the use of the concept of a 'soft' foul - usualiy a pen - to somehow justify what is basically a dive drives me nuts. There is really no such bloody thing, it's an idea imported & given credance by sky pundits over the years. It's the same bollocks as being 'entitled' to go down when there is 'contact'. A 'soft' pen is basically a bad decision & the concept, by not naming the decision as such & using the euphemism 'soft' just encourages diving & cheating. And stop appealing for handball everytime the ball strikes a hand when it is obviously not deliberate! Watch matches from the 70's & earlier & you almost had to be assaulted to get a pen & there was none of this stupid appealing. I reckon the gods intervened today to show us the way, irony is lesta would likely have got extra time if their French chap hadn't gone down after 'contact'...
I have to agree i hate the wording 'soft penalty' i really do. Its either a penalty or its not. There needs to be far more consistency thats the main issue, especially with handballs half of them are given, half of them aren't, there really needs to be a meeting this summer regarding them.
No. Soft means basically that it's 'only just' a foul. Knockaert was fouled, albeit it was soft. Cassetti put his arm on Knockaert's shoulder to get in front of him and that is a foul, always has been and always will be.
firstly i agree completely with the sentiment of this but anyone writing from an ivory tower on this thread should remember how they felt when Owen went down soft against argentina 2002. it's ok when it's in your favour. so let he who is without sin.....
Which is the sad part. If he didn't go down he wouldn't have got it (not that he had a choice, don't really think he fell over on purpose). He would still have been denied the chance to cross it because he would still have been fouled.
They should just give a ridiculous ban of like 5 games for anyone that dives. May seem a little extreme, but it'd stop it, and people shouldn't complain about it as they shouldn't be diving!
[video=youtube;mNx5ok60U6A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNx5ok60U6A[/video] Watch this. Gary Neville gets it spot on.
If a referee cannot tell the difference between a dive and a foul there is a problem. In my view trips puses and blocks produce a different body shape to the theatrical dives seen in professional football. If you are falling the natural reaction is to,put your arms and hands in front of you not to fling them out and back. Somersaults?? Rolling?? These are pre conceived. Watch a player who is tackled in full stride and they still hit the deck like a sack of spuds.
Agree with Gary Neville, sometimes you have to go out of your way to stay of your feet, why should you do that if you believe you have been fowled?
He didn't dive and he showed passion. Agree though. He is French. Ah well, he'll never get to your level of ****ishness so I wouldn't worry.
Exactly. If he hadn't gone to ground the referee wouldn't have given the penalty and we wouldn't have had that chance.
Probably because it wasn't a penalty? Cassetti hardly twatted him did he? He merely used his body to his advantage in a contact sport.
