No simulation - FA not persuing ban

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:28 pm

taio wrote:No it isn't. And saying so makes you look really foolish.

I'm not saying it, because i'm not retarded enough to think that Silva's standing foot initiated contact with an on-rushing goalkeeper. But you are.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:28 pm

Oh and the FA is a really credible organisation.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm not saying it, because i'm not retarded enough to think that Silva's standing foot initiated contact with an on-rushing goalkeeper. But you are.

You've demonstrated complete retardation when it comes to football. You know nothing about it and your posts on this matter have merely confirmed it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:32 pm

levraiclaret wrote:There is no we you are no claret nor a dingle, you are a jock that likes tennis and an argument. IMO

"If you don't toe the line and blindly agree with the retarded masses, you're not a claret"

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:36 pm

taio wrote:You've demonstrated complete retardation when it comes to football. You know nothing about it and your posts on this matter have merely confirmed it.

Because i disagree with you?

Is that the only way someone can possibly disagree with you, that they don't know what they're talking about? It couldn't possibly be because you're wrong?
I can't imagine having as closed a mind as someone who thinks people only disagree with them because they are wrong.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:42 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: "If you don't toe the line and blindly agree with the retarded masses, you're not a claret"

No if you are wrong due to ignorance of the game of football and call clarets retarded rather than admit Silva dived.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:42 pm

Imploding Turtle since Saturday tea time (yes that's more than two days).............

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:46 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Because i disagree with you? Is that the only way someone can possibly disagree with you, that they don't know what they're talking about? It couldn't possibly be because you're wrong?
I can't imagine having as closed a mind as someone who thinks people only disagree with them because they are wrong.

Nope. Difference is they know something about the game. So it's not hard to disagree but still appreciate their viewpoint. So don't generalise when my post was aimed at you and you only. I now understand why until recently you've refrained from football related threads.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:48 pm

levraiclaret wrote:No if you are wrong due to ignorance of the game of football and call clarets retarded rather than admit Silva dived.

Silva was fouled. A penalty was correctly awarded. Silva went down like he was shot. Demonstrate what it wrong with that opinion.

I can provide video evidence that proves Silva was fouled, therefore i'm correct that a penalty should have been awarded. Anyone who has working eyes can see this proof, so if you see this proof and still deny what it proves then you're retarded.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:51 pm

It's embarrassing the number of people saying it wasn't a penalty. It was 100% a penalty.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:52 pm

did pope cause silva to fall over?

this is the only question people should be asking.

cheating is now part and parcel of the game.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:54 pm

taio wrote:Nope. Difference is they know something about the game. So it's not hard to disagree but still appreciate their viewpoint. So don't generalise when my post was aimed at you and you only. I now understand why until recently you've refrained from football related threads.

So i guess the FA know nothing about football either, because they agree with me.

Edit: And when i say "FA" i'm specifically talking about the panel of people whose job it is to know about these things.

No Ney Never · Post by **No Ney Never** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:58 pm

The term foul was derived from the description 'foul play', and a penalty was a way of penalising foul play in an area of the pitch where a shooting opportunity was most likely or potentially denied.

What seems to have changed over the years is what is classed as foul play? Was a shooting opportunity denied?

Personally I'm not of the opinion that Pope is guilty of foul play. Whether Silva was denied a shooting opportunity depends on whether Pope's actions took away Silva's opportunity to shoot. His direction of travel was taking him away from goal but does this mean that he wouldn't be able to turn and shoot?
Pope wasn't yellow carded, so that would indicate that the penalty wasn't for foul play. The contact however 'small', was enough to deny Silva a shooting opportunity as determined by the referee, is the only reason that I can conclude the awarding of a penalty shot at goal.

As gutted as I am that a soft penalty was awarded against us, the penalising of an action within the 'penalty area' seems to be determined by many more considerations than it used to.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:00 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So i guess the FA know nothing about football either, because they agree with me.

I wouldn't go that far.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:00 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So i guess the FA know nothing about football either, because they agree with me.

Edit: And when i say "FA" i'm specifically talking about the panel of people whose job it is to know about these things.

nice edit.

citing the f.a. as footballing knowledge is as mindbending as this site will ever get.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:05 pm

No Ney Never wrote:The term foul was derived from the description 'foul play', and a penalty was a way of penalising foul play in an area of the pitch where a shooting opportunity was most likely or potentially denied.

What seems to have changed over the years is what is classed as foul play? Was a shooting opportunity denied?

Personally I'm not of the opinion that Pope is guilty of foul play. Whether Silva was denied a shooting opportunity depends on whether Pope's actions took away Silva's opportunity to shoot. His direction of travel was taking him away from goal but does this mean that he wouldn't be able to turn and shoot?
Pope wasn't yellow carded, so that would indicate that the penalty wasn't for foul play. The contact however 'small', was enough to deny Silva a shooting opportunity as determined by the referee, is the only reason that I can conclude the awarding of a penalty shot at goal.

