Is that diving piece of Blue excrement going to get retrospective punishment, like that lad Shaun Miller?

Blood is still boiling, I don't mind getting beat but....


Arrrrggghhhhhh!

No as there was contact, enough to send him flying like he did........ Not a fecking chance, but the contact will ensure he has a get out of jail card.

Pope was erratic and stupid.

And the wood one against Hart was deemed no penalty?? I don't get it?

As Cockneyclaret says if that was a pen then so was the one v West 'am last week

Arfield should have had one at Everton going by today's. All he got was a booking.

What penalty?

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Pope was erratic and stupid.

Somebody's bored.

CnBtruntru wrote:Somebody's bored.

A poor cast......

tim_noone wrote:A poor cast......

Last time I fished I was 14, 42 years ago

cricketfieldclarets

Are you suffering some kind of breakdown? Pope was neither

Comes to something when you'd rather read a post off Saxo than so called cricketfield claret, who couldn't be more of a bastards fan in disguise if he tried, which actually he doesn't, too lazy

Is there contact? Yes.

Is the player reaction appropriate given the level of contact? No.

It's not a dive as such because there was contact, but as Dyche has said his leap into the air is an absolute disgrace. He won't get a retrospective ban because of the touch, but realistically he should because of the exaggerated fall.

It was definitely a penalty but the way he went down was ridiculous.

Link to video

https://twitter.com/amadoit__/status/921748098271113216

Not a penalty in a million years of watching it over and over again.

Perhaps the empty Etihad seats stem from folk not wanting to watch them cheat their way to the title

jlup1980 wrote:He won't get a retrospective ban because of the touch.

Not true, he won't get a retrospective ban because he plays for city. Same reason we didn't get a penalty against Joe Harts media darlings West Ham, who won the World Cup and play the 'West Ham way'. If any of them two incidents would have been the other way around, especially the one today, I feel the outcome would have been different.

It would be fair enough to give a penalty for that, if the referee has decided that it's a penalty every single time that a defender touches a forward in the penalty area. There would be several dozen penalties per game, but at least it would be fair.

The problem with this one is that the referee, in common with so many of the commentators, has forgotten the rule. The rule says that the offence is to trip the opponent. It is not an offence to touch the opponent and watch that opponent throw himself over. Whether Silva falls over or not is utterly irrelevant to whether it's a penalty - whether Pope commits a foul or not depends only on what Pope does. If the referee would have given a penalty for that if Silva had stayed on his feet, then fair enough - I think he'd be wrong, but consistent. But if he gave a penalty only because Silva fell over and would not have given it if Silva hadn't thrown himself down, then he needs to go on a course to re-learn the rules.

thelaughingclaret wrote:Not true, he won't get a retrospective ban because he plays for city. Same reason we didn't get a penalty against Joe Harts media darlings West Ham, who won the World Cup and play the 'West Ham way'. If any of them two incidents would have been the other way around, especially the one today, I feel the outcome would have been different.

I'd love to say you're going OTT but it's hard to disagree when you consider some of the decisions we've seen in recent weeks. Arfield got booked at Everton for going down easily, but there was as much contact as the penalty today. Very much double standards. Then there's the Joe Hart one on Wood last week. I don't want to think there's a bias towards players but Hart was definitely given the benefit of the doubt. When you compare that to Pope today it doesn't look good!

Its a silly penalty to give away, and its one that I'm not sure we'd get, but it is a penalty.

Its a cracking call by the ref, which does suggest that the rather theatrical dive worked exactly like it was supposed to do.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a silly penalty to give away, and its one that I'm not sure we'd get, but it is a penalty.

Its a cracking call by the ref, which does suggest that the rather theatrical dive worked exactly like it was supposed to do.

How is it a penalty?

That's what you get when you invite a load of foreigners into our football.

They don't know how to behave themselves.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a silly penalty to give away, and its one that I'm not sure we'd get, but it is a penalty.

Its a cracking call by the ref, which does suggest that the rather theatrical dive worked exactly like it was supposed to do.

Same question as Rileybobs - how is it a penalty? Under what law of the game?

Never a penalty and even worse is that he reckoned to be in pain; cheating toohat and the bullshit on motd is condoning cheating.

Pope touches his ankle and he's daft to come out and do it but it's not a penalty. Silva feels the contact and throws himself to the ground.

Actually Silvas foot touched pope not the other way round

Phil Neville says pen. End of discussion.

