It's almost a natural reaction for players to reach out like that - it's silly, but it happens. But he didn't grab him.
============================================================
Er, no...it’s not “instinctive” at all, it was an attempt to cheat.
The thing I don’t understand about these things is why we’re happy for defenders to cheat, but not forwards. It wasn’t a ‘touch on the arm’, he pulled at his shoulder when he knew he was beaten, in order to get Allen facing away from the ball and off-balance.
Pull on somebody’s shoulder when they’re running, and it will disturb their balance.Even if it only buys the defence a second, that can be enough to prevent a chance being created.
Why should Dier get away with it because Allen made it more obvious to the referee by going to ground? It’s not like he was running alongside him and they were using their arms to shrug eatch other off....Allen was past him, and he pulled at his shoulder from behind. How does Allen going to ground exempt Dier...he wasn’t exactly going for the ball, was he? Instinctive, my ass. Knew exactly what he was doing.
But it’s true that there wasn’t enough force in it for Allen to go to ground, so maybe the penalty should have been given and Allen booked for exaggeration (though that would be unprecedented, referees never do that), but either way it’s still a penalty. The strange thing is, that if he’d pulled his shirt, instead of his shoulder, there would be less argument, even though shirt-pulling has less effect on a player’s momentum.
Adebayor should have got a penalty too, but if the criterion is that there wasn’t enough force in the shirt-pull to bring him to the ground, then neither of them were penalties.
It’s neither or both, and imo it’s both. If the defender attempts to impede without going for the ball, it shouldn’t really matter if the attacker goes to ground. Fortunately for Lovren, the ref didn’t see it, but imo it’s bad defending, in both cases. Defenders are quick to whinge about forwards cheating, but they have a whole box-full of cheating tricks themselves, which they seem to think they have the right to attempt.
There is a difference of attitude between pro’s and fans about these things...the pro’s all talk about being “entitled”, but fans see cheating, (unless it’s one of their own players, of course).
The difference between this incident and Ashley Young’s latest pirouette, is that in the Young incident, the defender didn’t do anything wrong...he pulled out of the tackle, so only one player was cheating.
Wessie Road (U10652)
Sorry, but you've convinced yourself of something that just didn't happen.
It was a touch - nothing more.
He didn't pull anything. Watch the replay that someone posted up on this thread.
I agree that defenders get away with a lot, but that's got nothing to do with this situation.
As a defender myself, I can tell you it is instinctive to reach out as someone is passing you.
The fact remains that football is a contact sport, therefore the referee has to decide whether the extent of the contact, and the effect it had, warrants a foul.
There's no way on this earth that this touch from Dier warrants a foul.
I appreciate you want to convince yourself that it does, and no doubt you won't change your mind, but it's nothing more than you trying to find a way to justify the decision.
Anyone watching the replay and calling that a penalty is deluded in my opinion.
"Instinctive" is an excuse, like when handling the ball is "cheating" when an opposition player does it, and "instinctive" when one of your own players does it (as per Fergie's description when Scholes did it).
If Dier had pulled his shirt just sufficiently to slow Allen down, and then let go, would it be a penalty then?
Most people, in that scenario, would say yes.
There wasn't enough force in Lovren's shirt-pull to bring Adebayor down either, do does that mean that the referee was right not to give a penalty? Imo, he was wrong....Lovren is illegally impeding him, just as Dier was illegally impeding Allen.
He reaches around his shoulder from behind and puts his hand on his chest....if you do that when somebody is running away from you, it will disturb their balance.
Allen's fall was unnecessary, and I think it ought to be possible for referees to book for exaggeration AND give the original offence, but I've never seen that happen.
Wessie Road (U10652)
It's not an excuse - in this case, it's a red herring.
It was used because someone asked why Dier did it. It was never used to justify his actions.
Why are you bringing a shirt pull into this?
Do you understand/agree that the degree of contact and effect of movement are the key points as to whether a foul has been made?