As gutted as I am that a soft penalty was awarded against us, the penalising of an action within the 'penalty area' seems to be determined by many more considerations than it used to.

A goalkeeper fouling a player in the box isn't automatically a bookable offence. So it's not unusual that Pope wasn't booked.

We can discuss whether exaggeration should be foul play or not. I don't think it should be, because it's too often impossible to know if a player is exaggerating. But you can quite often tell when a player is diving (simulation of a foul intended to deceive the referee into incorrectly awarding a foul) so i'm supportive of that being a bookable offence. But i think bookings for that should be reviewable either during the game or after it since if you can prove a player wasn't simulating then you can prove the booking was a mistake.

But even if exaggeration was bookable it wouldn't change anything in terms of the awarding of the penalty since the foul happened before the exaggeration.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:06 pm

There was contact from Pope on Silva's right foot (not clattered as you maintain) but Silva's left foot could and should have landed on the ground and he could have stayed on his feet and chased the ball. He didn't instead his left foot flicked upwards and he star dived to the turf. Perhaps his first touch had run away from him. The fact that I view the contact as insufficient to cause Silva to go to ground is based on my 20 years of playing senior football. Some players now view contact as a reason to go down, this does not improve the game. A tennis fan may not appreciate this, but I would not allege it is because they are retarded just ignorant.

bartons baggage · Post by **bartons baggage** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:06 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I wouldn't say i take it personally, but I am embarrassed by my fellow clarets. I like to visit other boards and watch them meltdown over some perceived refereeing injustice, particularly when they're wrong. But now it's happening here with so many of you and it kind of embarrasses me that i thought we were better than other fans. But apparently we're not. We're worse.

You spend way to much time on here,it has become an obsession for you.
Do like ablue does and take a break from it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:07 pm

levraiclaret wrote:There was contact from Pope on Silva's right foot (not clattered as you maintain) ...

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

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:08 pm

I don't blame the FA or referees for the current situation. It is entirely down to managers and they can put a stop to it with a bit of effort. But clearly most don't.

Dyche seems to be trying but it's not easy. We still have players going down too easily (Arfield at Everton, Brady on occasions).

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Exaggeration isn't cheating.

Imploding Turtle wrote: We can discuss whether exaggeration should be foul play or not.

can you honestly say you want to see deception in footy?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:09 pm

bartons baggage wrote:You spend way to much time on here,it has become an obsession for you.
Do like ablue does and take a break from it.

I think you should spend less time thinking about me.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:10 pm

yTib wrote:can you honestly say you want to see deception in footy?

Wow!

That's quite the leap you're making.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:11 pm

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

“He clearly touched me, I felt it,”

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Wow! That's quite the leap you're making.

no it isn't. that is the crux of your argument.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:15 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: We can discuss whether exaggeration should be foul play or not. I don't think it should be, because it's too often impossible to know if a player is exaggerating. But you can quite often tell when a player is diving (simulation of a foul intended to deceive the referee into incorrectly awarding a foul) so i'm supportive of that being a bookable offence.

But even if exaggeration was bookable it wouldn't change anything in terms of the awarding of the penalty since the foul happened before the exaggeration.

It is possible to know, look at the movement of Silva's left foot as he starts his dive, it is harder not to ground it than to ground it. The correct referring decision would be a pen and two yellow cards for Silva, one for the dive and the second for rolling around on the floor holding his left ankle, you knoe the one that Pope didn't touch.

You know Charlie you are like Trump, you can't admit it when you are wrong.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:17 pm

yTib wrote:can you honestly say you want to see deception in footy?

Charlie does not care, he likes tennis and arguing, football is just his vehicle for arguing.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:18 pm

yTib wrote:no it isn't. that is the crux of your argument.

It's literally the opposite of a logical conclusion of what i actually said. But you edited it out of my post before you quoted it.
I said the the reason i opposed exaggeration being a bookable offence is because it's hard to prove. From that it's easy to deduce that i'm open to it being bookable if it became easy to prove. How is that the same as saying that i want to see deception? I even said i support simulation being bookable because that is easy to prove. But apparently that wasn't enough for you to realise how stupid it would be to suggest what you did.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:19 pm

levraiclaret wrote:It is possible to know, look at the movement of Silva's left foot as he starts his dive, it is harder not to ground it than to ground it. The correct referring decision would be a pen and two yellow cards for Silva, one for the dive and the second for rolling around on the floor holding his left ankle, you knoe the one that Pope didn't touch.

You know Charlie you are like Trump, you can't admit it when you are wrong.

