ARTY_FOX Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 (edited) There's a case lamela is marginally offside from the flick on plus you can't just launch yourself at a defender making no attempt to get the ball and expect to win a penalty. There might have been contact. But it was initiated by lamela Vardy gets booked for that. 100% Edited 5 February 2018 by ARTY_FOX 2
Fox92 Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 9 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: There is a camera angle showing that he wasnt touched. Nothing happened to warrant the manner in which he went down. His side were 2-1 down? And before anybody starts, no I'm not condoning it. But if a player has chance to go down in the penalty area - especially when his side are losing - he's going to do it. I lose track of the amount of away games I'm at where we're losing and an opposition player will challenge our player and I'll say "ohhh he should have gone down".
Babylon Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 14 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: There is a camera angle showing that he wasnt touched. Nothing happened to warrant the manner in which he went down. There were also about 6 angles that showed him getting booted up the backside. Did he go down dramatically, yes. But there was definitely contact and it was a stupid foul. Someone making a meal of it, doesn't necessarily mean it's not a penno. 2
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 4 minutes ago, Fox92 said: His side were 2-1 down? And before anybody starts, no I'm not condoning it. But if a player has chance to go down in the penalty area - especially when his side are losing - he's going to do it. I lose track of the amount of away games I'm at where we're losing and an opposition player will challenge our player and I'll say "ohhh he should have gone down". Yeah, this is exactly the case. Its just a part of the culture now
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 1 minute ago, Babylon said: There were also about 6 angles that showed him getting booted up the backside. Did he go down dramatically, yes. But there was definitely contact and it was a stupid foul. Someone making a meal of it, doesn't necessarily mean it's not a penno. Moss didnt think it was a penalty at first. And he saw it from one of the booted-backside angles The point is that the culture is so strongly to go looking for it that its no longer a question of the player actually getting inhibited I'm not saying its not a peno in today's football. I'm just saying its also a dive
Turbogre Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Both were clear pens, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to put the obsession with hating on Spurs behind them. 1
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Turbogre said: Both were clear pens and both were clear dives, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to put the obsession with hating on Spurs behind them. edited for you Diving is part of the game now.
Turbogre Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: edited for you Diving is part of the game now. They were both fouled, hence why the went over.
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, Turbogre said: They were both fouled, hence why the went over. I suppose we've come to a head in this conversation. Unless you mean they went over as in deliberately went down? Kane basically admitted to going allowing himself to fall. Lamela jumped into that leg like a babe into its mother's arms But we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this 1
Nalis Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 1 hour ago, shen said: Don't see the logic in this post. Surely you just want justice and not inconsistency from officials. Don't care if it's Liverpool, Spurs, us, Watford or Cheltenham Town. But as much as the second penalty was correct, not enough is being made of Lamela's and Kane's dramatic falls or Alli's hilariously poor attempt at a dive that rightly got him booked and looking red-faced. Ban the cheat, clamp down. What is the "anti-diving panel" there for if no action is being taken here? Oh yeah all I want too see its fairness too.. I just dont like Liverpool at the minute hence my bitter post
Wymsey Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Think the signings by Arsenal will suit them very well considering how they play. Van Dijk made a couple of mistakes yesterday and his price tag is too excessive, whilst believe Tosun will flop imo.
Donut Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 By the letter of the law, Jon Moss made two correct decisions. And hes still getting criticism. Bit harsh really. First incident id say offside, but he consulted the linesman and I don't know how, but they came to the right conclusion. Second penalty, it was the linesmans angle view rather than Jon Moss' view that was the clear penalty view, so fair play to the linesman for flagging it, brave call and fair play to Jon Moss for trusting the call. So bit harsh to be criticising him yesterday, big decisions were right, by hook or by crook.
Donut Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said: Think the signings by Arsenal will suit them very well considering how they play. Van Dijk made a couple of mistakes yesterday and his price tag is too excessive, whilst believe Tosun will flop imo. Problem with Arsenal is utilising all the attacking players they have in a logical system. Is there a week in week out system where Aubameyang, Lacazette, Ozil and Mkhitaryan can be used together? Have they given up on Lacazette? very expensive back up player. Also, Mkhitaryan was somewhat given to them, but would they have been better bringing an experienced holding midfielder in? even a no frills option like N'zonzi would have fitted in nicely. I think Mustafi, Koscienly and Holding are all good centre backs, but theyre just put under too much pressure.
Jonezy Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Diving or overreacting to contact has become a huge part of the sport and it is not pretty. Just see our game against the Swans; they dived and overreacted at every contact getting the freekicks they wanted. When players get pulled and still try to run on, they rarely get a freekick, so I understand why the players feel like they need to over do it.
