That Penalty then?

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:52 pm

IT in disguise again, I suspect.

claretblue · Post by **claretblue** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:44 am

Sean Dyche - speaking out against diving: '...I don't think anyone seems to want to change it apart from me...'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... iving.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:57 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I honestly don't get it. How the **** are you people not seeing that he was clearly fouled by Pope? Are your glasses so clouded up with claret bullshit that somehow you're actually all blind to the fact that Silva played the ball away from Pope, the foot he used then becomes his standing foot (because that's how running works, they alternate) and then Pope clatters into/traps that foot with his knee.

Here's the exact moment it happens. How is this not visible to you? https://streamable.com/8v81i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This.

Juan Tanamera · Post by **Juan Tanamera** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:28 am

So you don't think that Silva deliberately turned his foot towards Pope?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:00 am

Juan Tanamera wrote:So you don't think that Silva deliberately turned his foot towards Pope?

Silva reaches with his right to get his toe onto the ball. His right foot is planted from that. A milisecond later Pope's knee clatters into him and rolls his ankle.

I can't see how anyone can argue against it.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:19 am

I'm certain that if this was cricket and the batsman had edged it to slip, with all camera angles showing that was the case, the snickometer went haywire, the heatsensor glowed up like a christmas tree, and there was a cherry red mark left on the bat, Burnley fans would still deny that there was an edge.

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

Juan Tanamera wrote:So you don't think that Silva deliberately turned his foot towards Pope?

wot?

Are you talking about the right foot that turns because Pope clattered into it? https://streamable.com/8v81i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Juan Tanamera · Post by **Juan Tanamera** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:54 am

Aye course it did.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:58 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:04 pm

It was a foul followed by a dive. Penalty decision was correct but the ref should have booked their player for diving.
Yes, it does sound stupid but that is what actually happened.

Goobs · Post by **Goobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:18 pm

Mala591 wrote:It was a foul followed by a dive. Penalty decision was correct but the ref should have booked their player for diving.
Yes, it does sound stupid but that is what actually happened.

I've read some daft stuff on here but, you want the ref to give a penalty and book him for diving? Wow!

Brunlea · Post by **Brunlea** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:25 pm

This may have been covered but in certain cultures it is see as acceptable and clever to obtain an advantage by using cunning and guile like the fat Argentinian genius did( no bitterness like football bitterness!) and the victim as such is seen as gullible for letting it happen!

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:29 pm

Goobs wrote:I've read some daft stuff on here but, you want the ref to give a penalty and book him for diving? Wow!

Not as daft as it sounds. He rolled around clutching the wrong leg feigning injury - it's clear simulation and like Rickie Lambert said on goals on sunday, actions like that make refs disinclined to give the foul. Chris Kamara said more or less verbatim that it's a foul, it's a dive and it's a penalty. The three things aren't mutually exclusive.

BabylonClaret · Post by **BabylonClaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:47 pm

Can't believe this is still being argued about.

There's contact. pope doesn't get the ball. It's potentially a penalty.

BUT

Does Pope take him out? No. He goes down because he throws himself down theatrically? Would pope have taken him out without the dive? Who knows?
It's clear Pope isn't going through or over Silva because he stops. And it's clear Silva decided to take that decision himself.

In today's game it's a debatable pen - we'd be screaming for it if it had been Barnes. It's similar to martin's laughable attempt to throw himself to the ground in THAT game against Derby. I'd be amazed if we got that 8 times out of 10 though. In fact we've already had 2 denied - including one which resulted in a foul for diving.

As I've said before, the consistency of these decisions is appalling.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:57 pm

Graham Poll's view, from the Mail:

" Manchester City’s opening goal came courtesy of a ‘modern’ penalty; the type of soft foul which while almost everyone accepts is a penalty almost all should feel uncomfortable seeing it. Bernardo Silva went into the Burnley penalty area and keeper Nick Pope tried to knock the ball away from him. Silva got to the ball first and nicked it away from Pope, who then brushed the Portuguese midfielder who, totally in keeping with the current trend, theatrically threw himself to the ground.

The fall was totally out of context with the contact but referee Roger East felt duty-bound to point to the penalty mark. He was correct but why does it feel so wrong?"

Which feels about right to me. If Silva is entitled to a penalty on Saturday, then Arfield is entitled to a penalty at Everton - they're both marginal calls. But as Poll says, as Halsey says and as every other reporter or pundit I've heard or read has said - except of course Imploding Turtle, UptheBeeHole and Factual Frank, who appear to want to claim impartiality as an excuse to pick fights - the contact was marginal and way out of proportion to the fall. That seems to be common ground amongst both Burnley fans and non-Burnley fans, including City fans.