The very first thing i did when i posted about the penalty incident was admit that i was wrong. Soooo... you're wrong again.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:19 pm

No Ney Never wrote:The term foul was derived from the description 'foul play', and a penalty was a way of penalising foul play in an area of the pitch where a shooting opportunity was most likely or potentially denied.

What seems to have changed over the years is what is classed as foul play? Was a shooting opportunity denied?

Personally I'm not of the opinion that Pope is guilty of foul play. Whether Silva was denied a shooting opportunity depends on whether Pope's actions took away Silva's opportunity to shoot. His direction of travel was taking him away from goal but does this mean that he wouldn't be able to turn and shoot?
Pope wasn't yellow carded, so that would indicate that the penalty wasn't for foul play. The contact however 'small', was enough to deny Silva a shooting opportunity as determined by the referee, is the only reason that I can conclude the awarding of a penalty shot at goal.

As gutted as I am that a soft penalty was awarded against us, the penalising of an action within the 'penalty area' seems to be determined by many more considerations than it used to.

No one denies that the definition has changed, the only question should be why?
Professional idiots like Shearer say 'they are entitled' to go down. That's complete ********, and not so long ago would have been laughed at. It's a contact sport therefore contact isn't a foul, unless you move forward 30 years when it is. But mysteriously only in the penalty area. Challenges that are waived away anywhere else on the pitch are illegal in the box. I, and many true football fans don't get it. It's a sport, what happened to sportsmanship. Well apparently it's been replaced by gamesmanship. A nice polite word to describe a cheat. The bigger the club, the easier it is to cheat.

It shouldn't be a complaint about Silva, because he didn't start it, and he certainly won't be the last, but if the game can go backwards so quickly over the last 20 years, where will we be in another 20 years time?
I feel sorry for referees because as Silvas pen shows, even they can't agree if it was or it wasn't. Even with slow mo replays and hindsight. That's because it has all been clouded by players deliberately trying to con the officials. Until the FA actually do something about it, then it will continue to grow.
I know they talk about dealing with 'simulation', but it is all rhetoric to appease the true fans of the game. Their actions show that nothing will change.

I would love to see the FA disbanded and replaced by people who understand the game, rather than arseholes like Scudamore who only understand the business side of it. It's almost as corrupt as FIFA.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:23 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's literally the opposite of a logical conclusion of what i actually said. But you edited it out of my post before you quoted it.
I said the the reason i opposed exaggeration being a bookable offence is because it's hard to prove. From that it's easy to deduce that i'm open to it being bookable if it became easy to prove. How is that the same as saying that i want to see deception? I even said i support simulation being bookable because that is easy to prove. But apparently that wasn't enough for you to realise how stupid it would be to suggest what you did.

well we aren't all as blessed as you charlie.

your argument is quite obviously on the side of cheating; where a goalkeeper dare not attack the ball because a referee is easily deceived and there is no retrospective punishment - at least not a subjective one.

i know you thrive on arguments but to defend that is just beyond the pale.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:23 pm

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

Just wiggle you ankle a bit, if it doesn't move in every direction you are not normal.

Clattered is propaganda, but you are never wrong are you Donald?

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:26 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:

The very first thing i did when i posted about the penalty incident was admit that i was wrong. Soooo... you're wrong again.

I can be wrong but Silva dived and then simulated, do you accept that and if so do you find that acceptable? Donald

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:29 pm

levraiclaret wrote:Just wiggle you ankle a bit, if it doesn't move in every direction you are not normal.

Clattered is propaganda, but you are never wrong are you Donald?

If you can twist your ankle like this without putting external force on it, then you need surgery.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:32 pm

my god.

clutching at straws with diagrams.

ho ho.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:34 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If you can twist your ankle like this without putting external force on it, then you need surgery.

Has Silva sprained his medial ankle ligament? Must have been putting a brave face on it when he said he was touched

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:38 pm

levraiclaret wrote:I can be wrong but Silva dived and then simulated, do you accept that and if so do you find that acceptable? Donald

If you define dive in the same way the laws of the game define "simulated" then no, he didn't dive. It can be proven that he was fouled. But if you define it as "exaggeration" then yes, he exaggerated.

Do i find exaggeration acceptable? Morally, no. But it's more acceptable than the alternative, which is to ask referees to guess whether a player is exaggerating an injury or a foul and pass judgement on something so unprovable.

And if we're talking about exaggeration being "deception" or a foul then why aren't we also talking about the opposite, denial? Surely denial is at least an equal form of lying as exaggeration so should we start booking players for denying that they committed a foul? If Silva should be booked for exaggerating a foul then shouldn't Pope be booked for denying he fouled him? If not then why is lying OK but exaggeration isn't?