I assume you don't believe that contact of any nature is an immediate offence?
Or do you?
Why are you bringing a shirt pull into this?
======================================================
Because there was a shirt-pull at the other end, and it's a useful comparison.
You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty. It only needs to have impeded him, as per the shirt-pull.
Whether or not it was enough to bring him to ground is only a useful criterion for deciding whether Allen exaggerated the offence....which I agree that he did...not for deciding whether it was a penalty.
======================================================
I assume you don't believe that contact of any nature is an immediate offence?
======================================================
No, only if it the contact impedes him, and isn't the normal contact you would expect from challenging for the ball (which Dier was making no attempt to do).
But it did impede him, it disturbed his balance and slowed him down, and that's why Dier did it.
Bad defending, as per Gary Neville's definition.
The referee saw it clearly from quite nearby.
I suspect he's capable of making his decision without regard to anything Allen did....referees are not nearly as "deluded" as some fans imagine them to be (there's many fans who think they know how to manage the England team and run the country too, but imo these fans are more "deluded" than the pro's they accuse of it).
I think he'd have given the shirt-pull too, had he seen it, but it was in a crowded penalty-area, and on the other side from his point of view.
Wessie Road (U10652)
"You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty."
I never claimed that it was relevant to whether it's a penalty or not.
I don't know where I could have implied it?
Allen wasn't impeded at all.
The only thing that happened was Allen felt the touch and changed his position, and ultimately fell. Dier's touch didn't do any of that.
I'm saying the referee is deluded. But it's naïve to think that he's not affected by Allen's actions. That's why Allen did it, of course.
“I never claimed that it was relevant to whether it's a penalty or not”.....
===========================================================
If you think “it's naïve to think that he's not affected by Allen's actions”, then you clearly think that Allen’s actions are the reason why the referee gave it.
But if it’s not “relevant to whether it’s a penalty or not”, why would it matter to the referee what Allen’s actions were? You’re not even making any sense.
How do you know he’s affected by Allen’s actions? You can’t possibly know that. He may have thought it was an offence regardless of anything Allen did.
What it boils down to is a perception as to whether a defender reaching around your shoulder when you’re running away from them is going to impede the forward.
As a defender, you're arguing that it doesn't , but as a forward myself, I know that it does, it can slow you down sufficiently to prevent the chance being created, even if it’s only for a second or two. Hence the comparison with shirt-pulling, because shirt-pulling has the same effect (provided you let go after a couple of seconds).
It doesn’t annoy me when defenders try it, because players will always try things on, but it irritates me when the slow-moving, clumsy feckers start whining that they’re “entitled” to it , because it’s “instinctive”...that’s b0ll0x, they always know what they’re doing, and they do it when they know they can't even get near enough to challenge for the ball.
(I was played at full-back as part of my development training, so I could see what it was like from the other side, and it wasn’t “instinctive” to me).
It won’t be “instinctive” to Dier, either, after Pochettino has put him straight.
(Funny how you can just be told not to do something "instinctive", and you just stop doing it).
Wessie Road (U10652)
You're are jumping from one assumption to the next and making a mess of this.
First of all, you claim I'm saying that whether the 'pull' was enough to bring him to the ground is how I am deciding whether it's a penalty or not.
I am not, and I have not done so at any point in this thread.
There is a big difference between whether Allen's actions affected the referee's opinion that the contact was sufficient to award a foul, and whether a player needs to go to ground for a foul to be awarded.
Now, onto the rest of your thread.
"How do you know he’s affected by Allen’s actions? You can’t possibly know that."
What are you on about?
Where did I claim that I know that?
Obviously I don't know that.
Can you please stop inventing things that I haven't said, as it's not helpful.
You also seem caught up on this 'instinctive' comment, when it has no place in the debate.
I will repeat: at no point has it been used to excuse what Dier did.
So why are you bringing it up?
Please, read what I actually write, rather than jumping on a response.
Allen wasn't impeded.
