No simulation - FA not persuing ban

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:01 pm

ha.

i knew you wouldn't answer.

you are not only awfully narcissistic you are a coward.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:04 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:None of that changes the fact that Pope fouled him. And if you think it wasn't a significant contact then i encourage you to try and bent your ankle as much as Silva's ankle bent. Surely if the contact was insignificant then it should be easy to do. Go on. Take pictures. I'll wait.

Sorry I thought we were debating whether Silva dived and simulated. Are you dissembling like your mentor Donald does?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:05 pm

yTib wrote:ha.

i knew you wouldn't answer.

you are not only awfully narcissistic you are a coward.

And i knew you wouldn't explain what you mean by "dive". Imagine how cowardly you have to be to not want someone to understand the the question you're asking.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:07 pm

levraiclaret wrote:Sorry I thought we were debating whether Silva dived and simulated. Are you dissembling like your mentor Donald does?

Not quite. YOU said the contact wasn't significant. You did that. Not me. I'm saying Pope fouled him. You're saying he didn't.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:07 pm

emoticons are the tool of the weakling.

if you don't understand the definition of 'diving' then what on earth can you understand?

i'll give you one last opportunity: yes or no?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:08 pm

yTib wrote:emoticons are the tool of the weakling.

if you don't understand the definition of 'diving' then what on earth can you understand?

i'll give you one last opportunity: yes or no?

I've answered your question with a yes or no already.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:14 pm

It will all be sorted out when Brexit takes effect, thank God: all these wily Johnny Foreigners will not be allowed to cheat us all the time. Roll on Brexit!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:15 pm

I've answered it already. Exactly the way you asked for it to be answered. I provided a "yes" or a "no". You just didn't like it because i also explained my answer and by explaining my answer i make it impossible for you to deliberately misinterpret. Well, not impossible, but when you do I get to call you out for editing my answer down to only one word, and you don't want that.

Could you try to be less transparent, please?

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:17 pm

you haven't answered. you are deluded.

but just in case i'm wrong could you answer again?

did silva dive?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:20 pm

yTib wrote:you haven't answered. you are deluded.

but just in case i'm wrong could you answer again?

did silva dive?

No problem. Sometimes we miss a post every now and then. Here's the answer you missed.

Imploding Turtle wrote:By my definition of "dive"? Which is going down without being fouled in order to con a referee. No. He didn't. Because he was fouled and so what he did doesn't fit that definition.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:21 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Not quite. YOU said the contact wasn't significant. You did that. Not me. I'm saying Pope fouled him. You're saying he didn't.

This thread is about whether Silva dived and then simulated injury, I think he did dive because he had the opportunity to put his left foot on the ground and stay on his feet to follow the ball. I think he simulated injury because he writhed around on the floor holding both ankles not just the one Pope clattered/touched. My argument being that if Pope clattered Silva, then Silva would know which ankle had been received contact but he didn't so it is possible/likely that he was not clattered.

The degree of contact dictates whether a foul is committed but the discussion is about Silva's actions following the contact.

So answer the questions Donald.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:21 pm

very good. thankyou.

it iterates my view that you know sod all about football.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:23 pm

So any going to ground after contact however minimal is not a dive. Says it all.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:23 pm

levraiclaret wrote:So any going to ground after contact however minimal is not a dive. Says it all.

Who said that?

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:25 pm

you are essentially saying that.

you are saying pope caused silva to fall.

and before you say 'i never said that' you are when you say he didn't dive.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:32 pm

levraiclaret wrote:This thread is about whether Silva dived and then simulated injury, I think he did dive because he had the opportunity to put his left foot on the ground and stay on his feet to follow the ball. I think he simulated injury because he writhed around on the floor holding both ankles not just the one Pope clattered/touched. My argument being that if Pope clattered Silva, then Silva would know which ankle had been received contact but he didn't so it is possible/likely that he was not clattered.

The degree of contact dictates whether a foul is committed but the discussion is about Silva's actions following the contact.

So answer the questions Donald.

