Taken out of context, he didn't tell him to dive.
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
I find it so bizarre how we see things this country. It is like we are the leaders of the world, it is either the British way or the wrong way.
Newsflash, there are different cultures and people approach this game differently. Winning a penalty in a clever manner is taught and supported in South American countries.
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Double standards from bitter Klopp and Frank. Has Jurgen lost his mind or does he not know he has Mane and Salah playing for him? Biggest divers i've seen. Oh and Lampard played alongside Drogba, so i'm sure he's an expert at diving.
Jose took diving to another level with his Chelsea side in 2004 too!! Bitter old man.
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without having to even review your penalties I can say that is incorrect. The Norwich one was a joke decision, one that even had Mike Riley apologising.
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 7 minutes ago
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're correct about the Villa pen, Bruno clipped the Villa defender so that was wrongly awarded without doubt. All of the others were correctly given, it just seems like it's one rule for every other club and then another for Man United. Soon the referees will not be allowed to award a penalty to us. Absolute joke.
If you get clipped and end up losing the ball but don't go down, then you'll be damn lucky to get a pen. Players go down easy all over the pitch cos they know they nothing will be given otherwise.
Manager tell their players to dive because simply the refs don't want to give the pen unless forced into.
When players are tackled and try to stay on their feet, they get punished for their honesty by not getting a pen. Because the refs generally view the fact the players hasn't gone down as a synonymous of no foul?
Though, this is not the same as the minimum contact dive. That's cheating. Take Martial in a recent game, where he went down 3 times in a game?
He taught him that? Probably Ole.
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 8 minutes ago
I find it so bizarre how we see things this country. It is like we are the leaders of the world, it is either the British way or the wrong way.
Newsflash, there are different cultures and people approach this game differently. Winning a penalty in a clever manner is taught and supported in South American countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally when embracing different cultures you want to focus on the good, not the bad.
Jose brought in the idea to dive and Ole has executed it. When you have Pogba shouting at his own players for not diving just shows you what kind of club United are.
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 24 minutes ago
I find it so bizarre how we see things this country. It is like we are the leaders of the world, it is either the British way or the wrong way.
Newsflash, there are different cultures and people approach this game differently. Winning a penalty in a clever manner is taught and supported in South American countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s like Biting and stuff, were just unaccustomed to that type of stuff over here, hopefully in time we’ll fully embrace it and everyone will know where they stand, or fall
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is.
If you're running in the box and you feel someone kick you, go down. You've been fouled and you're just showing the referee such.
If you're running in the box and someone sticks a leg out, but doesn't touch you, and you go down it's a dive.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Culer talks so much like Rob
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it is diving. It may be a foul, and one you may not get by staying on your feet but of course it is diving. I have no real issue with the whole aspect of ensuring that it's given if you're fouled. Why should a defender gain an advantage for committing a foul and if going down means that, so be it. Initiating the contact is another matter, as, obviously is going down without getting touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I agree with you 100% there. No idea how he can't understand that if a player makes a conscious decision to go down when they could stay up, by definition it must be a dive.
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it is diving. It may be a foul, and one you may not get by staying on your feet but of course it is diving. I have no real issue with the whole aspect of ensuring that it's given if you're fouled. Why should a defender gain an advantage for committing a foul and if going down means that, so be it. Initiating the contact is another matter, as, obviously is going down without getting touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diving is when you go down WITHOUT contact. Going down when there IS contact is not diving.
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 54 minutes ago
Taken out of context, he didn't tell him to dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No...he tells Pogba to do that
Sign in if you want to comment
Rashford: Jose told me to dive
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 15/1/21
Taken out of context, he didn't tell him to dive.
posted on 15/1/21
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
posted on 15/1/21
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
posted on 15/1/21
I find it so bizarre how we see things this country. It is like we are the leaders of the world, it is either the British way or the wrong way.
