cardiff's Wales on line are so predictable and have been praying we would get relegated since the first day we played our first game in the premiership but we have been making them look a joke paper and internet site every season and we have done it again this season..
I really hope Lawro keeps on predicting losses for us. It's a bit of a lucky charm! I'd be worried if he changed his tunes... I think our form would plummet!
Lawro is certainly a bit of an oddball,and if he is anti -Welsh as stated earlier,then it would tie in to his strange match score predictions for us. Not so strange though that MOTD showed our match last,we're used to it by now,but in the post match analysis they annoyingly preferred to focus all the allotted time on why Sam Vokes should have dived to get a penalty when Taylor had his arms around him in the box. We see this sort of thing every match without any caution from refs so why they highlighted this incident and admonished Vokes for being honest and not diving is beyond me.
KG I was staggered that both said that he should have fallen over (and technically cheat), when the contact wasn't enough to make him fall over, quite rightly pointed out by GL. As long as pro's encourage players to go down when the contact isn't enough to bring you down, the cheating will continue. By the way I thought it was a penalty.
The thing is, I've heard many a pro say that if they manage to stay on their feet, the penalty doesn't get given, hence the diving. A player doesn't have to be floored for it to be a penalty, but it appears that they are a lot more likely to get the penalty if they go down.
It was a penalty definitely, but for those two suggest to dive to get that penalty is disgusting, and it shows the mentality of them in their playing days coming through to their punditry. Also there was one game where a player dived and these pundits were all over it, they need to make up their minds what they want. Why the bbc pays these people money is beyond me! For me Vokes is a good player and an honest one, he had the right attitude in his interview, sometimes it's given sometimes it's not.
I think Vokes was honest on the field of play, but his honesty has potentially cost his team a point (had the penalty been scored). It was a clear penalty, and sometimes you have to fall over to get it - kind of helping the referee to make the right call. I'm with Gullit - it's not cheating. He was fouled and the ref didn't give it - in essence, Vokes has been cheated by the referee. Let's not make this a diving issue, this is primarily a refereeing issue. If the referees would give penalties when honest players stay on their feet while being fouled, then there would be no need for diving in the first place! And then players that still persist with diving can be dealt with more strongly as a result.
But it's a referee issue and not a player one, you can be fouled without falling over and fouls are given in every game for this. Gary Lineker had it right imo , you shouldn't go down if unless you can't help it. If he went down on this when there was no need then I'm sorry it's diving! I'm fed up of players pretending to be pole axed by the slightest of touches, or not by that game I mentioned. It's horrible to watch football players trying to get their opponents sent off
Definitely a penalty but we have had them against us too on many occasions so to get the rub of the green is about time and i wont complain. Its dog eat dog out there now as everyone is fighting for points for one reason or another...
Pretending to be poleaxed and just falling over and claiming a penalty are two different things. There are cases where it's simulation - players are rolling around trying to win penalties and get players booked/sent off - and there are cases where it's just a player going to ground to highlight to the ref that it was a foul, because otherwise, they wouldn't get it. You may say that fouls are given every game for this, and you're right, but you're wrong if you think that penalties are regularly given for fouls where the player stays on his feet, they aren't. Refs aren't brave enough to make these calls in the box for some reason. Best comparison I can think of is the penalty that Bony won, and scored, at Stoke earlier this season. Shawcross with arms on him, and Bony collapses his legs (for you, he dives) to get the penalty. If Bony had stayed on his feet, he would not have got the penalty, just like Vokes. But, at the same time, it doesn't mean that Shawcross wasn't fouling him. Until referees decide that they're going to give penalties for fouls on honest players, players will continue to have to fall to the ground to claim the penalty. The referees need to be braver...but they won't be.