I think it is a penalty having seen it a number of times replaying it. Popes knee slides in to Silvas foot giving him enough contact causing the trip. I also think the theatrics from Silva is embarrassing and should be highlighted as cheating. I also don't think East could have possibly seen the contact and gave the penalty based on Silvas shocking dive. He guessed and will be congratulated by the FA saying he got it spot on.

Easts performance was one expected at places like City. Twice he brought back play when we were breaking to give us a free kick - just awful reading of the game. I thought the kick in Mees face towards the end was definitely a yellow but didn't even warrant a talking to the City player. Perhaps Mee needed to roll 15 times on the floor to get the correct outcome?!

It's a definite pen

Goodclaret wrote:I think it is a penalty having seen it a number of times replaying it. Popes knee slides in to Silvas foot giving him enough contact causing the trip. I also think the theatrics from Silva is embarrassing and should be highlighted as cheating. I also don't think East could have possibly seen the contact and gave the penalty based on Silvas shocking dive.

You can't have it both ways. Either Silva was tripped or he dived. If he was tripped, it's a foul. If he dived, it's not.

Football's the only field where the actions of one man can determine whether another man has committed an offence. If you're out and about and you brush someone's arm, and he flings himself against the wall claiming that's you've assaulted him, the police don't look at the CCTV to determine that yes, there was contact, so you were guilty. They treat it just the same whether the alleged victim flings himself down or not. No offence, and theatrics and diving can't make it into one.

Was there "contact"?
Yes pope actually touched him.

Did the momentum of coming out, mean he would continue over his foot?
Yes.

Did he intentionally foul him in the penalty box?
No.

Will the papers still show it ended 3.0 to city?
Yes.

Do we move onto the Geordies?
'Kin right we do!

Let it go lads. Let's crack on.....

dsr wrote:You can't have it both ways. Either Silva was tripped or he dived. If he was tripped, it's a foul. If he dived, it's not.

Football's the only field where the actions of one man can determine whether another man has committed an offence. If you're out and about and you brush someone's arm, and he flings himself against the wall claiming that's you've assaulted him, the police don't look at the CCTV to determine that yes, there was contact, so you were guilty. They treat it just the same whether the alleged victim flings himself down or not. No offence, and theatrics and diving can't make it into one.

There was some contact which, as we know (rightly or wrongly), can give the player an opportunity to go down. The way in which he flung his arms and legs in the air made it an exaggerated dive. I do know what you are meaning but I feel there was contact but he created an almighty dive

Goodclaret wrote:There was some contact which, as we know (rightly or wrongly), can give the player an opportunity to go down. The way in which he flung his arms and legs in the air made it an exaggerated dive. I do know what you are meaning but I feel there was contact but he created an almighty dive

That's exactly the point. I feel there was contact too. Contact is not an offence. How many times did two players touch in the penalty area, and how many penalties were given?

Besides, it is a logical impossibility that Pope could make contact with Silva and Silva not make contact with Pope. If it's a foul by Pope, it's a foul by Silva. Sp presumably every time two players touch, it should be a drop ball?

This goes on all over the pitch, and it spoils the game. If a player falls over when challenged, he gets a free kick; if he doesn't, he doesn't. It's not good the powers-that-be saying they want to eliminate diving, and then applying the rules in such a way to seriously disadvantage teams that don't dive. The dive committee, I'm confident, will not penalise Silva for the reason you give - because he was touched. As far as the FA is concerned, diving is a legitimate tactic - more than that, they encourage it - if you've been touched, however lightly.

Told you.
****s.

With this reaction following his foot contacting Popes leg, he should be embarrassed.

A foul is an unfair act by a player, deemed by the referee to contravene the game's laws, that interferes with the active play of the game. Fouls are punished by the award of a direct free kick (possibly a penalty kick) to the opposing team. A list of specific offences that can be fouls are detailed in Law 12 of the Laws of the Game

Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

————————————————————————————————————————

So:

Did NP challenge Silva?
Yes
Was there contact?
Yes
Was the challenge careless, reckless or use excessive force?
Clearly RE considered it to be one of these, presumably ‘careless’ ( as the others surely don’t apply) but did NP really show a lack of attention or consideration or act without precaution?

As long as we have phrases within the laws such as ‘deemed by’ and ‘considered by’ the referee and the referee remains a human, so we will have the ‘inconsistencies’ so many of us find so irritating.

Should the referees be encouraged to become more consistent through making public a set of ‘caselaw’ or rulings that include video examples to set the benchmark for what constitutes a foul or in this case a penalty?

