So here is how I see it: A dive is where there is no contact made and a player dives... If he had done that I would also condemn the lad! What knockeart did was make the most of an unfair challange which any player in the world would have done considering the situation. Anyone player or any fan who opposes their own player of manipulating the rules is talking ****e. Knockeart used the rules to his advantage JUST AS WATFORD DID FIELDING 8, YES 8, LOAN SIGNINGS in their starting line up... Wanna talk cheats ask the FA to explain Udinese B playing in the ENGLISH championship! All that beside unlucky on the day so many ifs and buts but now to build and get the autos next year!! UTF!!
Exactly. Cassetti's arm is out and over his shoulder. He drags Knockaert's shoulder back and fouls him. It is and was a foul. Just wish he didn't take the penalty.
I didn't think it was a penalty, but it was given. We have had more stonewall pens not given for us this season!!!!
Of course Harborough I dont think it was a clear penalty the appeal in first half was more of a shout. Just ironic all those idiots getting the boot in with "it was deserved" or "cheat" when the irony is Udinese B are going to Wembley by bending the rules in their favor!
Won by a Welsh club Silly me thought it was the nPower Championship - for that, enjoy the TFLS next season Does this make you the new bottlers btw? Fluffed it a few times now haven't you?
I initially didn't think it was a peno because I was looking for trips but on the replays, especially from the reverse angle, you can see the Italian pull him back. An excellent spot by the ref who was much better than the one in the first leg. As Alan Hansen used to say, just because a player goes down easily, doesn't mean it NOT a foul. EDIT: I didn't see anyone else but Knocky taking it. He won it, he's the best technician at the club and he has bags of confidence. Nugent has taken very few penos in his career.
I prefer the term "knocked us out", since you didn't actually beat us in 3 1/2 hours of football and we actually won at your place. Stupid penalties.
Shouldn't that be "stupid penalty taker" or "stupid ker...kar.. Fck it.. That bloke that tried the chip"
It was never a penalty. Though ref's get them wrong all the time, stonewall pens are missed and falls/dives/trips are given.
I thought the definition of diving was to go down exaggerating the amount of contact to gain an unfair advantage and is classed as simulation. That's what he did. What Watford have done with loan signings may seem unfair but is within the rules
Agree - Spinoza had one not given in the cup final yesterday that was stonewall compared to the one today
First of all I would like say unlucky to you all, and say what a great set of supporters Leicester have. But I do want to respond to this post because a bandwagon started just after the New Year and lots of people have jumped on it without really knowing the facts at Watford I really do get frustrated at how often misinformed views are now being made and how need to address some of the inaccuracies, misunderstandings or misinformation that now seem to be propagating throughout the media and football supporters. It is very important to recognise that Watford has not broken any rules, nor found any 'loopholes'. We actually have two players on 'loan', Chalobah from Chelsea and Briggs from Fulham. Under current rules international 'loans' are treated as one year transfers. Had those rules been different, who is to say we would not have signed some of those players permanently? Of the foreign 'loanees' (Fernando Forrestieri who signed permanent terms in January), it was reported when we signed them, that 5 were on ‘year long loan with option to buy’, believed to have been Forrestieri, Abdi, Pudil, Ekstrand and Vydra. So had the rules been different they more than likely would have been signed permanently originally. So despite whether the rules are right or wrong, Watford would more than likely have had the same players this year and in the team yesterday. This season we have also signed 5 of our young academy players on long term contracts. Sean Murray has been in the 16 more often than last season, Tommie Hoban, at 18 years old and having not played for Watford at all last season, had made 19 starts until his ankle injury a few weeks ago (which has kept him out the rest of the season) and was practically an ever present in the defence. 19 year old Connor Smith, who did not play at all last year, had made 7 starts and 5 as sub before his cruciate injury before Christmas, which has kept him out all season. 19 year old Goalkeeper Jonathon Bond, from our Academy, who was not among our first two keepers last year, has been on the bench all season, and made over 10 first team appearances, and one as sub. I look around the league and I see many clubs being in large debt, paying high wages, spending large transfer fees. I see how Portsmouth was run, what happened to Leeds a few years ago through bad club management. I see what has happened at Chelsea over the years, and at Man City now buying success on large debt, and I see how two of the last three owners at Watford have nearly bankrupt the club. I fail to understand why it is OK for clubs to be run at massive debt, who having rich owners that are frivolous with the clubs, try to (and some cases succeed) in buying success, but otherwise put the clubs at risk, is deemed as OK. Yet having owners that are frugal, are operating within the rules, and having a team that is playing very attractive football is now something to be derided?
Whoa there lad - not by a long shot - he's far too erratic and would probably put his knob on the ball rather than use his right foot ... he has a touch of flair about him admittedly but Marshall, James, King, Wellens, Big Wes, Nugent even Gallagher are better 'technicians' ...
I've got no problem with what you have done - it's within the rules as they stand I have written on another thread that I feel the whole loan system is farcical and that loans should only be in cases of 'emergency' - how to define that is difficult - but I'd go with direct replacement for an injured player with the authorities to review on a month-by-month basis.