It's not simple enough to claim he was affected by the arm. He may have been affected by the presence of the defender. He may have been affected by a little boy eating an ice cream in the crowd.
Being affected by something doesn't mean it's a foul.
I think that's the point you're missing.
Allen wasn't impeded - contact was about as minimal as it gets, and the only thing that affected Allen's run was his own movement.
You're going to great lengths to try and justify a decision that most people, based on those I have seen, find laughable.
Might I also add, you keep using the word 'impede'.
In footballing context, 'impede' is generally used as part of the obstruction rule.
Clearly, he wasn't impeded.
The closest offence Dier came to making was holding his opponent. But he didn't hold him either.
He touched him.
I've been reading through this thread all day, post after post, and FFS Winston you are like an apple woman, let it go, just for you to know though, football is actually a NON CONTACT sport, you are not allowed to touch the apposing players, just the ball, accidental contact is unavoidable though, and there is some give and take for it, but what Dier did yesterday was no accident, he tried to impede Joe Allen and that is a free kick no matter which way you look at it, so the penalty stands, albeit a very soft one, but it was correct.
comment by THudd.. (U1029) posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
In real time it looks a penalty and if I was the referee I would have given it also
Unfortunately the referee does not have the benefit of replays in slow motion from another angle
===
This. In addition to what Wessie said.
Where do you draw the line anyway? How does the referee judge how much contact is enough, within a split second? Thats why we have rules. A referee cannot be seen to be condoning such use of the hands in a football match surely. If it was ok to do that we would be seeing it all over the pitch with players trying to gain that slight advantage.
Allen exaggerated the contact but a foul it was by the letter of the law. Allen's shoulder was tugged though slightly.
LordDowlias (U3236)
Let it go?
It's called replying.
If you don't like it, don't read/contribute.
"football is actually a NON CONTACT sport"
Oh dear.
I suggest you check your facts and come back when you have something that isn't wildly inaccurate.
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
"How does the referee judge how much contact is enough, within a split second?"
Sorry, but that's his job.
Most decisions in football are subjective, for the very reason that football is contact sport.
It would work a lot better if players weren't consistently exaggerating contact, feigning injury etc.
It wasn't a foul by the letter of the law. That is a mistake that more and more people are making.
Feel free to find that 'letter of the law' where you believe it's made clear.
comment by Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by THudd.. (U1029) posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
In real time it looks a penalty and if I was the referee I would have given it also
Unfortunately the referee does not have the benefit of replays in slow motion from another angle
===
This. In addition to what Wessie said.
Where do you draw the line anyway? How does the referee judge how much contact is enough, within a split second? Thats why we have rules. A referee cannot be seen to be condoning such use of the hands in a football match surely. If it was ok to do that we would be seeing it all over the pitch with players trying to gain that slight advantage.
Allen exaggerated the contact but a foul it was by the letter of the law. Allen's shoulder was tugged though slightly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be just like rugby if it were allowed.
Winston, I suggest you read through this:-
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080223102938AAH5viw
^
Is this guy on a wind up?!
Yahoo answers?!
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
^
Is this guy on a wind up?!
Yahoo answers?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has got a lot of info on there and could help you realise how wrong you are on this subject, you cannot deliberately make contact with apposing players in football, no matter which way you look at it Dier was at fault and he went against the rules, now if you were condoning Joe Allen's exaggeration of what happened then I would be with you, but you are just saying that the ref was wrong, Allen cheated and Dier didn't do anything wrong, I am sorry but you are wrong on this.
LordDowlias (U3236)
Okay, thanks for that.
I'll be sure to consult Yahoo answers before posting articles in future.
It isn't just yahoo, it has articles from alot of other people on it as well, FFS what is the matter with you, just because you have an opinion on something it does not make it that you are right.
LordDowlias (U3236)
Right, thanks for that.
Really valuable insight.
"How do you know he’s affected by Allen’s actions? What are you on about?
Where did I claim that I know that?
