Rival watch

[The Mighty Thor]

Ramires ran into the player who was supposed to have fouled him. I sometime wonder though whether defenders should take a little more care when Tackling in the penalty box at such a late stage with so much at stake. I remember Spurs 3-0 down to Fulham and Hutton ignorantly fouling a Fulham player thus a penalty and 4-0. Bad luck WBA, lucky Chelsea as usual.

 

[totsfan]

I'd like to see them have to sit in front of the away support at half time in unfashionable clothes (something from Primark or Asda). They wouldn't do it again - especially not the Chelsea players.

George at ASDA unfashionable

 

[Wandering Yid]

What i'm saying is that refs need to be a bit more clued up.

It's 100% expected that he would want a pen in that situation, and can only give one if he is 100% certain it is a pen. Just because the ref didn't see Ramires' knees buckle, doesn't mean the force the defender applied was enough to warrent a foul.

Everyone can see it wasn't a foul, first time or not. I can't see a situation where the it could be a foul, or where it wasn't obvious that a player wanting a pen, dived.

I'm sure intention is in the rules, as i've seen sheffield utd given a pen against them for a non-foul on Gerrard, simply because he looked as though he was going to foul him.
Same with late challenges, when players dont actually touch someone, but it seemed recklass.

Refs should bare in mind a players intent to go down, in that situation.

It just seems Chelsea are getting a series of rediculous decisions going for them....ones that will not "Even themseleves out" over a seaon.

It should have nothing to do with intent - the ref doesn't award a goal every time there's a shot purely on the basis of intent to score, the same should be applied for fouls.

 

[Spurm]

It should have nothing to do with intent - the ref doesn't award a goal every time there's a shot purely on the basis of intent to score, the same should be applied for fouls.

If a player comes hurtling in, 2 feet off the ground, through the air like a torpedo but the tacklee manages to hurdle said challenge without any contact but because of that loses his feet and the ball should the player be booked for diving or should it be a foul?

It should be a foul

 

[Wandering Yid]

If a player comes hurtling in, 2 feet off the ground, through the air like a torpedo but the tacklee manages to hurdle said challenge without any contact but because of that loses his feet and the ball should the player be booked for diving or should it be a foul?

It should be a foul

Yes but this is an extreme example. Each instance should be judged on an individual basis, the principle of intent to foul simply shouldn't exist. Perhaps it's a matter of syntax, intent for me is the wrong word as the example you cited is clearly more than mere intent, there's been a tangible alteration in the game in that example.

 

[bigsmithy9]

I suppose if you are a Chelsea fan you wear blinkers just like us at Tottenham.......sometimes!!!!!!

 

[Spursguru]

Yes but this is an extreme example. Each instance should be judged on an individual basis, the principle of intent to foul simply shouldn't exist. Perhaps it's a matter of syntax, intent for me is the wrong word as the example you cited is clearly more than mere intent, there's been a tangible alteration in the game in that example.

It should be. But it is not. In which case the ref should have used some common sense and seen through this sudden loss of balance.

 

[Boss]

If a player comes hurtling in, 2 feet off the ground, through the air like a torpedo but the tacklee manages to hurdle said challenge without any contact but because of that loses his feet and the ball should the player be booked for diving or should it be a foul?

It should be a foul

And he should be sent off.

I don't think you have to make contact to commit a foul or dangerous play as if a player swings a punch but misses, the intent is still there.

Although if he is trying to hit Lennon or Defoe you can forgive them for missing!

 

[Spursguru]

And he should be sent off.

I don't think you have to make contact to commit a foul or dangerous play as if a player swings a punch but misses, the intent is still there.

Although if he is trying to hit Lennon or Defoe you can forgive them for missing!

So then, are we agreed a ref should bare in mind the attempt to win a cheap pen in the 90th minute, or does it not apply?

 

[Boss]

So then, are we agreed a ref should bare in mind the attempt to win a cheap pen in the 90th minute, or does it not apply?

If a player is making an intent to dive and goes down from a barge which is open to debate if is a foul or not, this is where refs personality comes into play and I agree about the bias as the refs tend to side with the player from the big club who is trying to win a penalty.

But the ref could blow the whistle, call his assistant upstairs in the video room. He watches the replay and either a pen is awarded or a dive. Has the game been slowed down? No. Has the right call been made? Yes.

Everyone happy apart from the team that tried to cheat!

 

[PowerSpurs]

Intent is not mentioned in the Laws on foul play, nor is contact in a tackle. But tackling someone 'carelessly' is a foul! leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[Boss]

If a player makes a two footed tackle but misses he can be sent off, just as a player can be sent off for trying to throw a punch, so how is that defined in the law?

 

[No Kane No Gain]

It's referees fault that players dive anyway. Too often shirt tugging and niggling fouls go unpunished as the referee bottles making a decision so the best way seems to be to go down. Now we have pundits and fans trying to decide whether there's any of a foul for them to be allowed to go down or if it's a dive.

As I said the otherday, I give up because I just don't understand it anymore. For example, I simply can't see a lot of difference between these two instances yet one is deemed a penalty and clever play by the media and fans yet one is apparently a terrible dive.

