To be fair he didn't for a moment suggest that.Spijed wrote:So are you saying that an attacker would never dive if they could help it, and always try and stay on their feet and score?
Liverpool penalty
Re: Liverpool penalty
-
- Posts: 4178
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:07 am
- Been Liked: 1002 times
- Has Liked: 2044 times
- Location: North Hampshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
No, I'm suggesting that referees/comentators need to bear in mind that when an attacker falls over its not necessarilly a dive or a foul.
-
- Posts: 2583
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
- Been Liked: 689 times
- Has Liked: 361 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
He wasnt impeded. He just pretended he was. Hence why he didnt go down at the point of contactTall Paul wrote:The argument for the Mane penalty is that he was impeded with contact in the penalty area, not that he was kicked carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.
It's a dive
Its cheating
Contact doesn't equal a foul
Its another example of VAR being pointless
In my book that's a clear and obvious error
I have no doubts about it
This user liked this post: Sproggy
Re: Liverpool penalty
I tend to agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that I don't think that the part of the law that the penalty was given under was included in Rileybob's quote.Roosterbooster wrote:He wasnt impeded. He just pretended he was. Hence why he didnt go down at the point of contact
It's a dive
Its cheating
Contact doesn't equal a foul
Its another example of VAR being pointless
In my book that's a clear and obvious error
I have no doubts about it
Although contact can equal a foul if that contact impedes the opponent.
Actually, having just watched it again, I think Albrighton's contact stops Mane from getting a shot away so it's probably a penalty under the law. Mane definitely dives as well. I'd like to see referees being able to book players for diving as well as giving the penalty.
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6903 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Liverpool penalty
The definition of impede is;Tall Paul wrote:You've missed a bit out, which is why most penalties are given and contact is cited:
The argument for the Mane penalty is that he was impeded with contact in the penalty area, not that he was kicked carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.
‘delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them’
So he definitely wasn’t impeded. Pulling a players shirt or blocking a player is impeding. Mane was kicked - but not carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.
Re: Liverpool penalty
Another definition of impede is:Rileybobs wrote:The definition of impede is;
‘delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them’
So he definitely wasn’t impeded. Pulling a players shirt or blocking a player is impeding. Mane was kicked - but not carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.
"to make it more difficult for something to happen or more difficult for someone to do something"
Albrighton's contact made it more difficult for Mane to get a shot off so he definitely was impeded.
Re: Liverpool penalty
Oh dearTall Paul wrote:Another definition of impede is:
"to make it more difficult for something to happen or more difficult for someone to do something"
Albrighton's contact made it more difficult for Mane to get a shot off so he definitely was impeded.
These 2 users liked this post: Sproggy FactualFrank
Re: Liverpool penalty
Good argument.Claret wrote:Oh dear
Re: Liverpool penalty
An even better solution would be if the referee could book or send off the player for diving and then let everyone know that but for the fact that the player dived and tried to deceive the officials it would have been penalty - so cheating has cost their team a penalty.Tall Paul wrote:I tend to agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that I don't think that the part of the law that the penalty was given under was included in Rileybob's quote.
Although contact can equal a foul if that contact impedes the opponent.
Actually, having just watched it again, I think Albrighton's contact stops Mane from getting a shot away so it's probably a penalty under the law. Mane definitely dives as well. I'd like to see referees being able to book players for diving as well as giving the penalty.
That rule would cut out most of the diving in penalty areas overnight - and even if a couple of mistakes were made by the officials in the subjective decision as to whether they dived or not - it would still be more than worth it.
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6903 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Liverpool penalty
I disagree - I think the ref gave the penalty because he felt that the kick on Mane caused him to fall to the ground. I also disagree that Mane was in any way impeded by the contact. If you think otherwise then fair enough.Tall Paul wrote:Another definition of impede is:
"to make it more difficult for something to happen or more difficult for someone to do something"
Albrighton's contact made it more difficult for Mane to get a shot off so he definitely was impeded.
Surprised anyone thinks that warranted a penalty under the actual laws of the game.
