Indeed. I do wonder whether the simultaneous actions of back push, and leg trip, may force a player to attempt gaining more control over their fall? Either way, I would be surprised if the ref hadn't regretted his decision.
I still don’t agree that he dived. He may, at worst, have ‘gone down a little too easily’, in other words, didn’t try to stop himself from falling at the point that he was simultaneously tripped and pushed but why should he? You’ve obviously decided he’s a diver and that’s it. Black and white. We’re not going to agree but for me, it’s a clear foul and penalty, not a simulation and yellow card.
For what it’s worth, I think the assertion that he dived is nonsense as well, he was fouled and it was as clear a penalty as you’ll ever see.
I think there's a somewhat valid argument that he tried to draw contact given that he held the ball longer than he needed to, but to suggest that there wasn't contact/a foul is just ridiculous. To extrapolate that to the idea that he was somehow deserving of a yellow is just downright nonsense.
Nobody has suggested that. I've repeatedly and explicitly stated I'm not suggesting that. It's a proper weird discussion this.
As someone else posted somewhere if he'd looked up and given it to Burstow all this'd be academic and we'd have won 3-1.
Without watching it again I can’t be sure but wouldn’t the defender who fouled him just have blocked any attempt at crossing?
Yeah, there’s probably a second or two, just before he gets into the box, where he could have played it but either didn’t see it or wasn’t confident he could get it to Burstow without it being intercepted.
When a decision, and the resultant ban, is so clearly wrong there surely has to be a way for a ref or the authorities to overturn it. Absolute madness that there isn't.
I really don't understand why people are struggling so much with what I am and am not saying. I thought I'd been really clear but maybe not. Or maybe people are jumping to a black or white interpretation of posts instead of bothering to take in what they actually say. Obviously there is nothing wrong with being felled. That happens. What I don't agree with is players deliberately jumping over in an unnatural way to try and win a foul. In Puerta's case, he might have been unable to stay on his feet, we'll never know, because he deliberately dived forwards to make it look dramatic. It is absolutely clear on the footage that although yes he is fouled, he then dives over forwards in a totally unnatural way. He doesn't fall, he dives or jumps, whatever you choose to call it. That is what the ref saw and that is why he is now banned. The fact that Puerta was almost certainly fouled remains, but doesn't change the fact that he also dived over forwards with a big, deliberate jump. I don't think that is deniable when you look at the footage.
Think you need to read the FAs own definition which states it is to gain an unfair advantage- clearly this wasn't the case because it was a foul and there would be absolutely no advantage in the circumstances because it was a clear penalty - therefore a dive is only a dive if the player is cheating which wasn't the case with Puerta - therefore it's safe to assume that if you are fouled you can fall over however the mood takes you and it isn't classed as a dive by the FAs own definition
If there was enough contact - which there was - and he's gone down - which he did - then anything else is redundant. Even if he's felt the contact and chosen to go down when he could have stayed on his feet - which he couldn't, and even if he's exaggerated it on the way down - which is what you're referring to, then it's a foul and a penalty. Everything else is redundant. If the suggestion is that Puerta should have gone down more naturally to prevent the ref questioning it, then that's on the ref as the instance was crystal clear. It's scandalous that there's no way to appeal that decision.
If you dislike diving, fair play, most people probably agree. But this is the weirdest possible exemplar to choose to make that point, because any dive he did or didn’t do was negated by the fact he had previously been fouled.
Does anyone think he should have taken the unnatural out of control fall and landed on his head, potential neck breaker, instead of naturally correcting his fall to land safely on his front?