Simulating an injury isn't a foul, or bookable. Probably because it's difficult to prove. We should do a better job of shaming those who simulate injuries, especially head injuries, because they are why referees never know whether to stop play or not unless a bone is protruding. (edit: for example, imagine if a referee ignored a player who's gone down off the ball because his team mate do that all the time, but it turns out he's had a heart attack) But we shouldn't start going booking players for it because it's so hard to be certain. And how do we do it? Do we book people who scream too loud while being tackled, and then are able to continue playing? De we book everyone who needs the physio but isn't subbed off? How do you set a definable line? How can a referee measure someone elses pain? Do we book Ben Mee because his cheekbone wasn't broken?

Find a way for referees to know (with equal certainty as simulation of a foul) and i'll support booking players for exaggerating their pain/injury.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:35 pm

...or retrospectively punish cheats.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:36 pm

yTib wrote:you are essentially saying that.

you are saying pope caused silva to fall.

and before you say 'i never said that' you are when you say he didn't dive.

Pope fouled him. Pope caused Silva to fall. Silva exaggerated his fall. I though i'd been clear on that before now, but obviously i wasn't clear enough.

Explain how that is the same as saying "going to ground after contact however minimal is not a dive".

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:39 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: Pope caused Silva to fall.

bingo.

you talk nonsense.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:41 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:By my definition of "dive"? Which is going down without being fouled in order to con a referee. No. He didn't. Because he was fouled and so what he did doesn't fit that definition.

Why go by your own definition, why not go with the dictionary's?

Dive
SOCCERinformal
(of a player) deliberately fall when challenged in order to deceive the referee into awarding a foul.

So, he dived.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:41 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:By my definition of "dive"? Which is going down without being fouled in order to con a referee. No. He didn't. Because he was fouled and so what he did doesn't fit that definition.

My definition of a dive is going to ground in order to influence the influence the referee, where staying on your feet is warranted. Your definition encourages players to go down whereas I prefer players to stay on their feet and pursue the play.

The problem is that referees are reluctant/scared to give penalties to players that are fouled and stay on their feet.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:42 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoUhTC_irs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:43 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Why go by your own definition, why not go with the dictionary's?

Dive
SOCCERinformal
(of a player) deliberately fall when challenged in order to deceive the referee into awarding a foul.

So, he dived.

That says "when challenged" not "when fouled". Unless you're saying that being challenged is the same thing as being fouled.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:44 pm

does it ever occur to you, charlie, that you are wrong - ever?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:45 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That says "when challenged" not "when fouled". Unless you're saying that being challenged is the same thing as being fouled.

A challenge could be fair or unfair. A good tackle is a challenge in the same way that a bad tackle is a challenge. It's impossible for you to successfully argue that under the dictionary's definition of dive, in a footballing context, Silva didn't dive. Although I have absolutely no doubt you'll give it a try.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:45 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That says "when challenged" not "when fouled". Unless you're saying that being challenged is the same thing as being fouled.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:48 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Pope fouled him. Pope caused Silva to fall. Silva exaggerated his fall. I though i'd been clear on that before now, but obviously i wasn't clear enough.".

Pope didn't cause Silva to fall, he may have given him the opportunity, Silva chose to fall. He could have stayed on his feet, watch the gif again and concentrate only on his left foot, it is inches from the ground when it flicks up.

Be honest resist your Trump tendencies.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:49 pm

levraiclaret wrote:My definition of a dive is going to ground in order to influence the influence the referee, where staying on your feet is warranted. Your definition encourages players to go down whereas I prefer players to stay on their feet and pursue the play.

My definition does no such thing. My definition is exactly the same as FIFA's definition of "simulation", and therefore my definition is a bookable offence. It's literally the opposite of encouragement.

The problem is that referees are reluctant/scared to give penalties to players that are fouled and stay on their feet.