Re: Liverpool penalty
The only man that mattered thought it warranted one.Rileybobs wrote:I disagree - I think the ref gave the penalty because he felt that the kick on Mane caused him to fall to the ground. I also disagree that Mane was in any way impeded by the contact. If you think otherwise then fair enough.
Surprised anyone thinks that warranted a penalty under the actual laws of the game.
As you rightly said in your original post quoting the law, it's hard to make an argument that Albrighton's kick was careless, reckless or using excessive force so it's much more likely that the ref thought Mane was impeded with contact and gave the penalty for that reason.
Last edited by Tall Paul on Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6903 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Liverpool penalty
I wouldn’t say he was the only man that mattered. He was the only man who could make the decision though and the vast majority seem to think he got it wrong.Tall Paul wrote:The only man that mattered thought it did at the end of the day.
Re: Liverpool penalty
Of course he's the only man that matters, doesn't the law state "in the opinion of the referee" (or words to that effect)?Rileybobs wrote:I wouldn’t say he was the only man that mattered. He was the only man who could make the decision though and the vast majority seem to think he got it wrong.
-
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6903 times
- Has Liked: 1471 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Liverpool penalty
He’s the man who makes the decision but that doesn’t mean that the opinions of others don’t matter. It also doesn’t make his decision the correct one.Tall Paul wrote:Of course he's the only man that matters, doesn't the law state "in the opinion of the referee" (or words to that effect)?
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
-
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3146 times
- Has Liked: 10202 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
Aye, alright. I can see the ale's in charge again. Mind how you go in the park, fella....
-
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:39 pm
- Been Liked: 704 times
- Has Liked: 657 times
- Location: Château d'If
Re: Liverpool penalty
the only thing worse than cheating is those that endorse and even celebrate it.
football is doomed.
football is doomed.
These 2 users liked this post: SussexDon1inIreland Lord Beamish
-
- Posts: 6217
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1277 times
- Has Liked: 8528 times
- Location: Greystones Ireland
Re: Liverpool penalty
No penalty- even MOTD said it was soft. I could forgive Ref for being fooled by Mane's dive when he felt contact but with VAR having the slow mo replay they should be able to see that Mane feels the touch and a split second decided to throw himself down. Would be gutted if that was given against us.
Is it a conspiracy that the top clubs get these decisions??
Was at the Turf yesterday- great result.
UTC
Is it a conspiracy that the top clubs get these decisions??
Was at the Turf yesterday- great result.
UTC
-
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3146 times
- Has Liked: 10202 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
"Is it a conspiracy that the top clubs get these decisions??"
I think as long as the incident under review is open to interpretation, then there is always going to be the possibility of the decision going the "popular" way.
At least with offside, it's generally one or t'other and can't be fiddled.
I think as long as the incident under review is open to interpretation, then there is always going to be the possibility of the decision going the "popular" way.
At least with offside, it's generally one or t'other and can't be fiddled.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
And the white flag is finally waived!evensteadiereddie wrote:Aye, alright. I can see the ale's in charge again. Mind how you go in the park, fella....
-
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3146 times
- Has Liked: 10202 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
"Waived" - what a retard.
Aye, again, alright, Ringo. This is odd stuff even by your standards but just to save you further embarrassment, I'll simply repeat. I can see the ale's in charge.
Mind how you go in the park, fella....
Aye, again, alright, Ringo. This is odd stuff even by your standards but just to save you further embarrassment, I'll simply repeat. I can see the ale's in charge.
Mind how you go in the park, fella....
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Aah I love, the old " you're drunk" fallback position you resort to when you've dried up on the retort front!. Its funny isn't it you see it as a red rag to a bull and all I see is a white flag!evensteadiereddie wrote:"Waived" - what a retard.
Aye, again, alright, Ringo. This is odd stuff even by your standards but just to save you further embarrassment, I'll simply repeat. I can see the ale's in charge.
Mind how you go in the park, fella....
No doubt when theres nothing more to be said, you'll still be saying it!
The last words all yours . Fill yer boots buggerlugs
-
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
In fairness, it gets a rise out of you every time, Wrongo.
This user liked this post: evensteadiereddie
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
What do the following all have in common?
The referendum result
Leicester City winning the premier league
RingoMcCartneys posts.