So to go back to the point I originally made yesterday morning, if we want to give refs a fighting chance of being consistent on what has become a fiendishly difficult thing to adjudicate on, when slight contact which might impede someone is exaggerated into a swallow dive, it seems to me the time has come to work on the basis that a marginal contact does not equal a penalty, and effectively construe a dive against the diver claiming the penalty.

But The_Referee made a very fair point yesterday morning that the other answer to this is for refs to do more to try and give penalties to players that stay on their feet.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:01 pm

It's not as an excuse to pick fights, it's because Burnley fans are saying it wasn't a penalty, and it WAS. the evidence is startlingly clear.

Spice, you're a cricket man; my edge analogy above is what's happening here.

The evidence is clear as day yet people are still saying it wasn't a penalty.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:09 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It's not as an excuse to pick fights, it's because Burnley fans are saying it wasn't a penalty, and it WAS. the evidence is startlingly clear.

Spice, you're a cricket man; my edge analogy above is what's happening here.

The evidence is clear as day yet people are still saying it wasn't a penalty.

I think the better cricket analogy is with players claiming catches when they are borderline. At the moment, they're construed against the player claiming the catch - benefit of the doubt to the batsman. What is happening in football is that the benefit of the doubt is going to the attacker claiming the penalty, which is the opposite. The one on Saturday is probably a clean catch, fingers under the ball as it were, but its borderline.

Under current rules, I've no argument with the ref for giving the penalty on Saturday - I have got an argument with the culture and presumptions which result in it being a legit penalty, and to the inconsistencies that result.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:32 pm

[quote="UpTheBeehole"]It's not as an excuse to pick fights, it's because Burnley fans are saying it wasn't a penalty, and it WAS. the evidence is startlingly clear.

Spice, you're a cricket man; my edge analogy above is what's happening here.

The evidence is clear as day yet people are still saying it wasn't a penalty.[/quote

It`s not just Burnley fans saying it though is it ? I know City fans and plenty of neutrals who say it should not have been a penalty.

If the evidence is "clear as day" then why are so many people saying it was not a penalty ? Using the claret tinted glasses argument is just lazy - when there are plenty of people on this thread and other forums who have clearly stated why they think its not a penalty.

Not going to repeat why I think it is not a penalty - plenty of posts on this thread already explaining mine and others reasoning.

The cricket analogy makes no sense - the rules of cricket are clear. An edge - thin or thick - means its out. There is no element of deliberate contact or attempted simulation / cheating involved.

In football - contact (or an "edge") does not automatically equal a foul.

It`s fine for you to think that the contact Pope made was not instigated by Silva and would have led to him falling over....it`s impossible to prove that but we get that it is ok for you or others to have that opinion and that it should have been a penalty.

In the same way its absolutely fine for some of us to think that the contact was slight or that Silva instigated it and that if he would have stayed on his feet but for his cheating dive and that the referee would not have given a penalty if he would have stayed on his feet. It`s funny how Silva said himself he "felt" the contact....because it is absolutely clear as day that as soon as he did it was like the ejector button was pressed as he went into orbit.

The FA will not punish him today - but only because it is not clear cut and that they are only interested in ruling on decisions which are absolutely black and white. As usual this is the normal lily livered way out from the FA. If they really wanted to get rid of diving in the game they would take a much sterner approach. Everybody in the game knows that Silva cheated - even if you feel its a penalty - he still cheated. So why not make an example of him or others by starting to dish out punishments. In this case it could be a 1 game ban. In other more clear cut ones it could be 3 game bans. It does not have to be solely for incidents in the penalty area. Cheating is going on all over the pitch where players are trying to deceive the referee, get other players booked etc. Hernandez was a disgrace for West Ham at the Turf. And there are lots of incidents we have all seen where a player is rolling around holding parts of his body or face when the replay shows nothing has happened. Indirectly incidents like this can lead to goals, bookings, suspensions etc. With all the cameras we have on the pitch it is so easy for them to clamp down and within 2 months the problem and cheating would be largely eradicated as managers would just tell their players to no longer do it.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:36 pm

He won't be punished because he was fouled. It was a penalty.