Obviously I don't know that.
============================================================
So it’s not implied by: “it's naïve to think that he's not affected by Allen's actions” and
“he isn't the first to be conned by a cheat”?
============================================================
You also seem caught up on this 'instinctive' comment, when it has no place in the debate.
============================================================
So you were just chewing the cud, and not debating, when you said: ““As a defender myself, I can tell you it is instinctive to reach out as someone is passing you.”, and “It's almost a natural reaction for players to reach out like that”?
“Please, read what I actually write” ..... ffs,Winston, that's me out, you're all over the place.
Ok just to make you happy try this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouls_and_Misconduct_(association_football)
There is an image on there as for what constitutes a free kick and or penalty and although pulling of the shirt does not come under red or yellow card, it still constitutes a free kick and or a penalty.
LordDowlias (U3236)
Thanks.
If Dier had pulled his shirt, that would be relevant.
But he didn't.
And I suggest you take this little bit of info in:-
"A foul is an unfair act by a player, deemed by the referee to contravene the game's laws. Fouls are punished by the award of a free-kick (direct or indirect depending on the offence) or penalty kick to the opposing team. "
Wessie Road (U10652)
Oh dear.
You really don't stop and think before you post, do you?
I wrote those points in relation to the people asking why he did it and criticising him for it.
At no point was it used to defend him, or suggest that it's a reason for it not being a penalty.
Again, try reading what is actually written, and maybe double check before you post.
Then you might not spend so long posting responses to things that haven't even been said - with the going to ground example as a case in point.
Shame, because I think you could be capable of a reasonable discussion otherwise.
Sign in if you want to comment
Joe Allen's dive
Page 5 of 16
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 1/9/14
It's almost a natural reaction for players to reach out like that - it's silly, but it happens. But he didn't grab him.
============================================================
Er, no...it’s not “instinctive” at all, it was an attempt to cheat.
The thing I don’t understand about these things is why we’re happy for defenders to cheat, but not forwards. It wasn’t a ‘touch on the arm’, he pulled at his shoulder when he knew he was beaten, in order to get Allen facing away from the ball and off-balance.
Pull on somebody’s shoulder when they’re running, and it will disturb their balance.Even if it only buys the defence a second, that can be enough to prevent a chance being created.
Why should Dier get away with it because Allen made it more obvious to the referee by going to ground? It’s not like he was running alongside him and they were using their arms to shrug eatch other off....Allen was past him, and he pulled at his shoulder from behind. How does Allen going to ground exempt Dier...he wasn’t exactly going for the ball, was he? Instinctive, my ass. Knew exactly what he was doing.
But it’s true that there wasn’t enough force in it for Allen to go to ground, so maybe the penalty should have been given and Allen booked for exaggeration (though that would be unprecedented, referees never do that), but either way it’s still a penalty. The strange thing is, that if he’d pulled his shirt, instead of his shoulder, there would be less argument, even though shirt-pulling has less effect on a player’s momentum.
Adebayor should have got a penalty too, but if the criterion is that there wasn’t enough force in the shirt-pull to bring him to the ground, then neither of them were penalties.
It’s neither or both, and imo it’s both. If the defender attempts to impede without going for the ball, it shouldn’t really matter if the attacker goes to ground. Fortunately for Lovren, the ref didn’t see it, but imo it’s bad defending, in both cases. Defenders are quick to whinge about forwards cheating, but they have a whole box-full of cheating tricks themselves, which they seem to think they have the right to attempt.
There is a difference of attitude between pro’s and fans about these things...the pro’s all talk about being “entitled”, but fans see cheating, (unless it’s one of their own players, of course).
The difference between this incident and Ashley Young’s latest pirouette, is that in the Young incident, the defender didn’t do anything wrong...he pulled out of the tackle, so only one player was cheating.
posted on 1/9/14
Wessie Road (U10652)
Sorry, but you've convinced yourself of something that just didn't happen.