They clearly eat away at the very soul of unhingededdie.
The referendum result
Leicester City winning the premier league
RingoMcCartneys posts.
They clearly eat away at the very soul of unhingededdie.
-
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Rather like accusations of alcoholism do you, Wrongo.
-
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3146 times
- Has Liked: 10202 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
This is all very creepy, Ringo. I've addressed all the "issues" you fantasise about.
Do you masturbate while posting about me ?
I'd rather you didn't keep trolling me. It's embarrassing for both of us.
Do you masturbate while posting about me ?
I'd rather you didn't keep trolling me. It's embarrassing for both of us.
-
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:59 am
- Been Liked: 264 times
- Has Liked: 3597 times
- Location: North Yorkshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
Baffling nonsense from Dermot Gallagher as usual:
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... -ref-watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Liverpool pen correct.
Coleman should've seen red for first half challenge but "VAR recommended that it didn't meet the threshold so the matter was dealt with."
WTF!
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... -ref-watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Liverpool pen correct.
Coleman should've seen red for first half challenge but "VAR recommended that it didn't meet the threshold so the matter was dealt with."
WTF!
Re: Liverpool penalty
This is what Gallagher said about the Mane penalty decision:
DERMOT SAYS: "We talk about it because of how Mane went down, he didn't go down too well, but I think it is a foul and once you give a foul, you have to give a penalty. The problem we have is that we talk about minimal contact and going down theatrically, he does do that, but I do think he was fouled."
Now, everyone can have their own opinion about whether it was a foul or not, and Gallagher thinks it was. I personally do not think it was a foul. Touching Mane's boot is not an offence. Even standing on his foot is not an offence if it has no effect.
To help clear away we need new rules:
1. The FA needs to grow a pair and recognise cheating when it stares them in the face, pass memos to referees to give guidance and begin a culture of NO CHEATING
2. Anyone caught diving or simulating should be given a ban.
3. The law should be changed so that the referee can REFUSE to award a free kick or penalty if a [player has attempted to exaggerate, simulate, dive or cheat in any way, EVEN IF THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REAL FOUL.
DERMOT SAYS: "We talk about it because of how Mane went down, he didn't go down too well, but I think it is a foul and once you give a foul, you have to give a penalty. The problem we have is that we talk about minimal contact and going down theatrically, he does do that, but I do think he was fouled."
Now, everyone can have their own opinion about whether it was a foul or not, and Gallagher thinks it was. I personally do not think it was a foul. Touching Mane's boot is not an offence. Even standing on his foot is not an offence if it has no effect.
To help clear away we need new rules:
1. The FA needs to grow a pair and recognise cheating when it stares them in the face, pass memos to referees to give guidance and begin a culture of NO CHEATING
2. Anyone caught diving or simulating should be given a ban.
3. The law should be changed so that the referee can REFUSE to award a free kick or penalty if a [player has attempted to exaggerate, simulate, dive or cheat in any way, EVEN IF THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REAL FOUL.
-
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:03 pm
- Been Liked: 1140 times
- Has Liked: 767 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
They seem to have concluded that it's a contact sport outside the penalty area, but not within it
Re: Liverpool penalty
Ashley Barnes’ career is over thenClaret wrote:This is what Gallagher said about the Mane penalty decision:
DERMOT SAYS: "We talk about it because of how Mane went down, he didn't go down too well, but I think it is a foul and once you give a foul, you have to give a penalty. The problem we have is that we talk about minimal contact and going down theatrically, he does do that, but I do think he was fouled."
Now, everyone can have their own opinion about whether it was a foul or not, and Gallagher thinks it was. I personally do not think it was a foul. Touching Mane's boot is not an offence. Even standing on his foot is not an offence if it has no effect.
To help clear away we need new rules:
1. The FA needs to grow a pair and recognise cheating when it stares them in the face, pass memos to referees to give guidance and begin a culture of NO CHEATING
2. Anyone caught diving or simulating should be given a ban.
3. The law should be changed so that the referee can REFUSE to award a free kick or penalty if a [player has attempted to exaggerate, simulate, dive or cheat in any way, EVEN IF THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REAL FOUL.
