I read that as he was going off - Barton said to him - you had to do what you did. If he had not done it - they would likely have scored and we would not be up. So given that - do we condone the professional foul on behalf of the team and all of us on here? I know what I think.........
He will have been congratulated by each and every member of the squad, coaching staff and owners. He took one for the team. It's not called a PROFESSIONAL foul for nothing.
Difficult one, isn't it? There is no guarantee that Derby would have scored had O'Neill not fouled their man, nor that QPR would go on to lose the game. Had they scored, they may have then sat back to protect their lead, resulting in more opportunity for us. It's all ifs and buts. All we know is the decision O'Neill took, the decision the referee made and the outcome of the game. On that basis it's hard to make him the villain. But if you condone the professional foul you possibly have to also condone the dive/simulation, as they're two sides of the same coin.
I'm not sure I agree with that mate. The professional foul is more honest than the dive/simulation. There is no attempt to deceive the referee and no attempt to get an opponent sent off for something they haven't done.
As I said, they're not the same thing, but two sides of the same coin...perhaps at different ends of the same 'cheat continuum' would be a better description. By that I mean they're both attempts to gain advantage outside of the acceptable rules of the game. If you think it acceptable for the last man (your player) to bring an opponent down to prevent a goal, then why would you object to the same player falling over like he's been shot by a sniper in order to win a penalty and/or get a player sent off? Both impure acts in my opinion.
If O'Neill hadn't did what he did then their player would have had a clear shot at goal. he might have scored, he might have sliced it wide, Green might have made a fantastic save. Even if he had scored there was still plenty of time left for us to try to get an equaliser. It is all ifs and maybes. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and using that O'Neill made the right call. It does mean of course, he will be suspended for the first three matches of next season.
Surely all fouling is attempting to gain advantage outside of the acceptable rules of the game? Is a so called "professional foul" actually any different from any other foul? Climbing on an opponent in order to make a header, holding back an opponent or blocking off their run from a corner, or hauling someone down in midfield with plenty of players around, is there really any difference to a so-called "professional foul"? Diving is an attempt to deceive the ref which, to my mind, is a different level of cheating.
Fair enough, Roller. I don't feel that strongly either way to be honest. What I know about footballing morals wouldn't fill a gnat's condom anyway.
"A professional foul is a deliberate act of foul play, usually to prevent an opponent from scoring." The key points being that it's deliberate and to prevent a goal scoring opportunity, so yes it's very different to a normal foul!
