Match Day Thread Manchester United v Swansea City

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Watford_R said:
That's not really the point, is it? Obviously fans want their team to get a penalty. The argument is, without looking through a United (or anti-United) lens, should that be considered a dive? Fabianski pulled out of a tackle like a defender can. What right that gives for Rashford to fall over I don't know.
Click to expand...

And Rashford took evasive action like any other player can and will when they anticipate a tackle.

Do you seriously think it would have turned Fabianski's lunge from not being a foul into being a foul if Rashford had jumped towards him instead of away from him? You're basically arguing that the actions of the attacking player is what determines whether the defending player commits a foul.

And ultimately anywhere else on the pitch a referee can and will give a free kick if a player makes a rash challenge, even if they try to pull out of it and don't make any contact. If the challenge is deemed to have been made in an attempt to prevent the opponent playing the ball then it's still a foul, penalised by an indirect free kick.
 
Swarbs said:
And Rashford took evasive action like any other player can and will when they anticipate a tackle.

Do you seriously think it would have turned Fabianski's lunge from not being a foul into being a foul if Rashford had jumped towards him instead of away from him? You're basically arguing that the actions of the attacking player is what determines whether the defending player commits a foul.

And ultimately anywhere else on the pitch a referee can and will give a free kick if a player makes a rash challenge, even if they try to pull out of it and don't make any contact. If the challenge is deemed to have been made in an attempt to prevent the opponent playing the ball then it's still a foul, penalised by an indirect free kick.
Click to expand...

Did he take evasive action or did he just fall over. It wasn't very good evasive action given he collided with the goalkeeper.

I'm saying just run the way you're running and play the ball. If the goalkeeper is stupid/slow enough to take you out then it's a foul. If not, it's not. If a player goes down before contact is made it should override any foul, IMO.
 
Watford_R said:
Did he take evasive action or did he just fall over. It wasn't very good evasive action given he collided with the goalkeeper.

I'm saying just run the way you're running and play the ball. If the goalkeeper is stupid/slow enough to take you out then it's a foul. If not, it's not. If a player goes down before contact is made it should override any foul, IMO.
Click to expand...

His first action was to jump up and away from the keeper, followed by folding his legs under him so it looked like the keeper had taken him out.

Problem is that the current rules incentivise players to take poor evasive action. If they fully avoid contact, they risk being booked, but if they fully accept contact they may be properly taken out and possibly injured. So they do just enough to make contact but not get clattered.

Which is why I think refs should be more willing (and instructed) to give indirect free kicks in cases when players have to dodge contact but don't get properly taken out. That avoids the problem of diving, as the incentive isn't as strong, but also allows refs to penalise keepers who make wild lunges to put the player off and then pull their hands away to try and avoid making contact.

I don't agree that players should have to keep running forwards and risk a keeper, particularly a massive fat **** like Fabianski, going right through their ankle or knee in order to be judged to have been fouled.
 
Swarbs said:
It's a funny one imo. Definitely not enough for a penalty, but hard to argue it wasn't a foul.

After all, if a player makes a slide tackle at another player, making no contact but preventing them from playing the ball, it would be a free kick. So why should a keeper be allowed to throw themselves at the feet of an attacker, forcing them to get out of the way or risk a broken ankle, and get away scot free?

Personally I think there should be more scope for an indirect free kick to be given in cases of obstruction in the box. Saves the ref having to make a penalty decision when it's not clear, and makes a player much less likely to go to ground if they think all they will get is an indirect free kick in a packed box, rather than a full penalty.
Click to expand...


Hard to argue it wasn't a foul? ...How about it wasn't a foul because there was no contact?

Rashford is a cheat.
 
Poor old Swansea.

Well and truly done over by a player I'd hoped wouldn't go in for all that stuff.

Disappointing.
 
With due respect that picture doesn't actually confirm contact at all. The angle can make it look like the fingertip of the glove is touching his leg but in truth an optical illusion may be the case and infact his hand is inches away to the side. I said at the start that I don't have any axe to grind with any premiership team as I have no interest in how they get on. My beef is with the way players go down these days and buy a penalty or free kick. That is most players in most teams in all leagues. When I was about 7 or 8 (a very long time ago) I used to play the old cowboys and indians stuff as loads did in those days with my mates. One of the games was who could run down a grass bank and die best. Some of these modern day players would have put us to shame if we could take them back. Thing is though this is not a childs game it's supposed to be for sport and the huge sums of money now involved. It's ruining the game and managers are encouraging it along with pundits who make constant excuses for it.

In answer to your question a page back Diego I condemn any players very loudly in my own team if I think they have dived and am not forgiving at all. If your player has dived and cheated then just say they have. It won't change the penalty decision or the goal that pretty much always follows it.
 
It was a penalty as the referee gave it. Fabianski was clearly to blame as he took the risk of coming out to clear the player out but decided not to at the last moment. So he took the risk as he made it difficult for the ref and paid the price. End of. <laugh>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back