Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

    Search       Member List      Official United Site     ArabZone      ArabTRUST       BBC Sport     Twitter
Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!


If you're already a member please log in:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dundee United v Rangers; Next match - Sat 10 Sep, 12:30
Topic Started: Sep 7 2011, 10:52 AM (7,785 Views)
radger Sep 16 2011, 04:13 AM Post #166
Member Avatar
Craig Brewster
[ * * * ]
 oh jeezo, theres way more here than i care to read. anyway I'll simply say that if danny swanson had attempted to play on rather than throw himself over the leg, we might have got the penalty. "Simulation" can still occur even with contact. In general I have no problem with people trying to exaggerate fouls/incidents not getting decisions.

The problem with that is that people trying to play fair can be disadvantaged. and that really gets on my tits sometimes

in this instance to me, swanson tried to make the most of it to win a penalty. Thats not something I like to see. so i'm not gonna dwell too long on should it have been a penalty or not.

anyway im off to bed. night all :smack:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback Sep 16 2011, 07:36 AM Post #167
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ * * * * * * * * * ]
roamer
Sep 16 2011, 04:13 AM
oh jeezo, theres way more here than i care to read. anyway I'll simply say that if danny swanson had attempted to play on rather than throw himself over the leg, we might have got the penalty. "Simulation" can still occur even with contact. In general I have no problem with people trying to exaggerate fouls/incidents not getting decisions.

The problem with that is that people trying to play fair can be disadvantaged. and that really gets on my tits sometimes

in this instance to me, swanson tried to make the most of it to win a penalty. Thats not something I like to see. so i'm not gonna dwell too long on should it have been a penalty or not.

anyway im off to bed. night all :smack:

A drunken post at 5am from an occasional contributor seems to have summed up the penalty situation perfectly.

roamer - I salute your pished powers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody Sep 16 2011, 08:15 AM Post #168
Member Avatar
Twat
[ * * * * * * * * * * ]
roamer
Sep 16 2011, 04:13 AM
In general I have no problem with people trying to exaggerate fouls/incidents not getting decisions.
Agreed. Russell should never have been sent off.

As to the penalty, the three views I've had suggest it is <1% dive to >99% foul, hence my continued bafflement. Nevertheless, I'm prepared to believe there is a fourth view I've not been privy to that proves conclusively that Swanson was downed by a lone gunman in the book depository.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Eggman Sep 16 2011, 08:48 AM Post #169
Member Avatar
Tommy McLean
[ * * * * * * * ]
roamer
Sep 16 2011, 04:13 AM
The problem with that is that people trying to play fair can be disadvantaged.
Quite. Refs will rarely give a free-kick (especially a penalty) unless the player goes down. There are many occasions where a foul has been committed but that wasn't strong enough for the player to fall. The players know that unless they go down, they probably won't get a penalty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
findus Sep 16 2011, 09:28 AM Post #170
Member Avatar
Jerry Kerr
[ * * * * * * * * * ]
 If a player persistently fouls on and on and the ref eventually warns him that he'll be booked next time he fouls, and if that next foul is not just a wee shirt tug or something (which would be the foul to make his persistent fouling worth a yellow in total) well worth a yellow card itself, almost but not quite borderline straight red, after this yellow card, has the player's persistent fouls now been erased from his tab, so that he can persistently foul himself to the precipice of a 2nd yellow, or are refs allowed to carry these over in light of the heinous foul that resulted in the yellow? If so, is it then in the interest of a particularly dirty player to niggle his way to this precipice before committing his most heinous yellow card worthy tackle? And if so, I wonder if the dirtier/sneakier players use this as a weapon.

Anyone?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie Sep 16 2011, 10:18 AM Post #171
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ * * * * * * * * ]
 I'm sure players are mindful of their next foul if they've been warned by the ref. No point getting booked for something daft like, say, Michael Stewart.
I don't think the tab's restarted though. In fact, didn't Michael Stewart get a yellow at Tannadice for persistent fouling and then pretty quickly get another yellow for a fairly innocuous foul? I think that was the ref taking the whole game into account that time .
To be fair, using Stewart as an example is probably misleading, since he's a facking butter, but you get the point.