It was a touch - nothing more.
He didn't pull anything. Watch the replay that someone posted up on this thread.
I agree that defenders get away with a lot, but that's got nothing to do with this situation.
As a defender myself, I can tell you it is instinctive to reach out as someone is passing you.
The fact remains that football is a contact sport, therefore the referee has to decide whether the extent of the contact, and the effect it had, warrants a foul.
There's no way on this earth that this touch from Dier warrants a foul.
I appreciate you want to convince yourself that it does, and no doubt you won't change your mind, but it's nothing more than you trying to find a way to justify the decision.
Anyone watching the replay and calling that a penalty is deluded in my opinion.
posted on 1/9/14
"Instinctive" is an excuse, like when handling the ball is "cheating" when an opposition player does it, and "instinctive" when one of your own players does it (as per Fergie's description when Scholes did it).
If Dier had pulled his shirt just sufficiently to slow Allen down, and then let go, would it be a penalty then?
Most people, in that scenario, would say yes.
There wasn't enough force in Lovren's shirt-pull to bring Adebayor down either, do does that mean that the referee was right not to give a penalty? Imo, he was wrong....Lovren is illegally impeding him, just as Dier was illegally impeding Allen.
He reaches around his shoulder from behind and puts his hand on his chest....if you do that when somebody is running away from you, it will disturb their balance.
Allen's fall was unnecessary, and I think it ought to be possible for referees to book for exaggeration AND give the original offence, but I've never seen that happen.
posted on 1/9/14
Wessie Road (U10652)
It's not an excuse - in this case, it's a red herring.
It was used because someone asked why Dier did it. It was never used to justify his actions.
Why are you bringing a shirt pull into this?
Do you understand/agree that the degree of contact and effect of movement are the key points as to whether a foul has been made?
I assume you don't believe that contact of any nature is an immediate offence?
Or do you?
posted on 1/9/14
Why are you bringing a shirt pull into this?
======================================================
Because there was a shirt-pull at the other end, and it's a useful comparison.
You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty. It only needs to have impeded him, as per the shirt-pull.
Whether or not it was enough to bring him to ground is only a useful criterion for deciding whether Allen exaggerated the offence....which I agree that he did...not for deciding whether it was a penalty.
======================================================
I assume you don't believe that contact of any nature is an immediate offence?
======================================================
No, only if it the contact impedes him, and isn't the normal contact you would expect from challenging for the ball (which Dier was making no attempt to do).
But it did impede him, it disturbed his balance and slowed him down, and that's why Dier did it.
Bad defending, as per Gary Neville's definition.
The referee saw it clearly from quite nearby.
I suspect he's capable of making his decision without regard to anything Allen did....referees are not nearly as "deluded" as some fans imagine them to be (there's many fans who think they know how to manage the England team and run the country too, but imo these fans are more "deluded" than the pro's they accuse of it).
I think he'd have given the shirt-pull too, had he seen it, but it was in a crowded penalty-area, and on the other side from his point of view.
posted on 1/9/14
Wessie Road (U10652)
"You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty."
I never claimed that it was relevant to whether it's a penalty or not.
I don't know where I could have implied it?
Allen wasn't impeded at all.
The only thing that happened was Allen felt the touch and changed his position, and ultimately fell. Dier's touch didn't do any of that.
I'm saying the referee is deluded. But it's naïve to think that he's not affected by Allen's actions. That's why Allen did it, of course.
posted on 1/9/14
“I never claimed that it was relevant to whether it's a penalty or not”.....
===========================================================
If you think “it's naïve to think that he's not affected by Allen's actions”, then you clearly think that Allen’s actions are the reason why the referee gave it.
But if it’s not “relevant to whether it’s a penalty or not”, why would it matter to the referee what Allen’s actions were? You’re not even making any sense.
How do you know he’s affected by Allen’s actions? You can’t possibly know that. He may have thought it was an offence regardless of anything Allen did.