shen Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 2 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: I suppose we've come to a head in this conversation. Unless you mean they went over as in deliberately went down? Kane basically admitted to going allowing himself to fall. Lamela jumped into that leg like a babe into its mother's arms But we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this The problem is that had Kane jumped over Karius he would probably not have gotten the penalty. Kane sees Karius rushing out, makes sure he gets the touch even if he was never going to catch up with the ball. The Lamela one is similarly grey territory. No question about it being a foul anywhere else on the pitch, even if he manufactured it. It was rash and clumsy by VVD. Does Lamela have a case for shielding the ball in an attempt to play it? I think he does even if his intention was different. 17 minutes ago, Donut said: By the letter of the law, Jon Moss made two correct decisions. And hes still getting criticism. Bit harsh really. First incident id say offside, but he consulted the linesman and I don't know how, but they came to the right conclusion. Second penalty, it was the linesmans angle view rather than Jon Moss' view that was the clear penalty view, so fair play to the linesman for flagging it, brave call and fair play to Jon Moss for trusting the call. So bit harsh to be criticising him yesterday, big decisions were right, by hook or by crook. How do you come to the conclusion that the first penalty was a correct decision? Kane is offside as the ball is played towards him and Kane is playing the ball, hence it's a clear decision, regardless of how many Liverpool players touch or deliberately play the ball. You don't wait to see if the opposition does something before blowing the whistle, surely? 1
Donut Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, shen said: The problem is that had Kane jumped over Karius he would probably not have gotten the penalty. Kane sees Karius rushing out, makes sure he gets the touch even if he was never going to catch up with the ball. The Lamela one is similarly grey territory. No question about it being a foul anywhere else on the pitch, even if he manufactured it. It was rash and clumsy by VVD. Does Lamela have a case for shielding the ball in an attempt to play it? I think he does even if his intention was different. How do you come to the conclusion that the first penalty was a correct decision? Kane is offside as the ball is played towards him and Kane is playing the ball, hence it's a clear decision, regardless of how many Liverpool players touch or deliberately play the ball. You don't wait to see if the opposition does something before blowing the whistle, surely? Weve already established its the law that is an ass, not the collective decision made by the linesman and Jon Moss which was correct by the letter of the law. Edited 5 February 2018 by Donut 1
yorkie1999 Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 If they're going to bring this VAR into the prem, which i suspect they are given the amount of scrutineering the referees and linesmen are suddenly deploying, they should be able to project where the player will be if he had not been tripped, or left his leg for the goalie to touch as in the case of Kane, and if the ball would have gone out of play and consequently if the player i.e. Kane would have got to it or not.
Mark_w Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 19 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said: If they're going to bring this VAR into the prem, which i suspect they are given the amount of scrutineering the referees and linesmen are suddenly deploying, they should be able to project where the player will be if he had not been tripped, or left his leg for the goalie to touch as in the case of Kane, and if the ball would have gone out of play and consequently if the player i.e. Kane would have got to it or not. But why would they bother doing that, it has no bearing on whether or not it's a foul? Haven't seen the incident so maybe missing something, but struggling to see why that would be relevant.
Leeds Fox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 22 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said: If they're going to bring this VAR into the prem, which i suspect they are given the amount of scrutineering the referees and linesmen are suddenly deploying, they should be able to project where the player will be if he had not been tripped, or left his leg for the goalie to touch as in the case of Kane, and if the ball would have gone out of play and consequently if the player i.e. Kane would have got to it or not. You could argue that the keeper coming out, making a challenge and failing to get the ball makes the ball unplayable for Kane. Which I’m sure would warrant a foul whether it be clear obstruction or dangerous play (not dangerous in this instance however).
Leeds Fox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 7 minutes ago, Mark_w said: But why would they bother doing that, it has no bearing on whether or not it's a foul? Haven't seen the incident so maybe missing something, but struggling to see why that would be relevant. Exactly, the only thing that should affect is the punishment. Preventing a goal would be a yellow and a case such as last night would be a penalty only. It’s still a foul (speaking in general rather than whether Kane dived or not.)
yorkie1999 Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 8 minutes ago, Mark_w said: But why would they bother doing that, it has no bearing on whether or not it's a foul? Haven't seen the incident so maybe missing something, but struggling to see why that would be relevant. Because kane put the ball into the space where it was either going out of play or he would never have got to it which also forced the goalie to dive across him which enabled kane to catch the goalie with his leg and claim a penalty (tempting the goalie to go for the ball). If VAR could project the ball going out of play and kane not being able to get to it the officials would then be able to decide if he had tried to con them or not.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 One of the most mundane seasons I can recall. The title race is over, we are nicely safe, and Mahrez showing the worst side of football. This old "Fox" is going back to sleep. Well, maybe.
foxinmyhouse Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 I don't see how the first Kane penalty was not given as offside even with the current rules. He was in a offside position to start, the ball was deliberately played towards him and he was making the run. The only reason the Liverpool player had to try and kick the ball was because of Kane so regardless if he deliberately kicked the ball Kane was interfering in play so should have been ruled offside. If he was not offside then why have refs been ruling out goals scored by players standing in offside positions from keeper saves. If in the next game vardy stands in a offside position, a long range shot comes in which the goal keeper saves but vardy kicks in the rebound then surely this will now be given as the goal keeper would have deliberately touched the ball first. And unlike the Kane offside, the original shots in situations like this are not deliberate passes yet still get ruled out.
Wymsey Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 I know most on here, it seems, can't stand him - but Jon Moss was apparently correct in his decisions yesterday.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42943628
weller54 Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 15 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said: I know most on here, it seems, can't stand him - but Jon Moss was apparently correct in his decisions yesterday.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42943628 Even a broken clock is correct twice a day!
Recommended Posts