Wow lucky to have that on your iphone, ha
I can't see how Duff could have avoided getting felled by the sliding tackle of the defender, who missed the ball.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
For me, he took an unwarranted tumble. It was a dive. My all-time favourite dive, mind. But still a dive. And thank God for it!
I think I hear what you say though; it was a careless enough tackle to have impeded Duff and would have warranted the awarding of a penalty irrespective of whether he remained on his feet or not. Whether the ref would have given it though had Duff tried to keep going along his "natural" path is not certain, unfortunately.
Interesting article by Jim White in the english Telegraph, on his justification of this 'slight contact in the box, entitlement to make a meal of it and get a valid penalty' interpretation.
I think some of the comments posted absolutely pummel the journo Jim White
"When even a respectable sports journo publishes an article based around a player 'winning' a penalty the game can only go further downhill....
Penalties are not a part of the game that can be won, they are compensation for an opportunity missed as a result of an actual foul in the box. Jim White either fails to comprehend the basic rules or has confused football with figure skating."
"Jim White admits that there was minimal contact - not enough for Robben to go down, and yet he says it was a penalty. If the contact was as slight as you say it was, and if Robben needn't have gone down (and he did) that's cheating isn't it?"
"Jim White seems to have bought into the view that players are entitled to throw themselves to the ground if they feel any contact at all.
Who decided that this was the new standard?"
"If you think about the mechanics of running, it is not the trailing foot being impeded that causes a fall. It is always the impeding of the foot which must take the weight next. In Robben's case his left foot was the next to take his weight and was not impeded. There was no reason whatsoever for him to fall. I couldn't trip a 4 year old like that, let alone a top-class athlete."
Reminds me of a Keith Fahey goal, though would Keith have needed to chest it down?
whether or not him needing to avoid the contact is an impediment in itself is one question, but it is stretching it in my opinion to say he couldn't have avoided being felled by the tackle. Looking at the angle from behind the goalline, he could easily have just lifted his leg over the tackle, and would have done so if it hadn't been inside the penalty box, I'd say.
The angle behind the goal is portrayed in very slow motion
At normal camera speed, everything happens in a flash. Duff was in control of the ball and was taken out in his stride by a player who missed the ball.
Possibly he could have leapt in the air to avoid contact (in that nanosecond of time) after he pushed the ball ahead. The important bit was that the contact was fierce enough to fell him
The only obvious way that was not going to be a penalty, was if the defender got to the ball first.
The point about Robben was that he contrived the trip out of minimal contact, after he had lost control of the ball and there appears to be a chorus of considered (misinformed) opinion which consider a player has the right to make a meal out of minimal contact and claim a penalty. That somehow there is a secret sacred doctrine ,somewhere in the rulebook which says so.
That was the first time I've been properly impressed by Boateng. He saved them on a few occasions.
Against us, if Germany play the high line they played for the first 25 mins we should bring Alan O'Brien out of retirement.
He did drag his leg though. There would have been no reason for him to do that if he was intending to keep going on his feet. It wouldn't have been necessary for him to do that either if he'd felt the tackle alone would have taken him out. He held his leg in what you might call an unnatural position. Whilst the tackle certainly interfered with him and carelessly impeded him (thus, constituting a foul), I don't think it would have taken him down had Duffer not been happy to play along. The problem is that the ref probably wouldn't have given a penalty had Duff not hit the ground, so I can see what might have influenced Duff in feeling the need to go to ground. Not that I held/hold it against him. I was revelling in it then and it still provokes a wry smile when I watch it again now.
Let it go, it's ancient history and thus irrelevant!
Exercise for Damny: look at the Jarred Payne red card incident during Ulster v Saracens. Then go to the Laws of the Game 2013. Look at the definition of a tackle. Identify the offence. Then look at the ERC press release after the disciplinary hearing. Compare the wording to the rule book.
None of it stacked up but yet it looked like a foul and smelt like a foul. That's the test in my union. This season's rugby has shown that refs often judge an incident by the player's landing, not by the actual offence. My point? In all field sports it's very often a very subjective decision. Everything isn't always clear cut, there are big grey areas. Mourniho today calls for a 4th official to have benefit of a video. It might improve things but it won't eradicate highly subjective decision making.
AB, that ought to keep him occupied for several hours
I might be eternally condemned, but calling me that is a bit much!
World Cup group-stage "flopping" rankings by the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-w...ing-1403660175
Good work, Honduras.
I love all the moaning from people who have never played the game. There are lots of bone on bone impacts in football or studs on bone. They hurt like hell. If you're at a game with few spectators and close to the pitch you can often hear the contact*. A kick on a bone can hurt like hell and be gone in 60 seconds. There was a game recently where the fouled player yelled and flung himself in the air. I though, oh no, not another dive. Then I saw the replay and he got a guy's studs on the top of his foot which must have been agony.
Yet based on what you read, especially in the comments sections of news sites, you'd swear every time a player goes to ground it's some sort of deceipt. Deception and diving goes on, of course, but some of the criticism is ill-placed too and many of those who complain most wouldn't last 5 minutes in a game of competitive football.
And it annoys the hell out of me when idiots like Lawrenson go "oh, he made the most of that" when a player has clearly been clobbered. His heyday was so long ago it virtually makes his views redundant.
I think some balance needs to be restored to the deception debate.
* in fact the sound of a kick can often be a factor in a ref's decision, since we're debating what ought to be a foul or not.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 01/07/2014 at 4:25 PM.
An S.Bl*tter in the crowd, what price a contentious decision...
Stutts just Paul O'Shead the lot of you with some devastating real world experience.
To be fair he is supporting his team! Gone quiet all of a sudden outside, weird for this time of day!
I was watching an under 8 game last Sunday. The number of well intended but fractionally late tackles, usually on the most talented dribblers, that led to kicks on ankles or shins was unreal. You could hear the bangs and when a kid is in floods of tears I think you can tell he's not looking to get his opponent booked. Unless you're in a Uruguayan slum or watching a game involving kids with immoral parents.
Hmm, not sure about that one just there though
Ahhhhhhhhh...... what kind of attempt was that. It was like Shane Longs attempt against Serbia(think it was Serbia?) The Swiss will regret that one
Its really not that complicated!!!
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks