Premier League Thread 2015-16

Er, there was no contact?

 

I'm also leaning towards Shearer's opinion.

 

I can assure you I'm not.

 

Said on Sunday Supplement that there was minimal contact if anything and the other stewards tried to stop the complaint...someone after a moment of fame.

 

(I was kidding)

 

http://eplindex.com/72831/art-creativity.html

Article suggesting that the problems at Chelsea and United are a lack of trust in creative players, whereas the trend elsewhere is to buy fewer out and out strikers, but spend on the creative side. Not about us, but they do mention Tadic, Clasie and Mane for Saints.

 

Not Maya?

 

The problems lays in the interpretation of "intent", was Butland intending to get first to the ball or was he intending to "take" the player out to prevent him getting the ball, thin line. Remy didn't have to leap, but did so probably to avoid injuring the GK and more important not picking up an injury himself, these things happen in a instant, no real time to think, more just time to react. No penalty in my opinion but have seen them given.

 

Butland dived to get to the ball, but was beaten by the pace of Remy.
To say that he "tried to trip Remy", is your interpretation to support your view that it should have been a penalty, which is why we have to think long and hard at giving free kicks/penalties for non contact "fouls".
If, and it's a big if, a free kick was to be given, for that particular incident, where IMO there was no intent to foul Remy, it should be considered obstruction, which would be an indirect free kick, and not a penalty, because there was no contact.
Equally it was not reckless, dangerous or even careless.

Not having a go at you, but there are a lot of referees that know the rules of the game, but don't understand how it's played, which is why, when personal interpretation is needed to decide on incidents, there is so much inconsistency in decision making.

 

Aguero injured and now Bony is injured.

 

I just watched the highlights of the Chelsea-Saints game again to compare Falcao's dive and booking with what Remy did yesterday. Not quite a clear comparison as Falcao wasn't heading towards the goal, so it wasn't a clear goal-scoring opportunity, but the rest of the incidents were pretty similar. The difference is that Falcao made no attempt to stay on his feet, quite the opposite, whereas Remy tried his hardest. Yet Tom and others appear to be saying that in both cases, because the attacking player was impeded, a penalty should have been given. As you say, Badger, yesterday's shout wasn't a pen, and neither was Falcao's.

 

Well ........ I saw it this morning and I wondered what the ref would have given if an outfield player had gone in with both feet like Butland did .......... I'm pretty sure it would have been given.
Personally, I think keepers have too much protection and many take advantage of it - bring back the days when the centre-forward could barge him into the goal

 

But didn't many of those saying Remy should have had a penalty, say the ref was right not to award a penalty to Falcao?

 

The two scenarios were completely different. Falcao dived. He started his fall before any contact. Yesterday Remy had to hurdle Butland to avoid him, and therefore he was impeded.

 

By the letter of the law, I believe it should have been a penalty. But that is not to say that I agree with that law. For me there needs to real recklessness involved with a challenge, for a foul to be given when there is no contact. My take is that Remy choose to avoid contact to try and score, not to avoid serious injury due to a really poor tackle. So for me it's tough luck on his part for arguably making the wrong choice. But yes, I accept that that is not the rule.

The talk about it encouraging diving is interesting. There's generally two categories of "diving". Where there has been no contact or foul, and you're just trying to outright cheat. Or where there has been contact, but not enough to make you go down without you otherwise assisting your fall. In the latter situation, if such contact does constitute a foul (not all conduct does mean that) then I completely agree that referee's can help to cut down on "diving" by blowing up. Players shouldn't need to be on the ground to get a free kick or penalty when they have been fouled. If they stay on their feet, they should still get the foul (to include getting the advantage, if that is better).

But that's not the Remy situation. There was no contact. And neither is the first category the Remy situation either, because he stayed on his feet. It's almost in a category of one. So I'm not too sure how referee's giving fouls for that sort of situation will help to stamp out diving. OK, some people might say that not giving the foul might encourage Remy in the future to dive - but surely the much more likely scenario is that it would just encourage Remy in the future to take the contact and hence the penalty? It's not like he needed to "dive" to win the penalty, he just needed to wait for the contact. Look at Falco against us - I didn't see too many people on here saying that Falcao should have got a penalty, rather than a yellow card, against us the other week (when had he stayed on his feet, Stek would have wiped him out and for me a penalty would have been the result). So yes, whilst I accept that referee's not giving fouls for Remy-type incidents will lessen the chances of players trying to continue the play by trying to avoid contact, I'm not sure that it encourages diving.

 

Miss of the season so far?

 

Be nice if that remained the case come three weeks time.

 

Great point for Villa. Did really well there.

 

I want villa to go down.

So bloody lucky and some absolute terrible sportsmanship and wasting of time.