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:38 pm

Then clearly Silva's ankle should be shattered, but Pope only touched it or Silva would have known which ankle to grab when he was simulating but he didn't he grabbed both so they felt no different, he was egagerating the impact in order to win the penalty. In the same way as he dived to win the penalty.

As a football fan what really pisses me off is that Citeh don't need to do it to win matches. I don't expect that would bother a tennis fan.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:43 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:
And if we're talking about exaggeration being "deception" or a foul then why aren't we also talking about the opposite, denial? Surely denial is at least an equal form of lying as exaggeration so should we start booking players for denying that they committed a foul? If Silva should be booked for exaggerating a foul then shouldn't Pope be booked for denying he fouled him? If not then why is lying OK but exaggeration isn't?

are you drunk?

answer this charlie: did silva dive?

yes or no please.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:44 pm

levraiclaret wrote:Then clearly Silva's ankle should be shattered, but Pope only touched it or Silva would have known which ankle to grab when he was simulating but he didn't he grabbed both so they felt no different, he was egagerating the impact in order to win the penalty. In the same way as he dived to win the penalty.

As a football fan what really pisses me off is that Citeh don't need to do it to win matches. I don't expect that would bother a tennis fan.

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.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:46 pm

yTib wrote:are you drunk?

answer this charlie: did silva dive?

yes or no please.

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.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:47 pm

For the avoidance of doubt, if a player goes down clutching his ankle and rises into the air with such a look of pain, he should spend five minutes on the sidelines whilst an FA physio performs a check that he will not cause further damage to himself. It’s for his own protection.

I mean his instant look to the ref could only be for assistance, couldn’t it?

Alternatively he could give the appropriate response of an adult taking the level of pain equal to stubbing his toe and get up and play to the whistle.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:49 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.

yes or no.

even a person of your superior intellect can do that?

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:50 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If you define dive in the same way the laws of the game define "simulated" then no, he didn't dive. It can be proven that he was fouled. But if you define it as "exaggeration" then yes, he exaggerated.

Do i find exaggeration acceptable? Morally, no. But it's more acceptable than the alternative, which is to ask referees to guess whether a player is exaggerating an injury or a foul and pass judgement on something so unprovable.

And if we're talking about exaggeration being "deception" or a foul then why aren't we also talking about the opposite, denial? Surely denial is at least an equal form of lying as exaggeration so should we start booking players for denying that they committed a foul?

I define dive as going to ground when a player could stay on their feet.

The referee has to make a judgement on what how he sees an incident. Exaggeration is cheating so is denial but there is no equivalence, exaggeration is part of the action, denial is part of the crime scene. I would accept that booking Hart after he clattered Wood and the backed away with his hands in the "who me?" position before wagging his finger at Wood warranted a booking after the pen was awarded.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:53 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.

Making up your own rules now, if I'm touched I'm entitled to go down view. Clearly the view of a tennis fan, but you will never be wrong Donald.

what_no_pies · Post by **what_no_pies** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:55 pm

1. If they don't go down they don't get awarded a penalty.

2. For the above reason if they feel contact they rightly go down.

3. There was contact due to keepers movement, not due to Silva.

I don't like it but it was a penalty if you take your tinted specs off folks. This idea he slid his leg in to make contact is nonsence too, replays show his foot is planted when Pope slides onto it. Pope dived in unnecessarily and trapped his foot - the daft part on replay is the way Silva doesn't plant his left foot, it's like that foot forgets where the ground is as he flings himself to the floor and ensures a penalty because (see 1).

Simple really.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:55 pm

yTib wrote:yes or no.

even a person of your superior intellect can do that?

The only reason people demand a yes or no answer, particularly after a yes or no answer has been provided (read again), is if they don't want to deal with the inconvenient context that explains such an answer, and provides an understanding of someone elses opinion.

So here's my question to you, why do you notwant to understand my answer or opinion?

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:56 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The only reason people demand a yes or no answer, particularly after a yes or no answer has been provided (read again), is if they don't want to deal with the inconvenient context that explains such an answer, and provides an understanding of someone elses opinion.

So here's my question to you, why do you notwant to understand my answer or opinion?

yes or no?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:59 pm

levraiclaret wrote:Making up your own rules now, if I'm touched I'm entitled to go down view. Clearly the view of a tennis fan, but you will never be wrong Donald.

I'm not making up any rules. The word "dive" is ambiguous because there is no clear definition. "Simulation" has a clear definition under the laws of the game, and if you ask me "did Silva commit simulation?" I'd be able to give you a simple yes or no answer. But there's a reason yTib isn't asking me that question and is instead asking me if he "dived".

I consider "diving" in the context of football to be equal to "simulation". If you'd like to provide a different definition, then by all means. But don't expect me to answer questions that are deliberately unclear.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:59 pm

yTib wrote:yes or no?

What do you mean by "dive"?