Re: Liverpool penalty
I have this image of otherwise fit young men falling over because ‘they’ve felt contact’ and therefore have a right to, in the shops all over Cheshire. I bet they have crash mats in the bars in Alderley Edge.
-
- Posts: 17930
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3845 times
- Has Liked: 2066 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Aren't you a former teacher?evensteadiereddie wrote:"Waived" - what a retard.
Aye, again, alright, Ringo. This is odd stuff even by your standards but just to save you further embarrassment, I'll simply repeat. I can see the ale's in charge.
Mind how you go in the park, fella....
Calling someone a retard in this day and age is not on, but for an ex teacher it's unforgivable.
I know you get angry and often at war with Ringo, but an apology should be forthcoming here.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Liverpool penalty
He overdid it but was still a foul.
-
- Posts: 2242
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 997 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
A few ridiculous comments on this subject. Of course the refs opinion is the only one that matters in the awarding of a penalty. Right or wrong. Then I read that someone can stand on an opponents foot without it being a foul. The very act of standing on someone’s foot automatically impedes. Then I read that he was kicked but not unlawfully because there isn’t enough force applied and that the kick didn’t impede him. People have quoted the laws of the game and then ignored what they have written. Then the ridiculous notion that the awarding of a penalty should then be revoked if a player dives after being fouled. Some people go down theatrically but if they have been fouled that surely doesn’t matter. That a penalty should only be given if the attacking team first gains an advantage and then ‘the foul’ causes them to lose that advantage. Not sure why people want to over complicate things. If a foul is committed in the penalty area it is a penalty, nice and simple. Nothing else to consider.
This user liked this post: Tall Paul
-
- Posts: 9585
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3146 times
- Has Liked: 10202 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
Sorry you got so upset, tempo.
Last edited by evensteadiereddie on Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:02 pm
- Been Liked: 146 times
- Has Liked: 123 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
On the Liverpool thing, what's the craic with the white socks over their red ones?
Had they been given special dispensation, as I'm sure their kit is all red, and any deviation surely a breach of the rules?
Can't even get away with having different coloured under armour or sock tape at amateur level and I'm sure there was a case in the last few seasons where players have been found guilty of sponsorship breaches for wearing anti slip socks over their team kit.
Had they been given special dispensation, as I'm sure their kit is all red, and any deviation surely a breach of the rules?
Can't even get away with having different coloured under armour or sock tape at amateur level and I'm sure there was a case in the last few seasons where players have been found guilty of sponsorship breaches for wearing anti slip socks over their team kit.
-
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
I think a points deduction is in order.ClaretFelix wrote:On the Liverpool thing, what's the craic with the white socks over their red ones?
Had they been given special dispensation, as I'm sure their kit is all red, and any deviation surely a breach of the rules?
Can't even get away with having different coloured under armour or sock tape at amateur level and I'm sure there was a case in the last few seasons where players have been found guilty of sponsorship breaches for wearing anti slip socks over their team kit.
Re: Liverpool penalty
You make some good points DC but I don’t think it should be a foul if whatever was done simply has no impact or effect (other than causing the opponent to dive, exaggerate, etc)Darnhill Claret wrote:A few ridiculous comments on this subject. Of course the refs opinion is the only one that matters in the awarding of a penalty. Right or wrong. Then I read that someone can stand on an opponents foot without it being a foul. The very act of standing on someone’s foot automatically impedes. Then I read that he was kicked but not unlawfully because there isn’t enough force applied and that the kick didn’t impede him. People have quoted the laws of the game and then ignored what they have written. Then the ridiculous notion that the awarding of a penalty should then be revoked if a player dives after being fouled. Some people go down theatrically but if they have been fouled that surely doesn’t matter. That a penalty should only be given if the attacking team first gains an advantage and then ‘the foul’ causes them to lose that advantage. Not sure why people want to over complicate things. If a foul is committed in the penalty area it is a penalty, nice and simple. Nothing else to consider.
It’s ok for us to disagree on this and I very very strongly disagree with you.
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret
-
- Posts: 2242
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 997 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
That’s fine Claret, you’re only doing what I did.