Newsflash, there are different cultures and people approach this game differently. Winning a penalty in a clever manner is taught and supported in South American countries.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Double standards from bitter Klopp and Frank. Has Jurgen lost his mind or does he not know he has Mane and Salah playing for him? Biggest divers i've seen. Oh and Lampard played alongside Drogba, so i'm sure he's an expert at diving.
posted on 15/1/21
Jose took diving to another level with his Chelsea side in 2004 too!! Bitter old man.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without having to even review your penalties I can say that is incorrect. The Norwich one was a joke decision, one that even had Mike Riley apologising.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 7 minutes ago
I know. I intentionality used that title as that's what Jose, Klopp and Frank have insinuated we do. I can only think of the Aston Villa penalty last season that anyone could make a good point about it not being a penalty. Every other one was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're correct about the Villa pen, Bruno clipped the Villa defender so that was wrongly awarded without doubt. All of the others were correctly given, it just seems like it's one rule for every other club and then another for Man United. Soon the referees will not be allowed to award a penalty to us. Absolute joke.
posted on 15/1/21
If you get clipped and end up losing the ball but don't go down, then you'll be damn lucky to get a pen. Players go down easy all over the pitch cos they know they nothing will be given otherwise.
posted on 15/1/21
Manager tell their players to dive because simply the refs don't want to give the pen unless forced into.
When players are tackled and try to stay on their feet, they get punished for their honesty by not getting a pen. Because the refs generally view the fact the players hasn't gone down as a synonymous of no foul?
Though, this is not the same as the minimum contact dive. That's cheating. Take Martial in a recent game, where he went down 3 times in a game?
He taught him that? Probably Ole.
posted on 15/1/21
Who taught him that? *
posted on 15/1/21
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 8 minutes ago
I find it so bizarre how we see things this country. It is like we are the leaders of the world, it is either the British way or the wrong way.
Newsflash, there are different cultures and people approach this game differently. Winning a penalty in a clever manner is taught and supported in South American countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally when embracing different cultures you want to focus on the good, not the bad.
posted on 15/1/21
Jose brought in the idea to dive and Ole has executed it. When you have Pogba shouting at his own players for not diving just shows you what kind of club United are.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
posted on 15/1/21
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
posted on 15/1/21
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 24 minutes ago
I find it so bizarre how we see things this country. It is like we are the leaders of the world, it is either the British way or the wrong way.
Newsflash, there are different cultures and people approach this game differently. Winning a penalty in a clever manner is taught and supported in South American countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s like Biting and stuff, were just unaccustomed to that type of stuff over here, hopefully in time we’ll fully embrace it and everyone will know where they stand, or fall
posted on 15/1/21
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't
posted on 15/1/21
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is.
If you're running in the box and you feel someone kick you, go down. You've been fouled and you're just showing the referee such.
If you're running in the box and someone sticks a leg out, but doesn't touch you, and you go down it's a dive.
posted on 15/1/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/1/21
Culer talks so much like Rob
posted on 15/1/21
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it is diving. It may be a foul, and one you may not get by staying on your feet but of course it is diving. I have no real issue with the whole aspect of ensuring that it's given if you're fouled. Why should a defender gain an advantage for committing a foul and if going down means that, so be it. Initiating the contact is another matter, as, obviously is going down without getting touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I agree with you 100% there. No idea how he can't understand that if a player makes a conscious decision to go down when they could stay up, by definition it must be a dive.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 28 minutes ago
He will mean in instances where Rashford was clipped in the box but stayed on his feet, when there was enough contact to go down and win the penalty. That isn't diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the definition of diving, it most certainly is. Wilfully throwing yourself to the ground when you could stay on your feet is diving. But the thing is, diving and being fouled are not mutually exclusive, so even if a player has thrown himself down, it can still be right to give a penalty if they have been impeded preceding the dive
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're kicked in the box, at speed, then you should go down. It's a foul, even if you can stay stood up. Simple. Not diving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually is diving though. It's a wilful action. Look up diving in the dictionary. You haven't been taken from your feet, you've voluntarily gone down, so of course it's a dive, not even open to debate (though I have no doubt you will). Doesn't mean it's not a foul as well though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not diving. If an opponent kicks you in the box, even if it's not enough to get you to go down, then you have to go over. It's a penalty and a foul. Highlighting to the referee that you've been kicked is clever, not a dive. A dive is when the player goes down WITHOUT being touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it is diving. It may be a foul, and one you may not get by staying on your feet but of course it is diving. I have no real issue with the whole aspect of ensuring that it's given if you're fouled. Why should a defender gain an advantage for committing a foul and if going down means that, so be it. Initiating the contact is another matter, as, obviously is going down without getting touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diving is when you go down WITHOUT contact. Going down when there IS contact is not diving.
posted on 15/1/21
comment by #Culer (U22564)
posted 54 minutes ago
Taken out of context, he didn't tell him to dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No...he tells Pogba to do that
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7