Son - Dive, Foul, Neither?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
"If the attacker stays on their feet then they won't get a pen because ref's never give it when you stay on your feet."

Maybe that's because had Son stayed on his feet we'd have all realised how little there was in the contact, meaning we don't think it's a foul?

Diving is cheating, plain and simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, if a defender clips a striker and knocks them off balance then it's a foul.

I don't have much sympathy with defenders who commit lie that in the box. If you don't get the ball and clip the player it's a pen for me. I have thought for example all Salah's pens have been correct decisions and Salah went down as he should.

Everywhere you go always take Lamela with you. Mopo's #1 fan. (U7905)

Maybe, but that's not how the laws are written.

Ultimately we have no idea about the impact of the contact on Son (or Salah for that matter) because they've thrown themselves over.

While maybe a certain amount of contact is generally tolerated, there are certain types of challenge that are illegal. IMO, if a kick/trip is enough to break a player’s stride and make him lose an advantage, then it should be looked upon as a foul, regardless of whether he’s able to stay on his feet or not.

As for the Maddison penalty, it looked like Maddison took advantage of a coming together of bodies to crumple to the ground, but one of the replays seems to show the Spurs defender (Verts?) taking Maddison’s leg out. Only watched it the once, but if that was the angle the ref had then I could absolutely see why he gave a pen.

it'sonlyagame (U6426)

Problem is, if a player throws themselves to the ground, how can anyone know if the trip/kick breaks their stride / makes them lose their advantage?

Yeah, we’ve had this conversation before. As long as refereeing committees don’t make it clear that they’ll be looking out for “loss of advantage “ or whatever they want to call it, then there will be no persuading players that it’s in their own interest to try to play on. In fact, I doubt even that would achieve too much.

it'sonlyagame (U6426)

Well to be fair, the laws are quite clear about what they're looking out for - they shouldn't need more guidance.

The idea that players are falling over simply because referees aren't giving them decisions when they stay up is a nonsense - they feel the contact and go down... there's no thought process along the lines of 'oh, I think I may have been fouled so I will go to ground just to demonstrate that'.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 minutes ago
it'sonlyagame (U6426)

Well to be fair, the laws are quite clear about what they're looking out for - they shouldn't need more guidance.

The idea that players are falling over simply because referees aren't giving them decisions when they stay up is a nonsense - they feel the contact and go down... there's no thought process along the lines of 'oh, I think I may have been fouled so I will go to ground just to demonstrate that'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thing is exaggeration happens all over the pitch. Even just a high ball or a player shielding a ball, they feel hands on their back and they're over. Usually little serious consequence, earns a cheap fk, and its tolerated, often multiple times a game.

It's become a thing when the ref is supposed to judge whether the contact is enough to go down. Happy to give them in innocuous areas but such exaggeration considered bookable in/around the area.

You look at the Salah penalty vs Newcastle. Yes he pulls his arm but Christ that's not enough force to hold back a child let alone prompt the dramatic collapse. If people fell like that everytime someone pulled their arm A&E would be full of the injured.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=712nKQOPk_E

Devonshirespur (U6316)

Oh I agree - it's endemic and I don't think there's any way of solving it.

But that doesn't mean the referee was wrong.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 45 minutes ago
Devonshirespur (U6316)

Oh I agree - it's endemic and I don't think there's any way of solving it.

But that doesn't mean the referee was wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think he was wrong in that Son and Maddison were treated differently. If he gave neither, fair enough, likewise if he booked both. Personally didnt think Son deserved a yellow even if the ref chose no foul.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 45 minutes ago
Devonshirespur (U6316)

Oh I agree - it's endemic and I don't think there's any way of solving it.

But that doesn't mean the referee was wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think he was wrong in that Son and Maddison were treated differently. If he gave neither, fair enough, likewise if he booked both. Personally didnt think Son deserved a yellow even if the ref chose no foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well yes, and if he watched it back he might say he made a mistake.

But when players are constantly cheating, can we really blame referees for struggling to work out what’s legitimate and what’s a foul?