What it boils down to is a perception as to whether a defender reaching around your shoulder when you’re running away from them is going to impede the forward.
As a defender, you're arguing that it doesn't , but as a forward myself, I know that it does, it can slow you down sufficiently to prevent the chance being created, even if it’s only for a second or two. Hence the comparison with shirt-pulling, because shirt-pulling has the same effect (provided you let go after a couple of seconds).
It doesn’t annoy me when defenders try it, because players will always try things on, but it irritates me when the slow-moving, clumsy feckers start whining that they’re “entitled” to it , because it’s “instinctive”...that’s b0ll0x, they always know what they’re doing, and they do it when they know they can't even get near enough to challenge for the ball.
(I was played at full-back as part of my development training, so I could see what it was like from the other side, and it wasn’t “instinctive” to me).
It won’t be “instinctive” to Dier, either, after Pochettino has put him straight.
(Funny how you can just be told not to do something "instinctive", and you just stop doing it).
posted on 1/9/14
Wessie Road (U10652)
You're are jumping from one assumption to the next and making a mess of this.
First of all, you claim I'm saying that whether the 'pull' was enough to bring him to the ground is how I am deciding whether it's a penalty or not.
I am not, and I have not done so at any point in this thread.
There is a big difference between whether Allen's actions affected the referee's opinion that the contact was sufficient to award a foul, and whether a player needs to go to ground for a foul to be awarded.
Now, onto the rest of your thread.
"How do you know he’s affected by Allen’s actions? You can’t possibly know that."
What are you on about?
Where did I claim that I know that?
Obviously I don't know that.
Can you please stop inventing things that I haven't said, as it's not helpful.
You also seem caught up on this 'instinctive' comment, when it has no place in the debate.
I will repeat: at no point has it been used to excuse what Dier did.
So why are you bringing it up?
Please, read what I actually write, rather than jumping on a response.
Allen wasn't impeded.
It's not simple enough to claim he was affected by the arm. He may have been affected by the presence of the defender. He may have been affected by a little boy eating an ice cream in the crowd.
Being affected by something doesn't mean it's a foul.
I think that's the point you're missing.
Allen wasn't impeded - contact was about as minimal as it gets, and the only thing that affected Allen's run was his own movement.
You're going to great lengths to try and justify a decision that most people, based on those I have seen, find laughable.
posted on 1/9/14
Might I also add, you keep using the word 'impede'.
In footballing context, 'impede' is generally used as part of the obstruction rule.
Clearly, he wasn't impeded.
The closest offence Dier came to making was holding his opponent. But he didn't hold him either.
He touched him.
posted on 1/9/14
I've been reading through this thread all day, post after post, and FFS Winston you are like an apple woman, let it go, just for you to know though, football is actually a NON CONTACT sport, you are not allowed to touch the apposing players, just the ball, accidental contact is unavoidable though, and there is some give and take for it, but what Dier did yesterday was no accident, he tried to impede Joe Allen and that is a free kick no matter which way you look at it, so the penalty stands, albeit a very soft one, but it was correct.
posted on 1/9/14
comment by THudd.. (U1029) posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
In real time it looks a penalty and if I was the referee I would have given it also
Unfortunately the referee does not have the benefit of replays in slow motion from another angle
===
This. In addition to what Wessie said.
Where do you draw the line anyway? How does the referee judge how much contact is enough, within a split second? Thats why we have rules. A referee cannot be seen to be condoning such use of the hands in a football match surely. If it was ok to do that we would be seeing it all over the pitch with players trying to gain that slight advantage.
Allen exaggerated the contact but a foul it was by the letter of the law. Allen's shoulder was tugged though slightly.
posted on 1/9/14
LordDowlias (U3236)
Let it go?
It's called replying.
If you don't like it, don't read/contribute.
"football is actually a NON CONTACT sport"
Oh dear.
I suggest you check your facts and come back when you have something that isn't wildly inaccurate.
posted on 1/9/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
"How does the referee judge how much contact is enough, within a split second?"