It amazes me how a pen can be given for the slightest contact on the foot or shin but every time a corner is taken players are wrestling with each other with a pen hardly ever given.

"He clearly touched me, I felt it. I haven't seen the replay yet but I think it was a penalty," he said, as quoted by the Manchester Evening News.

That tells you it wasn’t actually a penalty, he didn’t say “He took me out, I couldn’t stay on my feet, I couldn’t get to the ball” etc, he said the above. Why does he need a reply to decide if it was a penalty? T*sser.

“MANCHESTER CITY should not have been awarded a penalty against Burnley. Bernardo Silva initiated the contact with Nick Pope and then threw himself to the ground.Silva does not go down straight away and even changes his stride to put the dive in.This is clear simulation and he has deceived referee Roger East.It’s something the FA retrospective panel should be looking at.Players are taking no notice of the new rule on simulation and Silva must serve a two-match ban.“

Mark Halsey -ex-ref

Absolute attempt to con a very weak and inept ref .Never a penalty.if you watch it carefully Silva pushes his boot under Nick Pope' s leg then leaps in a fashion commiserate with being sythed down.We were doing ok till then but that was a major turning point coupled with a very soft header from the corner.

Its a penalty because he made contact with him.

He's won it though because he's made sure that he's exaggerated the contact. Its probably not right, but its the way the game is these days.

It's not penalty and whilst Phil Neville is one of the more sensible TV pundits as a rule (which isn't saying much I know) I disagree with him on this. It was very hard to see at the time as it happened at the other end to where we were sat (stood!!), but the theatrical dive gave us all a clue as to exactly what had happened and on the replay it's clear the contact such as there is (very, very slight) is cleverly "sought out" by Silva who then dives likes he's been shot and the ref shouldn't have fallen for it. I hope he gets banned, but I fear he won't because sticking your leg out or trailing it deliberately to ensure the other player touches you before falling over is apparently still allowed. Wood was denied a much clearer penalty last week because I felt his fall was a little "over the top" for the contact made.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:“MANCHESTER CITY should not have been awarded a penalty against Burnley. Bernardo Silva initiated the contact with Nick Pope and then threw himself to the ground.Silva does not go down straight away and even changes his stride to put the dive in.This is clear simulation and he has deceived referee Roger East.It’s something the FA retrospective panel should be looking at.Players are taking no notice of the new rule on simulation and Silva must serve a two-match ban.“

Mark Halsey -ex-ref

Thank **** he's not refereeing any more if he can be this wrong with replays. How can a standing foot "initiate contact" against a moving goalkeeper?

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a penalty because he made contact with him.

He's won it though because he's made sure that he's exaggerated the contact. Its probably not right, but its the way the game is these days.

Disagree - the contact was initiated by Silva who then simulated the infamous "shot by a sniper" dive.

This aspect of football is in a total mess - the fact that opinion is pretty well split down the middle on this decision reflects why the laws need changing and more clarification is needed.

Nobody at all can argue that Silva did not attempt to con the referee with the way he dived - that's just a fact. It was completely unnatural. So the debate becomes who instigated the contact. IMHO I thought it was Silva in this incident.

But where it is not clear cut - and I accept it was not clear cut here - given that Silva cheated in the way he dived then the rule should be it is not a penalty because he has attempted to con the referee.

That seems a fair rule to me - if he does not dive then he might not have even gone to ground given how slight the contact is. If he does not go to ground then no way would a referee give the penalty.

Whatever way you look at it he cheated - and players will continue cheating until the rules are changed.

Defo a pen. Popes challenge made Bernardo roll his foot. He went down like a clown but would have struggled to stay on his feet.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:“MANCHESTER CITY should not have been awarded a penalty against Burnley. Bernardo Silva initiated the contact with Nick Pope and then threw himself to the ground.Silva does not go down straight away and even changes his stride to put the dive in.This is clear simulation and he has deceived referee Roger East.It’s something the FA retrospective panel should be looking at.Players are taking no notice of the new rule on simulation and Silva must serve a two-match ban.“

Mark Halsey -ex-ref

Halsey is spot on - clearly initiated the contact and therefore no penalty

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;

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a penalty because he made contact with him.

He's won it though because he's made sure that he's exaggerated the contact. Its probably not right, but its the way the game is these days.

"It's penalty because HE MADE CONTACT WITH HIM"

When did football become a non-contact sport?

It's not.