It's still a dive, and you highlighting Bony on this by saying he wouldn't have got a penalty is pure speculation, you don't know that! And it pisses me off no matter who does it, there are plenty of Swans players who do this and it should be stamped out of the game. Retrospective bans on players and citing clubs after will quickly end this cheating, because that is what it is! When Fifa allows technology to be used I think you'll find that the game will be more honest, I know some will say it will ruin the game, but I don't think it will, this is multi million industry that has no more control than 50 years ago, that cannot be right when you consider a team being relegated losing millions for a mistake
I may be speculating, but I'm speculating with the weight of overbearing statistics behind my speculation. If Bony had stayed on his feet, the referee would've taken a view that the grappling wasn't strong enough to give a penalty, or else why wouldn't Bony complain or appeal for a foul? Can you name me 5 examples where players who stayed on their feet while being held have got a penalty this season? I'm struggling to think of one. The only examples I can think of is shirt pulling - where the shirt is obviously outstretched - you don't need to fall to the ground to win those. But, generally, all grappling and grabbing of opposition players (usually from corners and free kicks) is going unpunished unless the player goes to ground. That's just the way it is. That's just the way referees handle those situations. And it's wrong. I don't know how live video technology could be used for in-match decisions like this (as the ball didn't go out of play), so not sure that's the answer for penalty claims. Retrospective action would work though and I'm all for it too. I think it's a certainty to stop a certain type of diving. But claiming a penalty when you're being fouled by falling over isn't at the same level. You are being fouled. If you fall to the ground holding your leg or face when it wasn't hit, that's diving. If you fall to the floor when nobody even put a tackle in on you, that's diving. But if someone has their hands around your waist in a rugby tackle fashion, obviously fouling you and preventing you from jumping, and you fall to the ground, there's an obvious difference in this situation because a foul has occurred, and essentially you're highlighting to the ref that you do not want advantage because you're still on your feet. If he'd gone to ground and got the penalty, there couldn't have been any complaints from a single Swans fan because Taylor definitely fouled him. It shouldn't have made a difference to the ref about whether Vokes stayed on his feet or not. He had a clear view of Taylor's rugby tackle and didn't give a penalty. Why didn't he give it? He'd have given it anywhere else on the pitch, but he didn't have the balls to give it where it mattered. Therein lies the problem with referees. They find it harder to give a penalty than not. This wasn't a borderline decision in our match. This was a rugby tackle and a yellow card for Taylor (as it wasn't necessarily a goal-scoring opportunity). We got away with it big-time. All said and done, I don't care because we won. But the referees have got to sort themselves out. By not rewarding the honest players who stay on their feet, they are continually justifying 'diving'. If you want it stamped out, the referees must begin to reward fair play, and not foul play. In the case in our match on Saturday, the referee rewarded Taylor's foul play, and punished Vokes' fair play. Backwards refereeing. When Moses won his penalty against us, the referee rewarding his foul play diving. As long as diving reaps rewards, players will do it. Football must find a way for diving to punishable, and retrospective action is the best answer. And the punishment must be severe enough (at least 3 games for every dive - on par with serious foul play) to deter the players.
What is it with the BBC, now another of their top pundits (not) is having a go at us!! http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31682797
"Swansea City captain Ashley Williams should be playing for a top six club " Guess he'll have to make do with a top eight club. Must be galling for Ash.
TBF Shawcross took some effort to wrestle Bony to the ground, it wasn't just arms around him. In Taylor's defence Vokes had his arm in Taylor's face and Taylor could have gone down as there was clearly contact. Against Taylor is the fact he keeps doing this (getting under a player's arm and holding around the midriff) and, as it works, will probably until he gives away a penalty - Fellaini complained about Taylor doing this a few times last week but because of the height difference it looked like Taylor was simply unable to compete shoulder to shoulder and as the opponent didn't hit the deck the ref played on. Had Vokes gone down, Taylor would have had no complaint. It's not kong ago that Routledge was being castigated for keeping his feet in the penalty area.
As good as he is for us he may be too old for a big money move - but you never know. He wouldn't be the first to want to leave the current set up.
I was about to post the same as your first sentence. But then you couldn't resist putting in the second sentence. #disappointed
For me, Bony collapses his legs and goes down. All Shawcross was doing was holding Bony to stop him getting a run. Once Bony realised that he was being held, he looks at the ref, screams, and collapses his legs. Like with Vokes, there "isn't enough to make him go down", as Lineker said. The video is here - it's as soft as the Vokes incident - http://www.timesoccer.com/video/110/02-swansea-city-vs-stoke-city-live-highlights.html You've said it all in your post though. "as the opponent didn't hit the deck the ref played on", "Had Vokes gone down, Taylor would have had no complaint." and "Routledge was being castigated for keeping his feet in the penalty area". All great points for me. The most important is the one I've highlighted. Why should a player have to go down to get a penalty? Refs need to stand up (excuse the pun) to the pressure and give the pens when a player stays on his feet. Even if we end up with 4 penalties a game for the next 3 months, the players will soon learn.