Sorry, but that's his job.
Most decisions in football are subjective, for the very reason that football is contact sport.
It would work a lot better if players weren't consistently exaggerating contact, feigning injury etc.
It wasn't a foul by the letter of the law. That is a mistake that more and more people are making.
Feel free to find that 'letter of the law' where you believe it's made clear.
posted on 1/9/14
comment by Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by THudd.. (U1029) posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
In real time it looks a penalty and if I was the referee I would have given it also
Unfortunately the referee does not have the benefit of replays in slow motion from another angle
===
This. In addition to what Wessie said.
Where do you draw the line anyway? How does the referee judge how much contact is enough, within a split second? Thats why we have rules. A referee cannot be seen to be condoning such use of the hands in a football match surely. If it was ok to do that we would be seeing it all over the pitch with players trying to gain that slight advantage.
Allen exaggerated the contact but a foul it was by the letter of the law. Allen's shoulder was tugged though slightly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be just like rugby if it were allowed.
posted on 1/9/14
Winston, I suggest you read through this:-
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080223102938AAH5viw
posted on 1/9/14
^
Is this guy on a wind up?!
Yahoo answers?!
posted on 1/9/14
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
^
Is this guy on a wind up?!
Yahoo answers?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has got a lot of info on there and could help you realise how wrong you are on this subject, you cannot deliberately make contact with apposing players in football, no matter which way you look at it Dier was at fault and he went against the rules, now if you were condoning Joe Allen's exaggeration of what happened then I would be with you, but you are just saying that the ref was wrong, Allen cheated and Dier didn't do anything wrong, I am sorry but you are wrong on this.
posted on 1/9/14
LordDowlias (U3236)
Okay, thanks for that.
I'll be sure to consult Yahoo answers before posting articles in future.
posted on 1/9/14
It isn't just yahoo, it has articles from alot of other people on it as well, FFS what is the matter with you, just because you have an opinion on something it does not make it that you are right.
posted on 1/9/14
LordDowlias (U3236)
Right, thanks for that.
Really valuable insight.
posted on 1/9/14
"How do you know he’s affected by Allen’s actions? What are you on about?
Where did I claim that I know that?
Obviously I don't know that.
============================================================
So it’s not implied by: “it's naïve to think that he's not affected by Allen's actions” and
“he isn't the first to be conned by a cheat”?
============================================================
You also seem caught up on this 'instinctive' comment, when it has no place in the debate.
============================================================
So you were just chewing the cud, and not debating, when you said: ““As a defender myself, I can tell you it is instinctive to reach out as someone is passing you.”, and “It's almost a natural reaction for players to reach out like that”?
“Please, read what I actually write” ..... ffs,Winston, that's me out, you're all over the place.
posted on 1/9/14
Ok just to make you happy try this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouls_and_Misconduct_(association_football)
There is an image on there as for what constitutes a free kick and or penalty and although pulling of the shirt does not come under red or yellow card, it still constitutes a free kick and or a penalty.
posted on 1/9/14
LordDowlias (U3236)
Thanks.
If Dier had pulled his shirt, that would be relevant.
But he didn't.
posted on 1/9/14
And I suggest you take this little bit of info in:-
"A foul is an unfair act by a player, deemed by the referee to contravene the game's laws. Fouls are punished by the award of a free-kick (direct or indirect depending on the offence) or penalty kick to the opposing team. "
posted on 1/9/14
Wessie Road (U10652)
Oh dear.
You really don't stop and think before you post, do you?
I wrote those points in relation to the people asking why he did it and criticising him for it.
At no point was it used to defend him, or suggest that it's a reason for it not being a penalty.
Again, try reading what is actually written, and maybe double check before you post.
Then you might not spend so long posting responses to things that haven't even been said - with the going to ground example as a case in point.
Shame, because I think you could be capable of a reasonable discussion otherwise.
Page 5 of 16
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10