Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

He simulated. It was a "foul" because he fell over. Defenders need to remove their legs to remove risk against players like him. He pretty much did fall over thin air. 

I agree he should have went over, in the modern game. If we were in a must win game and Brereton didn't go down in such a scenario and got nothing, I would say he should have went down. It's the way the game has gone, but let's at least call a dive a dive. 

We're probably not too far away tbh. To me though there is a difference between a dive where there's no contact at all and going down too easily when you've been fouled. Ones a dive, ones hamming it up for the ref. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

You’re over thinking it, it’s still a foul, however minimal the contact is.

The defenders are both experienced and don’t need to get that close to give the referee a decision to make.

Do that and it usually ends in tears….

How does a defender not get close and defend? 

You're making excuses for a dive. By your logic every contact in the box is potentially a penalty, if the player goes down. Simulation is simulation and that is meant to be against the rules. However it's been let go. 

Be interested to hear your take if the Italians win a similar one Sunday. 

Edited by Bigdoggsteel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, arbitro said:

Did Speedie go down an attempt to deceive the referee? 

He went down because Walsh put his arm across him. What was the purpose of Walsh putting his arm out across Speedie? It wasn't for balance or a reflex action. It was to hinder Speedie. And the only way Speedie could make the referee aware he was being hindered was to go down. So he wasn't deceiving the referee that there was a foul, he was highlighting the fact there was a foul (see my example above from this years play offs)

Or is obstructing or hindering an opponent but not enough to genuinely make them fall on the floor allowed

If the keeper is coming out to take a cross, and Speedie put his arm across the keeper slowing him down and causing him to miss his punch, everyone would accept it was a foul. But goalkeepers are the only people that don't have to go down to get them.

 

Image.jpg

Edited by Hasta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

We're probably not too far away tbh. To me though there is a difference between a dive where there's no contact at all and going down too easily when you've been fouled. Ones a dive, ones hamming it up for the ref. 

Ultimately, It's still simulation. Which is against the rules. 

I take your points though and as I said if it was my team, I would want him to go down and I wouldn't feel bad about it. 

Edited by Bigdoggsteel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderation Lead
3 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

How does a defender not get close and defend? 

You're making excuses for a dive. By your logic every contact in the box is potentially a penalty, if the player goes down. Simulation is simulation and that is meant to be against the rules. However it's been let go. 

Be interested to hear your take if the Italians win a similar one Sunday. 

How about when you see situations like with Brereton last season where he stayed on his feet and therefore denied himself a penalty? To me, a dive is when there’s no contact at all and it’s plain cheating, not like when Shearer used to feel a nudge back in the ‘90s and fell over, it’s only the same with Sterling….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Hasta said:

He went down because Walsh put his arm across him. What was the purpose of Walsh putting his arm out across Speedie? It wasn't for balance or a reflex action. It was to hinder Speedie. And the only way Speedie could make the referee aware he was being hindered was to go down. So he wasn't deceiving the referee that there was a foul, he was highlighting the fact there was a foul (see my example above from this years play offs)

Or is obstructing or hindering an opponent but not enough to genuinely make them fall on the floor allowed

If the keeper is coming out to take a cross, and Speedie put his arm across the keeper slowing him down and causing him to miss his punch, everyone would accept it was a foul.

 

Image.jpg

In a busy shopping centre somebody bumping into another person with that amount of force would absolutely not end up with him falling down. Speedie bought it, deceived George Courtney and we got promoted.

I'm sorry but to dress it up as anything but reception is wrong.

Quoted from Law 12

attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation) ... commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball.

Edited by arbitro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ewood Ace said:

VAR has also been terrible for encouraging diving. We have reached the stage now where due to VAR football is a non contact sport (especially in the penalty area) and a player knows that even with the slightest contact if he goes rolling around in the penalty area he will most likely get a penalty.

In the Premier league probably. But I think had the ref not given that penalty for sterling VAR wouldn't have overruled and given it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

How about when you see situations like with Brereton last season where he stayed on his feet and therefore denied himself a penalty? To me, a dive is when there’s no contact at all and it’s plain cheating, not like when Shearer used to feel a nudge back in the ‘90s and fell over, it’s only the same with Sterling….

Football is supposed to be a contact sport. Contact is allowed you don't need to throw yourself to the floor, start rolling around  and clutching your leg or your face at the slightest contact. The only reason players do that is to cheat the ref and in this day and age with VAR sadly officials are buying it more and more.

As for Brereton it's rare to see him stay on his feet in terms of Rovers players and diving he is by far the worst culprit.

Edited by Ewood Ace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, arbitro said:

In a busy shopping centre somebody bumping into another person with that amount of force would absolutely not end up with him falling down. Speedie bought it, deceived George Courtney and we got promoted.

I'm sorry but to dress it up as anything but reception is wrong.

The images clearly show Walsh obstructing Speedie, and as far as I am aware you don't need to go down for it to be a free kick.

Speedie didn't need to go down, but it was a foul and he wouldn't have got the foul had he not gone down.

 

 

 

Edited by Hasta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The images clearly show Walsh obstructing Speedie, and as far as I am aware you don't need to go down for it to be a free kick.

Speedie didn't need to go down, but it was a foul and he wouldn't have got the foul had he not gone down.

 

 

 

You are implying that Speedie bought the penalty by saying he didn't need to go down. That simply has to be simulation.