I agree. And this is another area where i think football can learn from rugby. In rugby league (union too?) the referee clearly shouts "advantage" when an advantage is being played and "advantage over" when it's over. If the opposing team wins possession during the period of advantage then play is stopped and brought back for the initial infraction. I'd like to see something like this implemented in football.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:52 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's literally the opposite of encouragement.

more self-delusion.

your apologising for cheats endorses cheating.

you and shearer.

and teh neville twits.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:54 pm

Rileybobs wrote:A challenge could be fair or unfair. A good tackle is a challenge in the same way that a bad tackle is a challenge. It's impossible for you to successfully argue that under the dictionary's definition of dive, in a footballing context, Silva didn't dive. Although I have absolutely no doubt you'll give it a try.

I've no idea what it is you're objecting to. If a player goes down under an unfair challenge that is a foul. Even if he chooses to go down under the unfair challenge it's not a dive, neither by my definition or by your "dictionary definition". So with that in mind Silva didn't dive because he was fouled (an unfair challenge), even if he did choose to go to ground (i don't think he chose to go to ground, i only think he chose how to go to ground).

So, understanding my opinion of the incident, please explain to me what it is you object to about my definition? Because as far as I can see it's the exact same as yours.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:56 pm

bottom line: imploding turtle is a champion of cheats.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:03 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've no idea what it is you're objecting to. If a player goes down under an unfair challenge that is a foul. Even if he chooses to go down under the unfair challenge it's not a dive, neither by my definition or by your "dictionary definition". So with that in mind Silva didn't dive because he was fouled (an unfair challenge), even if he did choose to go to ground (i don't think he chose to go to ground, i only think he chose how to go to ground).

So, understanding my opinion of the incident, please explain to me what it is you object to about my definition? Because as far as I can see it's the exact same as yours.

I'm not going to get into a never ending argument with you because you never concede ground so it's an utterly futile exercise. The dictionary definition of the word 'dive', which I posted above is pretty clear - if Silva chose to go to ground then he dived. If you don't think that Silva deliberately chose to go to ground then fair enough - that wouldn't be considered a dive. Although I'm gobsmacked that having the benefit of 'evidence' anyone could think that Silva chose to go to ground.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:06 pm

Rileybobs wrote:I'm not going to get into a never ending argument with you because you never concede ground so it's an utterly futile exercise. The dictionary definition of the word 'dive', which I posted above is pretty clear - if Silva chose to go to ground then he dived. If you don't think that Silva deliberately chose to go to ground then fair enough - that wouldn't be considered a dive. Although I'm gobsmacked that having the benefit of 'evidence' anyone could think that Silva chose to go to ground.

But he was fouled. How can he "deceive the referee into awarding a foul" if he was actually fouled? That's not deception. Do i need to remind you of the definition?

"deliberately fall when challenged in order to deceive the referee into awarding a foul."

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:07 pm

Really, it's irrelevant whether Silva dived or not, because the dive can't possibly in law affect whether or not it was a foul. The question really is, how hard do you have to touch someone for it to be a foul, and what guidelines can be given to referees to help them establish why one Pope's touch constitutes a foul while the many other touches that go on all game, don't constitute a foul.

For example, corners. Sometimes defenders touch forwards at corners. Should it be a penalty every time? If not, why not?

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:11 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:My definition does no such thing. My definition is exactly the same as FIFA's definition of "simulation", and therefore my definition is a bookable offence. It's literally the opposite of encouragement.

Your definition allows the player to decide whether he has been fouled, every challenge isn't a foul. A challenge that does not win the ball is not a foul if it does not prevent the other player from reaching the ball or chasing the ball. Despite FIFA football is still a contact sport.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:But he was fouled. How can he "deceive the referee into awarding a foul" if he was actually fouled? That's not deception. Do i need to remind you of the definition?

"deliberately fall when challenged in order to deceive the referee into awarding a foul."

He deceived the referee into thinking that he was tripped, when he wasn't tripped. He also deceived the referee into thinking that he was hurt, when he wasn't hurt. Both cases are deception.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:16 pm

levraiclaret wrote:Your definition allows the player to decide whether he has been fouled, every challenge isn't a foul. A challenge that does not win the ball is not a foul if it does not prevent the other player from reaching the ball or chasing the ball. Despite FIFA football is still a contact sport.