edit - that should read, 'fucking nutter' but I like the alternative too!
Edited by reekie, Sep 16 2011, 10:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie Sep 16 2011, 10:21 AM Post #172
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ * * * * * * * * ]
 Oh! Findus! I've got one to add to the no-foul-if-you-get-your-shot-away bewilderment.
PAOK had to retake a penalty, which they'd scored from, because Cudicini was off his line. They then missed the retake.
The world's gone mad, I tells ya!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer Sep 16 2011, 10:30 AM Post #173
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ * * * * * * * * ]
reekie
Sep 16 2011, 10:21 AM
Oh! Findus! I've got one to add to the no-foul-if-you-get-your-shot-away bewilderment.
PAOK had to retake a penalty, which they'd scored from, because Cudicini was off his line. They then missed the retake.
The world's gone mad, I tells ya!
That's just bad refereeing. Rules clearly state that if the penalty is scored then you don't retake for an offence by the defending team.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback Sep 16 2011, 10:32 AM Post #174
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ * * * * * * * * * ]
findus
Sep 16 2011, 09:28 AM
If a player persistently fouls on and on and the ref eventually warns him that he'll be booked next time he fouls, and if that next foul is not just a wee shirt tug or something (which would be the foul to make his persistent fouling worth a yellow in total) well worth a yellow card itself, almost but not quite borderline straight red, after this yellow card, has the player's persistent fouls now been erased from his tab, so that he can persistently foul himself to the precipice of a 2nd yellow, or are refs allowed to carry these over in light of the heinous foul that resulted in the yellow? If so, is it then in the interest of a particularly dirty player to niggle his way to this precipice before committing his most heinous yellow card worthy tackle? And if so, I wonder if the dirtier/sneakier players use this as a weapon.
Sounds great.

Sign him up, Housty!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie Sep 16 2011, 10:51 AM Post #175
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ * * * * * * * * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Sep 16 2011, 10:30 AM
reekie
Sep 16 2011, 10:21 AM
Oh! Findus! I've got one to add to the no-foul-if-you-get-your-shot-away bewilderment.
PAOK had to retake a penalty, which they'd scored from, because Cudicini was off his line. They then missed the retake.
The world's gone mad, I tells ya!
That's just bad refereeing. Rules clearly state that if the penalty is scored then you don't retake for an offence by the defending team.
That's what I thought. Phew!
Not quite off to hell-in-a-handcart yet...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
findus Sep 16 2011, 10:58 AM Post #176
Member Avatar
Jerry Kerr
[ * * * * * * * * * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Sep 16 2011, 10:32 AM
findus
Sep 16 2011, 09:28 AM
If a player persistently fouls on and on and the ref eventually warns him that he'll be booked next time he fouls, and if that next foul is not just a wee shirt tug or something (which would be the foul to make his persistent fouling worth a yellow in total) well worth a yellow card itself, almost but not quite borderline straight red, after this yellow card, has the player's persistent fouls now been erased from his tab, so that he can persistently foul himself to the precipice of a 2nd yellow, or are refs allowed to carry these over in light of the heinous foul that resulted in the yellow? If so, is it then in the interest of a particularly dirty player to niggle his way to this precipice before committing his most heinous yellow card worthy tackle? And if so, I wonder if the dirtier/sneakier players use this as a weapon.
Sounds great.

Sign him up, Housty!
Have my first LOLIRL of the day. Spend it wisely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
findus Sep 16 2011, 11:00 AM Post #177
Member Avatar
Jerry Kerr
[ * * * * * * * * * ]
reekie
Sep 16 2011, 10:18 AM
I'm sure players are mindful of their next foul if they've been warned by the ref. No point getting booked for something daft like, say, Michael Stewart.
I don't think the tab's restarted though. In fact, didn't Michael Stewart get a yellow at Tannadice for persistent fouling and then pretty quickly get another yellow for a fairly innocuous foul? I think that was the ref taking the whole game into account that time .
To be fair, using Stewart as an example is probably misleading, since he's a facking butter, but you get the point.


edit - that should read, 'f*cking nutter' but I like the alternative too!
Facking butter, reeks, you're a genius! :ban:

Sounds plausible. I wonder how video evid..... I'd like to hear from top grade referees about their stories from the battlefields on this issue. You know who you are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Eggman Sep 17 2011, 02:19 PM Post #178
Member Avatar
Tommy McLean
[ * * * * * * * ]
 Martin Olsson did a clear dive against Arsenal. Is it just in-match video evidence the 'no' proponents are against, so he could be retrospectively booked for it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micky Sep 17 2011, 02:21 PM Post #179
Gordon Chisholm
[ * * * * * ]
The Eggman
Sep 17 2011, 02:19 PM
Martin Olsson did a clear dive against Arsenal. Is it just in-match video evidence the 'no' proponents are against, so he could be retrospectively booked for it?
FFS Eggs, Godwin's was invoked. I expect better from you. :smack:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Eggman Sep 17 2011, 02:23 PM Post #180
Member Avatar
Tommy McLean
[ * * * * * * * ]
Micky
Sep 17 2011, 02:21 PM
The Eggman
Sep 17 2011, 02:19 PM
Martin Olsson did a clear dive against Arsenal. Is it just in-match video evidence the 'no' proponents are against, so he could be retrospectively booked for it?
FFS Eggs, Godwin's was invoked. I expect better from you. :smack:
I'm losing in the Biggest Troll, so I need a boost! :haha:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.