LIVE! Match discussion 2014/15

[slink]

It's a reckless challenge. I wasn't aware you had to make contact for it to be a foul?

You don't but it's still not a penalty. Rooney beats the keeper and can stay on his feet in doing so but opts to flop to the floor so despite the shit challenge it is not a penalty. That means for every tackle that comes in that is slightly reckless but misses everything and you skip by you can just go to ground because the challenge was reckless.

If you think that then fair enough but that's nonsense, there is no way that is a penalty for any player for any team anywhere, if a Wolves player did that i'm saying no pen and booked for diving. I know plenty will say i'm just saying that but that's the way it is. If Rooney can't stay on his feet then fair enough but he clearly can but decides not to.

 

[North West Wanderer]

You don't but it's still not a penalty. Rooney beats the keeper and can stay on his feet in doing so but opts to flop to the floor so despite the shit challenge it is not a penalty. That means for every tackle that comes in that is slightly reckless but misses everything and you skip by you can just go to ground because the challenge was reckless.

If you think that then fair enough but that's nonsense, there is no way that is a penalty for any player for any team anywhere, if a Wolves player did that i'm saying no pen and booked for diving. I know plenty will say i'm just saying that but that's the way it is. If Rooney can't stay on his feet then fair enough but he clearly can but decides not to.

It's a poor late tackle and for me a penalty regardless of contact or not.

 

[slink]

It's a poor late tackle and for me a penalty regardless of contact or not.

So Aguero goes past De Gea and does that you still think it's a pen?

 

[North West Wanderer]

So Aguero goes past De Gea and does that you still think it's a pen?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

And for the record, absolutely.

 

[slink]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

And for the record, absolutely.

Fair enough for sticking to your guns, don't want to be a prick about it but you're wrong though.

I'm amazed anyone thinks that is a penalty, it's just a dive.

 

[North West Wanderer]

Fair enough for sticking to your guns, don't want to be a prick about it but you're wrong though.

I'm amazed anyone thinks that is a penalty, it's just a dive.

It's my opinion so how can it be wrong? Ate you telling me what to think now?!

It's a penalty IMO regardless of the dive. It's reckless and late and therefore IMO that's a penalty, and a foul anywhere else on the pitch too. The dive in reality doesn't matter as it happens after the incident.

All in my opinion.

 

[Johnny75]

Please don't think I'm putting words in your mouth NWW, would it be far to say you think Rooney was impeded by the 'keeper and that's the foul rather than possible contact causing him to fall (or not in this case)?

I think the confusion is with the dive itself which is after the incident.

 

[slink]

It's my opinion so how can it be wrong? Ate you telling me what to think now?!

It's a penalty IMO regardless of the dive. It's reckless and late and therefore IMO that's a penalty, and a foul anywhere else on the pitch too. The dive in reality doesn't matter as it happens after the incident.

All in my opinion.

I never told you what to think but i am saying that you thinking it is a penalty is wrong. Yes that may be your opinion but it's still wrong on the fact that Rooney beats the keeper and then dives to the floor. If he had caught his leg then it's a foul, if him coming out puts Rooney off balance and he falls over then fair enough it's a pen. But neither of those happened, Rooney goes past him, is not impeded at all and drops to the floor.

What you're saying from what i can gather is a player can go one on one with a keeper who comes out fast to close him down, said striker knocks the ball past the keeper and jumps over him but can then fall to the floor as the keeper was a bit reckless. I can guarantee if Rooney was one on one and had an empty net once he had gone past the keeper he 100% does not go down, therefore no pen.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Just watching the Leverkusen vs Wolfsburg highlights, Benaglio really is a dreadful goalkeeper. Mind you Leno at the other end isn't much better.

 

[darlowolf64]

On the Rooney dive..."He had to dive to avoid the contact" yet in the build up a defender tried to obstruct him by attempting a bodycheck. He managed to get around that without throwing himself to the floor but he'd only of got a free kick there :commentator:

 

[North West Wanderer]

Please don't think I'm putting words in your mouth NWW, would it be far to say you think Rooney was impeded by the 'keeper and that's the foul rather than possible contact causing him to fall (or not in this case)?

