I agree with Red Nev's take on this; it's the point I've made. Bale was fouled so there is no question of him diving without contact. But the contact wasn't sufficient to send him sprawling as he did. His fall was calculated; gamesmanship to try to influence the ref to award a penalty, but it backfired. Bale decided the best option was to go down as he was at a tight angle and unlikely to get a decent shot on goal. He didn't expect a booking because, having been fouled, he expected the ref to rule in his favour. G Nev says that you do what's best for the team; you should play to win. Bale took the best option. It wasn't the sporting thing to do, but all players do the same and are encouraged to do so. Nobody can claim the moral high ground here.
How can anyone except Bale know if he could of stayed on his feet or not? Also the tight angle is where he has scored a lot of goals from for us. Check out the Inter Milan game where we scored 3 for instance.
I wouldn't disagree with a lot of what Neville says. However, someone should remind so called professionals, like Twatkinson ( I do love that name!) that they are supposed to judge the incident on hand, as they see it, not on the players reputation
Yes. This is a case where complications and subtleties are numerous enough that only careful analysis is likely to yield a good solution--meaning it ain't gonna happen.
Completely disagree. Bale has absolutely no reason to go down, as he's clear through on goal and fancies himself to score from any angle, let alone the fairly decent one he had. He goes over because he's impeded, both with the knee collision and by the arm across his chest.
There's been a lot of discussion. Too much, fueled by the media. Noone is calling Suarez a diver any more already and all he's done is stay up for 3 games, simples
I love how everyone is now an expert on human physiology, knowing exactly what it's like to run at the same speed as Bale and knowing that the contact on the side of his knee going at that pace was not enough to send him falling 'like that'. I had the misfortune to listen to TalkShiite last night, which I do from time to time and continue to regret it, and Cundty "knows" that the contact wasn't enough and "knows" it was a dive. Yeah, really? Well I was not as fast as Bale but I was a sprinter when I was young and I "know" that I wouldn't have wanted that sort of contact against my knee when I was a full pace, and "know" that I would have gone down. I certainly don't know how I would have gone down but it certainly wouldn't have been pretty - and I would submit that nobody knows how someone would fall, and anyone that claims they do is talking bollox.
Is this not a bit contradictory? In one sentence you are saying that nobody can know but are then essentially saying that you would have defiantly gone down despite not being in that situation, and it sounds like you are saying that there was enough contact to go down, yet you underline the word nobody. How can you know that you would have gone down had you been in that situation?
How can you ever assess what a player's intent is? But refs have to do in many circumstances and have to assess the evidence available to them objectively. Three bookings for simulation suggests that, rightly or wrongly, some refs think Bale is diving. I don't think Bale dived on Saturday. He was fouled. But he wasn't running at full pace where slight contact might have sent him off balance. The contact did not appear sufficient to send him sprawling as he did. I think it's reasonable to hold the opinion that Bale fell theatrically to exaggerate the foul and to increase the likelihood that the ref would spot the offence and award the penalty. He isn't the first to do this- and he won't be the last. But it backfired because the ref- and it's his view of the incident which ultimately matters- thought he had simply dived.
He's actually saying that he thinks he would go down in that situation, using the word "know" in inverted commas to indicate that. He underlined the word nobody when he was talking about how Bale went down, rather than the fact that he did.
Haven't read any of the replies (cos my head hurts!) but can I just say in response to the original question What to do with Bale? Absolutely nothing, let him carry on exactly as he is doing, because missing the odd game in the season because of mostly incorrect bookings I personally can live with.
Listened to TalkShite while out for a walk earlier, regretted it (again). Didn't hear too much of it (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but Cundty was saying that diving and general cheating is OK if it gets something for your team, and it's the officials fault if they get away with it, not the cheats. Now this is bad enough if: > he didn't say last week that Bale most certainly dived against Sunderland and although there was contact there was no reason to go down (1) like he knows for sure (see rest of this thread for reasons why that's not possible) and that (2) the booking was justified etc (i.e. completely the opposite of what he said last night); and > he defended the Suarez handball and said he felt sorry for him. I'd like to think he's just a WUM like Durham, but I think he might even be serious about holding contradictory opinions at the same time! Also caught a bit of the Brighton / Toon match commentary on Saturday, when commentator Pearce and pundit (can't remember who it was but it's an ex-Chelsea scottish guy) took time out of the match while it was still going on to have a dig at Bale, saying he needs to sort himself out and the pundit saying (again another physiology expert) that there was no need for Bale to "dive" (even though he's sprinting and someone's distinctly moved his knee to one side while missing the ball completely). Main point being why are the media ganging up on Bale when there's so many more obvious candidates? Why wasn't there such a backlash against Young last season where the pens he "won" nearly won the league for ManU - in other words changed the result of matches when Bale I don't believe has ever gained any advantage whatsoever from "diving". Why wasn't there such a backlash against Carzola's dive a few weeks back? Lazy "journalism" (not that you can really call these sports commentators and pundits journalists).
Because he plays for Spurs, Vimhawk. Our fans don't mount campaigns to dislodge presenters that say negative things about our players, whether they're true or not.
This. Totally agree, no moral high ground to be had, its a sport where winning is required at all costs and if you don't win you get sacked.
