Manwell Pablo Posted 12 May 2013 Author Share Posted 12 May 2013 I thought so? No they dont. Father and son I believe. Call me a nob all you want lads we'll see where the double standards are when I can complain about the next diving **** that costs us without looking like a hypocritical willy puller like you. Would of hated to win like that. And the difference between diving and loaning players from abroad is one is within the rules and the other is something that should be erdicated from the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 The FA have reviewed the rules on multiple ownership to help protect the clubs security, what has that got to do with loaning players? And what is the difference between a normal loan and a watford loan? The laws on multiple ownership was to stop others getting an unfair advantage - which Watford have by loaning in their entire team from udinese and grenada: the difference between a normal loan and a Watford loan is that the normal loans don't exploit loopholes and go against the spirit of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Watford's previous misbehaviour justified cheating on our own behalf. They shouldn't be in the final so it would be only right to knock them out via an incorrect penalty decision. Come on now. Watford have played by the rules. It doesn't sit right with me, but they haven't cheated at all. As I said above, Zola has done a magnificent job to get a team full of strangers to gel as quickly as he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Watford's previous misbehaviour justified cheating on our own behalf. They shouldn't be in the final so it would be only right to knock them out via an incorrect penalty decision. Surely neither should be in the final then. Brighton v Crystal Palace should be the final then. And what Watford have done is within the rules, whether it be right or not, whether you like it or not, immoral or not, ethical or not, it is within the rules, diving is not, whether the referee sees it or not, is another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Surely neither should be in the final then. Brighton v Crystal Palace should be the final then. And what Watford have done is within the rules, whether it be right or not, whether you like it or not, immoral or not, ethical or not, it is within the rules, diving is not, whether the referee sees it or not, is another discussion. Have you seen some of the penalties Palace have been awarded this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Have you seen some of the penalties Palace have been awarded this season? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 No they dont. Father and son I believe. Call me a nob all you want lads we'll see where the double standards are when I can complain about the next diving **** that costs us without looking like a hypocritical willy puller like you. Would of hated to win like that. And the difference between diving and loaning players from abroad is one is within the rules and the other is something that should be erdicated from the game. Typical Foxestalk isn't it its OK for us to dive because other teams do it but its not OK for Watford to loan multiple players from the club even though we loan multiple players from the same club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 No. Well, if we shouldn't be in the final based on a generous penalty award, they certainly shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Well, if we shouldn't be in the final based on a generous penalty award, they certainly shouldn't. Fair enough, I'm on basing it on Harry's comment of he doesn't like seeing cheating. I'd have been more than happy to see us go to the final based on a dive personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 12 May 2013 Author Share Posted 12 May 2013 Typical Foxestalk isn't it its OK for us to dive because other teams do it but its not OK for Watford to loan multiple players from the club even though we loan multiple players from the same club Not quite the same between us and Man U. Just can't abide diving I hate seeing anyone doing it and I'd be absolutely made faking up had what happened to us today happened to anyone else. As it is Im left feeling gutted with saving grace being a cheating little cry baby got everything he deserved. Anyone saying its a pen btw lol lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Ted Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 What blatant sending offs are these then? Cassetti two footed tackle on James - only a yellow but 5 minutes later kicks the ball away and no 2nd yellow even though Wood got one first half. Ekstrand on Knockaert - two footed lunge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie fox Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Anyone saying its a pen btw lol lol Since when is intentionally grabbing someone's shoulder from behind a legal play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Ted Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 I'm not being funny but Schlupp put an arm on Anya's shoulder on Thursday and got booked. Therefore, it's a penalty, shouldn't matter whether it's in or outside the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Come on now. Watford have played by the rules. It doesn't sit right with me, but they haven't cheated at all. As I said above, Zola has done a magnificent job to get a team full of strangers to gel as quickly as he has. Surely neither should be in the final then. Brighton v Crystal Palace should be the final then. And what Watford have done is within the rules, whether it be right or not, whether you like it or not, immoral or not, ethical or not, it is within the rules, diving is not, whether the referee sees it or not, is another discussion. I suppose that's fair, both of you are right to say that Watford's behaviour is legal. However I would argue that the rules are wrong anyway so using them to back up your claim doesn't do it for me. I'd have to say my irritation is more that this has been allowed to happen due to a loophole being left open for exploitation. I look forward to what I hope are suitable rule changes that will prevent such activity from occurring again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationwider Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Never had a problem with diving and I never will. It's one of the many controversies of the game that I'm more than happy to live with - like time-wasting, poor officiating and disallowed goals that actually crossed the line. All part of life's rich tapestry etc etc... Things that football can do without are (but by no means limited to) - international friendlies during the season proper, moving fixtures at short notice for telly, paying over £30 to watch a regular league game, racism and homophobia at every level of the game in all its forms, and many many other things. Diving? - wouldn't feature in my top 100 grumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1999 Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 I suppose that's fair, both of you are right to say that Watford's behaviour is legal. However I would argue that the rules are wrong anyway so using them to back up your claim doesn't do it for me. I'd have to say my irritation is more that this has been allowed to happen due to a loophole being left open for exploitation. I look forward to what I hope are suitable rule changes that will prevent such activity from occurring again. and if that happens it will prove the fa never anticipated anyone doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coatsworthstache Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Cassetti two footed tackle on James - only a yellow but 5 minutes later kicks the ball away and no 2nd yellow even though Wood got one first half. Ekstrand on Knockaert - two footed lunge. I agree with this. As for the penalty, it wasn't a clear cut dive. It was a soft penalty. I always think the acid test for incidents like that is whether you'd be happy if it was given against you. And I'd have been raging if it had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vale Blue Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 It's up to the ref to get the decision right, would I have felt guilty had Knocky scored, course not, these things happen and unfortunately so does scoring against us in the final minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam1 Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Cassetti two footed tackle on James - only a yellow but 5 minutes later kicks the ball away and no 2nd yellow even though Wood got one first half. Ekstrand on Knockaert - two footed lunge. Wasn't Wood onside as well and went for Goal???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1999 Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 I agree with this. As for the penalty, it wasn't a clear cut dive. It was a soft penalty. I always think the acid test for incidents like that is whether you'd be happy if it was given against you. And I'd have been raging if it had. everyone would, but if knockheart had scored from the peno no one would be moaning about the dive and he,d be a Leicester hero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiithy Fox Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Atleast he showed he cared and cried. Owning up to his mistake in a moment like that takes a man who really cares for his club. To stand in front of all our disappointed fans, hold his hands up and say sorry would have taken some courage. He played his heart out for us all game and we would have never of even got the chance at the end to win it, if he had a lazy game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody1985 Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Watford have same opportunities as every single club in division , we can not use there " loanees" as an excuse !!!! I want to know if frigart was out designated ( on field ) peno taker. ? If he was then fair point .... If not then .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 Perhaps this will be learning curve for him anyway, perhaps he might not be so cocky, perhaps he might realise he is very poor mans Ronaldo. Good player, but hopefully he'll reel his big head and ego in abit and be abit more sensible about his whole game in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettsj2 Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 'It wasnt a clear cut dive' Seriously guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy1960 Posted 12 May 2013 Share Posted 12 May 2013 I suppose that's fair, both of you are right to say that Watford's behaviour is legal. However I would argue that the rules are wrong anyway so using them to back up your claim doesn't do it for me. I'd have to say my irritation is more that this has been allowed to happen due to a loophole being left open for exploitation. I look forward to what I hope are suitable rule changes that will prevent such activity from occurring again. As a matter of interest what is actually wrong in Watford loaning players ? Surely better than getting massively into debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.