the hilarity of you doing it whilst moaning about your free speech being crushed that I'm pointing out).

 

You carry on though. You keep having running battles with loads of people all over the forum and thinking that the problem isn't in any way you. It's definitely people being precious with you, not the other way round.

[Code]

In your opinion. Given that he'd pretty much stopped travelling and had his foot planted studs down when contact was made there's just as good an argument for a ref to say it wasn't dangerous and wasn't with excessive force. He didn't take Suarez out, he barely touched him.

 

When you state that it's a fact it's a foul, that's when it'll annoy people.

 

But he did not stop Stu, he took out Suarez and we were lucky he did not end up getting injured.

 

Deserved red card and the fact the incompetent FA overturned it does not really make it any less deserved.

 

It was the start of the Suarez problems as well and if I bothered to look it up I could easily find what Ferguson and othjers had to say on the matter.

 

Just because there exist a stone aged view about tackling in England does not make a dangerous tackle any more legal according to the rules.

[Stu Monty]

But he did not stop Stu, he took out Suarez and we were lucky he did not end up getting injured.

 

Deserved red card and the fact the incompetent FA overturned it does not really make it any less deserved.

 

It was the start of the Suarez problems as well and if I bothered to look it up I could easily find what Ferguson and othjers had to say on the matter.

 

Just because there exist a stone aged view about tackling in England does not make a dangerous tackle any more legal according to the rules.

 

Code, I know the laws. It's about interpretation of what is dangerous or excessive force. I don't think that tackle is anywhere near it. Rodwell's got vitually no forward momentum by the time he bumps into Suarez. We can argue if it's a foul or not (there is no FACT here), I'd question the naivety of anyone who would want to question if the reaction is simulation, especially given he was fine two minutes later.

 

Just because other people have avoided getting a bad reputation doesn't mean Suarez doesn't deserve his. He does. If I was a ref I'd need to see a bone to give him anything because he's so prone to making out he's in agony. Like I say, look at his scream and twist when Evans taps him; it's revolting behaviour.

[Stu Monty]

I've just put an article I did a while back for the fanzine, about tackling and diving, on the blog. Take a look if you wish:

 

Stop putting a reducer on tackling

[Code]

Well we are getting nowhere with this anyway, there was clear contact, he took him out and he did it at full speed, I'd say its dangerous play so it was a well deserved red card.

 

But for Suarez to be labelled a diver when he clearly gets fouled that is just outright ridiculous and the fact is everyone was on his case after that game because the usual suspects went crying in the press about it.

[Stu Monty]

Okay, I could reiterate that clear contact isn't a clear foul and that he didn't get "taken out" but I feel it would be pointless.

 

He rolls around on the floor, waving his arm in the air like his leg was broken. He was sprinting two minutes later. Stop glossing over that as if it's not horrible, snidey simulation.

 

He's got a reputation for a diver, a simulator and a massive snide because he is. Only someone with very rose-tinted goggles would argue otherwise.

[Code]

Stu the argument about him running around two minutes later is so poor you dont even believe in it yourself.

 

What did you expect to happen?

 

Are you saying its only a foul if the player is crying like Nani did at Anfield or if he cant walk before the next day?

[Redder Lurtz]

You were clearly being sarcastic, you strange individual. Unless it actually does make you happy that people tell you what opinions you are allowed to have? Does it? No; because that would make you a fucking lunatic.

 

You got arsey about being told what opinion you're allowed to have after calling mine a crock of shit. Then negged me in your very own inimitable style (I couldn't give a shit about being negged it's the hilarity of you doing it whilst moaning about your free speech being crushed that I'm pointing out).

 

You carry on though. You keep having running battles with loads of people all over the forum and thinking that the problem isn't in any way you. It's definitely people being precious with you, not the other way round.

 

Yeah, I'm the only one who ever posted sarcasm on these boards...

 

If anythng got me "arsey" it was your perma-smug style of posting, which I pointed out in my neg which you keep rattling on about although you don't care about it.

 

'night then.

[Stu Monty]

Stu the argument about him running around two minutes later is so poor you dont even believe in it yourself.

 

What did you expect to happen?

 

Are you saying its only a foul if the player is crying like Nani did at Anfield or if he cant walk before the next day?

 

Not at all. They are two seperate points. One is the discussion of this tackle and the other is the reputation he has as a simulator that cannot be trusted.

 

The foul is open to interpretation on what you feel is dangerous. I seem to have a massively different view of danger to you as you feel that was dangerous and justified a red wheras I see it as very little danger, very little force, very little contact and therefore not even a foul.

 

The fact that he simulates being fouled and simulates injuries, and that's why he gets a completely justified reputation, is seperate from the above not being a foul.