The same Burnley fans chastising Silva for making the most of a foul are the same who cheer like crazy when Ashley Barnes gets a slight touch to his hip and goes flying.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:37 pm

Fair enough Silva makes contact with Pope and Pope makes contact with Silva.

I'm not sure the professional performance of Swan Lake was required though.

No one is entitled to do anything. If the contact isn't enough to bring a player down, then why is that player hitting the ground. Its cheating.

Kids don't do it at the park so why are grown men doing it. To cheat, that's why.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:41 pm

If you're running at full pelt and have just lunged to get a touch on the ball, and someone slides into your standing foot, you're going to fall over. That's simple, and I'm certain that would be borne out in reconstructions involving anyone on this forum.

Just try it, get someone to slide onto your standing foot as you nick the ball away from them. You'll fall over.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:43 pm

Aye ok - so you keep saying you mentalist !

He was not fouled and it should not have been a penalty.....we could carry this on forever....whoever says it last is right yeh ?

Barnes often cheats I agree - and it would be an interesting question for Dyche if anybody dare ask him ! I would be as happy if Barnes got punished for simulation as any other player and any Burnley fan who disagreed with this is not making any sense.

What I would say about Barnes is that I can`t remember him diving for a penalty - to me that makes no difference as I think it should be punished anywhere on the pitch but not sure if Dyche is just advocating the much tougher approach for diving in the area.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:50 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:If you're running at full pelt and have just lunged to get a touch on the ball, and someone slides into your standing foot, you're going to fall over. That's simple, and I'm certain that would be borne out in reconstructions involving anyone on this forum.

Just try it, get someone to slide onto your standing foot as you nick the ball away from them. You'll fall over.

Do you honestly believe that Pope's touch caused Silva to fall to the ground? I mean seriously?

I play football every week and take more 'contact' than that and hardly ever end up on the ground.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:55 pm

Where the modern game is going wrong - badly wrong - is that so many people, including referees, have forgotten what the rule says. For Saturday's incident, the question the ref needs to ask is "Did Pope trip Silva". Not did he touch him. If Pope tripped Silva, foul. If Silva threw himself on the flor, not foul. The grey area is that if Pope's touch was enough to impede Silva, then it should be a foul - but we don't know if Silva would have been impeded because he chose to dive. Should Silva get the benefit of the doubt, that if he hadn't dive he might have been slowed down a touch? Not in my book.

Or the ref could ask a similar question, from the other side in effect. If Silva hadn't dived, would he have given a penalty? Answer - of course not. There is contact like that a dozen times per game, and they don't give a dozen penalties. So Silva by his dive has changed Pope's actions from not a penalty into a penalty. That flies against all possible interpretations of the laws of football or, for that matter, the laws of common sense.

What you do can't make me a criminal. Only what I do can make me a criminal.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:56 pm

It's a f*cking penalty.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:56 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:If you're running at full pelt and have just lunged to get a touch on the ball, and someone slides into your standing foot, you're going to fall over. That's simple, and I'm certain that would be borne out in reconstructions involving anyone on this forum.

Just try it, get someone to slide onto your standing foot as you nick the ball away from them. You'll fall over.

If you're running and your back foot catches an obstacle, human or otherwise, it doesn't cause your front foot to miss the ground. Have you ever stumbled? You might hit the ground with your front foot and then fall over, but you don't fling both arms in the air while both feet fail to hit the floor.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:59 pm

dsr wrote:If you're running and your back foot catches an obstacle, human or otherwise, it doesn't cause your front foot to miss the ground. Have you ever stumbled? You might hit the ground with your front foot and then fall over, but you don't fling both arms in the air while both feet fail to hit the floor.

IT'S HIS STANDING FOOT

ten bellies · Post by **ten bellies** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:01 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Pope was erratic and stupid.

Similar to your comment.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:02 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:IT'S HIS STANDING FOOT

Why does his left leg shoot into the air?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:02 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It's a f*cking penalty.

It`s f*cking not a penalty.

Do i win ?....pr-ick

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:07 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Why does his left leg shoot into the air?

It doesn't.

Take those claret-tinted glasses off and look at the replay

https://streamable.com/8v81i

His left leg makes the arc expected of it. His left tiptoe hits the ground.

Pope is reckless and stupid and concedes the penalty. Stop deflecting from this.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:12 pm

Are you serious.

He could have easily landed his left foot on the ground, yet chooses makes no attempt to do so.

Most people who are tripped up (without any need to gain advantage from a referee) would at least try to make the landing to avoid injury.