No. The referee decides whether a player has been fouled. My definition allows for players to decline what the referee might perceive as an advantage by going to ground if fouled. If the rugby league process of playing advantage was implemented in some way then players wouldn't have to go to ground to claim a foul (which the ref might not have seen anyway), when a referee shouts "advantage" then the player can know for sure that the ref has seen the foul and can ask the referee to call it instead of taking the "advantage".

Edit: using Saturday's incident as an example (modified a bit). Let's say Silva could have stayed on his feet and did. The referee could shout "advantage" and then the player can claim the foul because there wasn't really an advantage as he was going away from goal. This would reduce the number of times players go to ground easily because i'm sure most of the time when players choose to go to ground under a foul when they could have continued is simply to force the referee into not playing an advantage.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:19 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Simulating an injury isn't a foul, or bookable.

Yes it is.

CAUTIONS FOR UNSPORTING BEHAVIOUR

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:

attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury

http://www.theifab.com/laws/fouls-and-m ... ary-action" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:20 pm

a programme about autism has just started on bbc2.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:20 pm

So you think that Silva's behaviour was acceptable and fair play and his actions were warranted to guide the referee to the correct decision?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:24 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Yes it is.

http://www.theifab.com/laws/fouls-and-m ... ary-action" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alright. Fair enough. technically it's bookable, It just never seems to happen. How many times have you seen a player be slapped or gently headbutted and get booked for collapsing like they've been pole-axed?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:25 pm

He's making this sh-it up as he goes along.

Complete mentalist - he'll be cleaning his toilet with a toothbrush for the next 6 hours - before going to sleep for 30 minutes.....then up again in the morning to face another day.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:27 pm

levraiclaret wrote:So you think that Silva's behaviour was acceptable and fair play and his actions were warranted to guide the referee to the correct decision?

Is that what you think i was saying when I stated that i don't think he could have stayed on his feet? I just used a modified version of that incident to explain to you my idea for how we can reduce instances where that happens.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what i'm saying, or is it unintentional?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:30 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Alright. Fair enough. technically it's bookable, It just never seems to happen. How many times have you seen a player be slapped or gently headbutted and get booked for collapsing like they've been pole-axed?

None, because referees and the FA (wrongly) allow them to get away with it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:31 pm

TVC15 wrote:He's making this sh-it up as he goes along.

Complete mentalist - he'll be cleaning his toilet with a toothbrush for the next 6 hours - before going to sleep for 30 minutes.....then up again in the morning to face another day.

Can you provide examples of what i'm made up?

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:32 pm

Bloody hell, day 3. If you can't see how that's a penalty I honestly wonder how you can watch football, this happens every game, it must be torture. People must have to close their eyes every time Barnes goes for a header, exaggerating contact trying to win the free kick. Pope was silly, Silva was smart, we were going to need a refereeing miracle to not concede the penalty, that didn't happen. Move on.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Did you see how Silva's ankle bent? Ankles aren't supposed to bend like that. 'Clattered' is perfectly adequate.

Maybe Uri Geller was in the stands and he was part of the big conspiracy to deny Burnley a result at the Etihad.

At this rate, I'll have to wear my sunglasses to the Newcastle game next week, so that I'm not dazzled by the floodlights reflecting off everyone's tinfoil hats.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:54 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:Maybe Uri Geller was in the stands and he was part of the big conspiracy to deny Burnley a result at the Etihad.

At this rate, I'll have to wear my sunglasses to the Newcastle game next week, so that I'm not dazzled by the floodlights reflecting off everyone's tinfoil hats.

You can see grass between Pope's knee and Silva's ankle.

Your Burnley negative alarm clock needs setting to the correct time.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:55 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:You can see grass between Pope's knee and Silva's ankle.

Your Burnley negative alarm clock needs setting to the correct time.

Show us.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:55 pm

Just to put a different angle on things....if in another situation he was being chased lets say by a guy with a big "chopper" in his hands would he have gone down?