We clearly are miles apart on our opinions and observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There unfortunately seems to be general acceptance these days that any contact is a foul - which it isn't, or shouldn’t be. Wouldn't the game be a lot better if  a players' first thought wasn't to manufacture contact and go to ground at the merest touch?

I don't have any real issue with Sterling trying it on and going to ground easily. He does it all the time for Citeh anyway. The fault lies with the referee who gave the pen and even more so with VAR for not over turning it.

But let's have it right, Sterling's card will now probably be marked by the officials running the game on Sunday so if we don't get a more obvious penalty decision as a result, or if an Italian player manufactures and is awarded a similar non penalty, I trust no - one will be complaining about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

And that is what I'm saying. They go for you and the majority of the beneficiaries of the decision are happy citing other incidents that have gone against your team. If it goes against your team then generally the supporters are up in arms accusing opponents of cheating.

If Italy get a soft penalty to win the game on Sunday the media and supporters will be angry.

Damn straight I’ll be angry the diving cheating bleeders!! 😉

But in this instance I firmly believe it was a foul. He tried to squeeze his way through a gap, very cleverly knocked the ball through the defender and then contact was made. When running and twisting at the speed Sterling does it could very easily have brought him down. 
 

I say it counters Denmark’s illegal goal anyway. But if the referee on Sunday let’s the game go on with two balls on the pitch and Italy score you are damn right I’ll be calling cheat 

Thats life. It’s not as serious as is being made

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hasta said:

He went down because Walsh put his arm across him. What was the purpose of Walsh putting his arm out across Speedie?

Definite penalty, no doubt it, the rest is history Hasta 👍

Definite penalty against Denmark, no doubt about it, we are about to make history 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

How about when you see situations like with Brereton last season where he stayed on his feet and therefore denied himself a penalty? To me, a dive is when there’s no contact at all and it’s plain cheating, not like when Shearer used to feel a nudge back in the ‘90s and fell over, it’s only the same with Sterling….

The rule is simulation, Sterling simulated contact. If there even was contact ,it looked miniscule. Could he physically have stayed standing? Yes. Therefore it's simulation. If VAR didn't give it, nobody could have any complaints. For whatever reason, they gave it (as they have done for similar in the past). 

Brereton didn't get some last year that were far more clean cut than Sterling's. He's probably our best diver and as I said, you need a few good divers now, because everyone is doing it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

There unfortunately seems to be general acceptance these days that any contact is a foul - which it isn't, or shouldn’t be. Wouldn't the game be a lot better if  a players' first thought wasn't to manufacture contact and go to ground at the merest touch?

I don't have any real issue with Sterling trying it on and going to ground easily. He does it all the time for Citeh anyway. The fault lies with the referee who gave the pen and even more so with VAR for not over turning it.

But let's have it right, Sterling's card will now probably be marked by the officials running the game on Sunday so if we don't get a more obvious penalty decision as a result, or if an Italian player manufactures and is awarded a similar non penalty, I trust no - one will be complaining about it.

Good post. 

Your first sentence is so true. Commentators and pundits are now onboard too, so it's not surprising fans are now saying any contact is a foul. It will be no contact in the box soon the way things are going and I find that sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

, or if an Italian player manufactures and is awarded a similar non penalty, I trust no - one will be complaining about it.

You think wrong 

I’ll be fuming 

doesn’t make me a hypocrite, just makes me a football fan

You don’t see England players acting like Immobile, crying on the floor until getting up to take a corner 

Yes, our lads go down but so does everybody else. They conduct themselves with a lot more respect in terms of influencing and crowding referees imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, arbitro said:

attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation) .

 

16 minutes ago, arbitro said:

You are implying that Speedie bought the penalty by saying he didn't need to go down. That simply has to be simulation.

We clearly are miles apart on our opinions and observations.

No I'm saying he was clearly fouled but wouldn't have got it if he didn't go down. 

We are miles apart. I appear to be on Peter Waltons line of thinking from Wednesday.

Edited by Hasta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Honestly though, ye shouldn't be on here debating the penalty and beating yourselves up about it. 

Ye are in a European championship final 

True. Or a penalty from one of the best footballing days of our lives almost 30 years ago now 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

 

No I'm saying he was clearly fouled

You see that's where we are miles apart, I would say that there's no way in a million years was it a foul in the first place.

Contact per se isn't a foul as far as I'm aware. (Yet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sensible decision from Uefa, what may have seemed like a good idea in theory has in reality been a bit of a mess.

Whilst they are at it they should put the competition back to being 16 or even better 8 teams. What used to be good about the Euro's was that every game was very competitive. The diluted 24 team format doesn't work for me you play the first fortnight of the 4 weeks playing to eliminate just 8 teams and you also have teams finishing third winning one game going through.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The images clearly show Walsh obstructing Speedie, and as far as I am aware you don't need to go down for it to be a free kick.

Speedie didn't need to go down, but it was a foul and he wouldn't have got the foul had he not gone down.

 

 

 

The punishment for obstruction, at that time, was the award of an indirect free kick in the penalty area.

As an aside, my view is that removing the requirement of intent by an offending player, has encouraged players to exaggerate any kind of contact. In the previous interpretation, the referee would have had no doubt that the Danish player had no intention to trip, therefore no penalty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • J*B unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.