I may try this in Sainsbury's at the weekend, see if I can get a fellow shopper sent off.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:14 pm

More likely to get injured by getting your foot caught in the turf while off balance than by going onto your shins or knees.

2 Bee Holed · Post by **2 Bee Holed** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:39 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It doesn't.

Take those claret-tinted glasses off and look at the replay

https://streamable.com/8v81i

His left leg makes the arc expected of it. His left tiptoe hits the ground.

Pope is reckless and stupid and concedes the penalty. Stop deflecting from this.

About 3% off the crowd react in that video. I suspect they didn't think much of his theatrics either.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:44 pm

2 Bee Holed wrote:About 3% off the crowd react in that video. I suspect they didn't think much of his theatrics either.

They didn't have the reverse angle showing Pope's clear contact on Silva's foot.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:38 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:It doesn't.

Take those claret-tinted glasses off and look at the replay

https://streamable.com/8v81i

His left leg makes the arc expected of it. His left tiptoe hits the ground.

Pope is reckless and stupid and concedes the penalty. Stop deflecting from this.

What's all this claret tinted glasses nonsense? I would be of the same opinion if it had been a Burnley player diving to win a penalty, as I was against Everton when I thought that the challenge on Arfield was rightly not given as a foul for the same reason. I also don't think we should have had a penalty when Delph handled the ball in the box. It is possible to be objective and still think that a wrong decision was given against the team you support.

As for his left leg, he makes no attempt to land on his foot but chooses to throw it into the air as is shown on the clip you usefully linked above. Why did only his tiptoe hit the ground? Have you ever tripped over like that before? You won't have because that is not how people trip.

Pope made a mistake for going to ground, I have said that on another thread, there's absolutely no deflection from that argument. However, the contact didn't trip or impede Silva, in my opinion, so a penalty was the wrong decision.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:59 pm

He doesn't throw his leg in the air, that's a normal arc. His legs kick up because he's taking evasive action. It's human nature, a natural nervous reaction.

Here's an experiment: go and switch your hob on. Touch the flame. What happens? Your hand naturally retracts at a very fast pace. Your natural nervous reaction kicked in.

If someone slides into you and your foot/ankle goes off at a funny angle, like Silva's does (see picture), then your body's natural reaction is to take evasive action.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:06 pm

There they go with their picture stills again.

The knee isn't pushed right up against the ankle so there isn't any pressure to be bending it.

It was a dive.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:08 pm

having had quite a few injuries to my ankle,twice from impacts like the one in question, i can confirm that the normal reaction is not to jump in the air and contort your body like you've been shot in the back.

if pope had touched him with any kind of force he'd have hit the deck on his side and stayed lying down. the guy is a cheat.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:24 pm

Really difficult to decide and I have every sympathy for the ref .... watch the clip again and watch Silva's left leg BEFORE the contact. He has already started to drag it along the ground in preparation for the fall before Pope gets there. The problem for Silva is that Pope gets the other leg ...... which makes Silva look like an idiot because he has to convert an attempt to look as if Pope has taken his left leg into something else completely. My feeling at the time was "Dive" because it looks so theatrical. I don't see how the ref can ever be sure when a player does a daft swan dive like that because it looks so suspicious. Equally I can't disagree with the award because Pope did get Silva's standing leg. Then again I thought Wood had clearly dived against West Ham - but in the replay he clearly didn't.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:05 pm

The slight contact on his standing leg would never result in what happened next - never.

Silva cheated - simple as.

We will never know whether it should have been a penalty because he did cheat.

If that touch would have been enough for him to naturally fall then we are down to whether he initiated the contact himself - which I accept is hard to prove either way. I am of the view that he did because a number of players have become very skilled at this and the fact that he chose to cheat with the dive leads me to believe he is more than capable of instigating the initial contact.

If he would have tried to stay on his feet and ended up falling naturally (or stayed on his feet) i think very few people would be saying he instigated the contact.

You can post as many angles and pics as you like but there is no way of saying whether he could of stayed on his feet given Silva had already decided to dive

SussexDon1inIreland · Post by **SussexDon1inIreland** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:15 pm

If that was a penalty (I think it was a dive) then Hart pulling down Wood vs West Ham was a penalty - nothing of course given. We lost 2 points vs West Ham because of this and maybe 1 vs the Foreign Legion of Man City

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:15 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:having had quite a few injuries to my ankle,twice from impacts like the one in question, i can confirm that the normal reaction is not to jump in the air and contort your body like you've been shot in the back.

if pope had touched him with any kind of force he'd have hit the deck on his side and stayed lying down. the guy is a cheat.