I think the confusion is with the dive itself which is after the incident.

Sort of yes mate. The ball wasn't there when the keeper came in, and the keeper impeded Rooney who then dived. The dive was after the bad tackle. Therefore a penalty but a dive!

 

[North West Wanderer]

I never told you what to think but i am saying that you thinking it is a penalty is wrong. Yes that may be your opinion but it's still wrong on the fact that Rooney beats the keeper and then dives to the floor. If he had caught his leg then it's a foul, if him coming out puts Rooney off balance and he falls over then fair enough it's a pen. But neither of those happened, Rooney goes past him, is not impeded at all and drops to the floor.

What you're saying from what i can gather is a player can go one on one with a keeper who comes out fast to close him down, said striker knocks the ball past the keeper and jumps over him but can then fall to the floor as the keeper was a bit reckless. I can guarantee if Rooney was one on one and had an empty net once he had gone past the keeper he 100% does not go down, therefore no pen.

You agreed with me earlier that there doesn't have to be contact for it to be a foul. Now you're saying there does have to be contact. The dive for me is irrelevant. The foul occurred before it.

 

[Langers]

I don't like the whole 'you can still concede the penalty without there being contact' argument TBH. For me, Rooney has seen the keeper charge out needlessly and recklessly, and has dived to win the penalty. But he's not been touched - 'anticipation' or not, he's not touched him. Hence a dive, hence no penalty. And I'd be annoyed if a Wolves player did that.

As for the equaliser, I think it's a bollocks rule that is totally down to interpretation and debate - too many grey areas with the whole 'interfering with play' rule. I wish they'd just make it simpler - if you're stood offside, you're offside regardless of where abouts you are in relation to the ball, the keeper's line of sight etc.

 

[Kenny]

I don't like the whole 'you can still concede the penalty without there being contact' argument TBH. For me, Rooney has seen the keeper charge out needlessly and recklessly, and has dived to win the penalty. But he's not been touched - 'anticipation' or not, he's not touched him. Hence a dive, hence no penalty. And I'd be annoyed if a Wolves player did that.

.

Maybe players would be more inclined to stay on their feet if they got a penalty when fouled in the area but don't hit the deck. Too many times, especially at Molineux, a player gets fouled and if they had gone down instead of trying to stay on their feet they would have won a penalty.

 

[Langers]

Maybe players would be more inclined to stay on their feet if they got a penalty when fouled in the area but don't hit the deck. Too many times, especially at Molineux, a player gets fouled and if they had gone down instead of trying to stay on their feet they would have won a penalty.

Indeed - penalised for being honest is a bit of a kick in the teeth. Which ironically probably would get you a penalty.

 

[ROVERT47]

I still think if both incidents had happened at the other end of the pitch and Preston had been the beneficiaries of two contentious Referreeing decisions then the conversation would have been more along the lines of, 'what goes around comes around'.

 

[Sniffer]

Indeed - penalised for being honest is a bit of a kick in the teeth. Which ironically probably would get you a penalty.

Frimpong didn't get one against the Villa when his head was nearly taken off.

 

[Langers]

Frimpong didn't get one against the Villa when his head was nearly taken off.

Well obviously it doesn't help if the official is a total fucktard.

 

[darlowolf64]

I still think if both incidents had happened at the other end of the pitch and Preston had been the beneficiaries of two contentious Referreeing decisions then the conversation would have been more along the lines of, 'what goes around comes around'.

If the incidents, all three, had happened at the other end the first would probably of been given offside, the second would of been deemed a push by the attacker and the third would of been deemed a dive. ( just my opinion mind you)

 

[Langers]

There was nothing wrong with Fellaini's goal - just the defender being piss weak IMO. I wouldn't be happy with one of our defenders doing that. And technically, the first goal was correctly given, even if I think the rule is stupid.