LIVE! Match discussion 2014/15

[Langers]

If it had been Dicko at Molineux and he had stayed on his feet and missed the chance i wonder how many Wolves fans would have been saying, 'he should have gone down'.

Not me. I'm not a fan of cheating. Especially not from a player I'm supporting.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

If it had been Dicko at Molineux and he had stayed on his feet and missed the chance i wonder how many Wolves fans would have been saying, 'he should have gone down'.

I do not know, but one thing I know is that clubs encourage players to go down in those situations. Whether one agrees with what Rooney did, the sad fact is that the majority of players would have done the same.

 

[ROVERT47]

Not me. I'm not a fan of cheating. Especially not from a player I'm supporting.

Fair play and i applaud you for it mate but it's not reality.

 

[North West Wanderer]

So in short, every missed tackle is a foul. Interesting.

??

 

[Lycan]

Just seen Phil Neville's 'punditry' from last night on the BBC Sport website. Claiming that Rooney had no choice but to go down as he was 'taking evasive action'. A completely absurd point of view and clearly biased. Laughable from the man who performed this horrendous attempt at a dive.

 

[PuntsWolf]

If it had been Dicko at Molineux and he had stayed on his feet and missed the chance i wonder how many Wolves fans would have been saying, 'he should have gone down'.

There's a difference between not staying on your feet and diving.

Dicko has dived a couple of times this year and got grief on here for it.

 

[Lycan]

Afobe dived vs Huddersfield. It was pretty pathetic really and he was rightfully booked.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

No matter how often Trev repeats it in a slightly different way, not that many people lose all their objective capacity once Wolves are involved.

FWIW there was an incident in the Brighton game where Sako went past Halford, Halford had a bit of a swing at him and there was some contact, Sako stayed on his feet, crossed it and nothing came of it. Now in that situation I'm happy enough for the player to go down even if the contact isn't necessarily automatically going to make you fall over. That would be Halford's problem for being a shite defender.

 

[ROVERT47]

No matter how often Trev repeats it in a slightly different way, not that many people lose all their objective capacity once Wolves are involved.

FWIW there was an incident in the Brighton game where Sako went past Halford, Halford had a bit of a swing at him and there was some contact, Sako stayed on his feet, crossed it and nothing came of it. Now in that situation I'm happy enough for the player to go down even if the contact isn't necessarily automatically going to make you fall over. That would be Halford's problem for being a $#@!e defender.

Fair enough and i know you don't fall into this category but a lot of the comments have been fuelled by the hatred for Man U and in particular Wayne Rooney, not just on here, i've been hearing it at work all day.

 

[Langers]

Just looked at the main sports page on the BBC website and remembered Slink's post from last night:

If that was a foreign player, there would be uproar about how they bring cheating into our game. Yes it's a shit challenge from the keeper but it's still a dive.

Because it's Wayne Rooney, it's scrutinised just as much as if it was a foreign player.

(FWIW I agree with what Slink said about it being a dive)

 

[Kenny]

Oliver Kay backing the view of NWW

"Jump was "evasive action". Fall wasn't. Only the uncoordinated would fall in those circumst'ces. A foul and a dive"

 

[North West Wanderer]

Just looked at the main sports page on the BBC website and remembered Slink's post from last night:



Because it's Wayne Rooney, it's scrutinised just as much as if it was a foreign player.

(FWIW I agree with what Slink said about it being a dive)

Has anyone Said it wasn't a dive? It was, but it was a foul before!

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I don't see any reason why you can't (in this particular circumstance) have a foul (which it was and so the penalty has been correctly given) AND a dive after the event, for which Rooney could or possibly should be asked to explain his actions or possibly receive some form of sanction.

 

[slink]

Just looked at the main sports page on the BBC website and remembered Slink's post from last night:



Because it's Wayne Rooney, it's scrutinised just as much as if it was a foreign player.

(FWIW I agree with what Slink said about it being a dive)

I think it's quite a big story but there are people backing Wayne Rooney in saying he had to take evasive action. Suarez does that last season and i think he gets dogs abuse from everyone and not 1 person would back him up.

 

[slink]

Has anyone Said it wasn't a dive? It was, but it was a foul before!

It wasn't a foul NWW. I understand what you are saying about the challenge being reckless but it wasn't and he didn't impede Rooney. If the keeper had stopped a yard away Rooney took the same touch as he would, the only thing different was a slightly bigger step to clear the keeper. Had Rooney been put off balance and not been able to get to the other side then i could have understood a penalty being given even if i would have been in favour of it but that didn't happen.

I think it's worrying that people involved in the game think it was penalty and Rooney was taking evasive action. He went past the keeper and saw a chance to win a penalty by cheating, pure and simple.

 

[Del Woppio]

Exactly. The penalty wasn't given for the jump over the keeper, it was given for the needless theatrical dive. For the cheating.

 

[Alan]

Just seen the Rooney incident for the first time and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could think that even 1% of that merits a penalty.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Exactly. The penalty wasn't given for the jump over the keeper, it was given for the needless theatrical dive. For the cheating.

Diving does not constitute a penal offence. The penalty was given for the challenge by the goalkeeper.

 

[Del Woppio]

Diving does not constitute a penal offence. The penalty was given for the challenge by the goalkeeper.

No, it was given because the act of simulation fooled the referee into thinking that the goal keeper had knocked Rooney over. Because of the cheating. The goal keeper's actions did not cause Rooney to go to ground. That was entirely his choice. He chose to do so to get a penalty.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

No, it was given because the act of simulation fooled the referee into thinking that the goal keeper had knocked Rooney over. Because of the cheating. The goal keeper's actions did not cause Rooney to go to ground. That was entirely his choice. He chose to do so to get a penalty.

Fair comment.