He doesn't jump. Look for yourself. If he jumped off his standing foot his knee would go up, along with the rest of his body, right? What I object to is him going down like he was shot in the back.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:18 pm

keith1879 wrote:Really difficult to decide and I have every sympathy for the ref .... watch the clip again and watch Silva's left leg BEFORE the contact. He has already started to drag it along the ground in preparation for the fall before Pope gets there. ...

No no. That's a natural consequence of stretching with your other foot to get the ball. Now that i've mentioned that to you, you'll notice it more often.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:25 pm

Now you are being silly IT. I've said my bit earlier in the thread but, Silva jumps, not much granted, but he jumps and then does a lovely dive. They got a penalty out of it which I am not happy about but I am not going to die in a ditch over it. But to say he didn't jump is frankly ridiculous.

I would suggest that given where his right foot was he should have collapsed to the ground without moving much, if that is Pope was kneeling with a fair bit of pressure on his foot which clearly he wasn't.

Barry_Chuckle · Post by **Barry_Chuckle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:30 pm

As I said at the time, he initially holds his Left leg before his brain catches up to inform him that he should be holding his Right leg. He then completes the charade with a double roll in agony.

CHEAT

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:31 pm

Corky wrote:Now you are being silly IT. I've said my bit earlier in the thread but, Silva jumps, not much granted, but he jumps and then does a lovely dive. They got a penalty out of it which I am not happy about but I am not going to die in a ditch over it. But to say he didn't jump is frankly ridiculous.

I would suggest that given where his right foot was he should have collapsed to the ground without moving much, if that is Pope was kneeling with a fair bit of pressure on his foot which clearly he wasn't.

But how can he be jumping if only the lower half of his leg is what goes up? Maybe i'm being silly but surely if someone jumps then more than that has to actually go up. You can watch for yourself or i can break out the tracking software to prove it but it would be much simpler if you just watched for yourself and saw that his knees don't go up. Unless you're saying that it's possible to jump up without your knees going up because we have telescopic thighs, or something.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No no. That's a natural consequence of stretching with your other foot to get the ball. Now that i've mentioned that to you, you'll notice it more often.

I see what you mean BUT he is actually dragging his foot along the grass .... no way is that natural. Unless you can post me some clips of people who stretch to get a ball and don't fall over for a penalty but carry on running???????

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:45 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:But how can he be jumping if only the lower half of his leg is what goes up? Maybe i'm being silly but surely if someone jumps then more than that has to actually go up. You can watch for yourself or i can break out the tracking software to prove it but it would be much simpler if you just watched for yourself and saw that his knees don't go up. Unless you're saying that it's possible to jump up without your knees going up because we have telescopic thighs, or something.

WTF are you talking about ? - I have seen the replay lots of times and he dives forward - you can replace the word dive with jump if you wish but either way it is intentional and not natural.

Even if someone put more force on your standing foot than Pope did to Silva why on earth would you end up nearly breaking the world long jump record ?

There is no way that touch caused him to fall in that way - he simulated the dive and I do not know one person who is saying that he did not simulate it. Those who say its a penalty are simply saying that they think he would have fallen anyway - but you have got absolutely no way of proving it.

You can come up with all the theories and experiments you want - but it`s pure conjecture as some people could fall some would come to a stop, some might just even carry on....you will never know what Silva would have done because he chose to dive.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:52 pm

keith1879 wrote:I see what you mean BUT he is actually dragging his foot along the grass .... no way is that natural. Unless you can post me some clips of people who stretch to get a ball and don't fall over for a penalty but carry on running???????

I'm not going to spend time finding video examples, but i'm just going to postthis picture and describe how the player maintains forward momentum.
After he's touched the ball away from Ivanovic, the foot that touches the ball will be planted and the rear foot will drag across the grass for a short distance to maintain a bit of balance and then it'll be lifted and brought forward to keep him balanced going forward.

If in the near future i see a replay of a player stretching for the ball i'll try to remember your query and show you that it's just a natural thing that happens when players are stretching to control a ball.

And i'm not just imagining this, by the way. I was a nippy little **** when i played and was always stretching to nick balls away from opponents and one of the worst fouls i experienced was as a result of touching the ball away from an opponent, and i remember vividly everything about it, including what my other foot was doing, like it was in slow motion. You'll notice it all the time now.