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

At most one's a penalty and one's not, yet in the general consensus appears to be that one of them has cheated by wildly over exaggerating the contact whilst the other, who apparently lost his ability to stand up due to a slight pull on the shoulder, is a clear penalty. We all know players can usually continue to play when a defender tries to get physical with them because we see the same players time and time again playing on when they have nothing to gain from going down. Personally I liked that defenders were allowed to get a bit physical and push the line a bit, especially in their own box but now everyone seems to think it's a penalty so long as the player falls to ground convincingly, or under some unspecified amount of force that allows the player to dive. I don't blame either of the players involved, this constitutes part of football these days apparently.

It's a sad part of the game that we now allow our players to act so feebly and get rewarded for it. I remember Neville saying that Dempsey should have gone down under a challenge when we played United earlier in the year and I thought it was sad that even pundits should be encouraging such cynical play. Maybe I would've preferred it if he did go down and win the penalty(I think there was a suggestion of a red too) but I like to think that a player going through on goal should be thinking about how they're going to get the ball past the 'keeper rather than if there's an option for them to win a penalty.

 

[O.Spurcat]

If a player makes a two footed tackle but misses he can be sent off, just as a player can be sent off for trying to throw a punch, so how is that defined in the law?

I think the law says "strikes an opponent or attempts to strike an opponent" and "fouls an opponent or attempts to foul an opponent".

 

[Boss]

Yeah that makes more sense. Attempt not Intent. My daily blonde moment!

 

[totsfan]

It's referees fault that players dive anyway. Too often shirt tugging and niggling fouls go unpunished as the referee bottles making a decision so the best way seems to be to go down. Now we have pundits and fans trying to decide whether there's any of a foul for them to be allowed to go down or if it's a dive.

As I said the otherday, I give up because I just don't understand it anymore. For example, I simply can't see a lot of difference between these two instances yet one is deemed a penalty and clever play by the media and fans yet one is apparently a terrible dive.

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

At most one's a penalty and one's not, yet in the general consensus appears to be that one of them has cheated by wildly over exaggerating the contact whilst the other, who apparently lost his ability to stand up due to a slight pull on the shoulder, is a clear penalty. We all know players can usually continue to play when a defender tries to get physical with them because we see the same players time and time again playing on when they have nothing to gain from going down. Personally I liked that defenders were allowed to get a bit physical and push the line a bit, especially in their own box but now everyone seems to think it's a penalty so long as the player falls to ground convincingly, or under some unspecified amount of force that allows the player to dive. I don't blame either of the players involved, this constitutes part of football these days apparently.

It's a sad part of the game that we now allow our players to act so feebly and get rewarded for it. I remember Neville saying that Dempsey should have gone down under a challenge when we played United earlier in the year and I thought it was sad that even pundits should be encouraging such cynical play. Maybe I would've preferred it if he did go down and win the penalty(I think there was a suggestion of a red too) but I like to think that a player going through on goal should be thinking about how they're going to get the ball past the 'keeper rather than if there's an option for them to win a penalty.

if a defender has handfuls of the attacker it is,and should be a foul,as in the first clip,and right in front of the ref,in the second clip,i can see no contact and the way he dangles his leg,it looks like a dive

 

[No Kane No Gain]

if a defender has handfuls of the attacker it is,and should be a foul,as in the first clip,and right in front of the ref,in the second clip,i can see no contact and the way he dangles his leg,it looks like a dive

It was the defender grabbing his arm a bit that was the foul apparently. There's another angle that shows more of it but obviously this is the only angle that people have made gifs of.

 

[Boss]

It was the defender grabbing his arm a bit that was the foul apparently. There's another angle that shows more of it but obviously this is the only angle that people have made gifs of.

In the West Ham v Aston villa match, weimann was trying to escape Ravel Morriston, both grappling each other, weimann decides to lose balance, no foul given.

For me that was the right call as the player decided to lose balance because he couldn't out muscle the opponent.

But players who stimulate a fall because the defender has touched them,will always be viewed as cheats as they are deciding the contact has forced them to fall.

''contact is made so players have a right to go to ground ''.... That is giving divers a reason to carry on cheating and you're right it's a sad aspect of the game.

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

Cheating, subtle or otherwise, is part of many sports at the top level when the difference in the outcome of a game can be due any small advantage gained. This culture of cheating has become acceptable in many ways. Cricket - supposedly the byword for fair play - is rife with it, whether it's sledging, ball tampering, running on the pitch, bowling wide of the stumps, not walking when out, claiming a catch not taken cleanly etc etc. Going down in the box when there has been contact is what players are expected to do in football unless they have a clear goalscoring chance - in which case they manage to stay on their feet. It's not right, but the culture won't change unless the refs spot it and take action and the authorities impose proper sanctions on those caught doing it.

 

[Dier Hard]

George at ASDA unfashionable

Speaking of fashion, how is it so many hooligans (and wannabe hooligans) wear Stone Island jackets when they average about £450 a piece!? The sort of people that wear wouldn't really be associated with the type of person that can fork out that sort of money on a jacket. I like the look of some Stone Island clothing but **** me I'd never pay those prices.

Is there a market stall I don't know about that sells decent gear for knocked off prices or does hooliganism pay a wage...? If it's the latter I might be interested in applying for a job as the money must be good! I'll happily get my head kicked in for a few grand every now and then, times are hard