Dundee United v Rangers

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:

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7
…
13

Dundee United v Rangers; Next match - Sat 10 Sep, 12:30
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2011, 10:52 AM (7,791 Views)
Homer	Sep 11 2011, 08:34 PM Post #76
Ian McCall Posts: 640 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: September 10, 2010	Looked like the boy maybe got a slight nick on the ball, but Scott Simpson made the point in the Arabzone commentary that, having turned in to the box and the outstretched leg, was he supposed to try and hurdle over it??



findus	Sep 11 2011, 10:01 PM Post #77
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	Homer Sep 11 2011, 08:34 PM Looked like the boy maybe got a slight nick on the ball, but Scott Simpson made the point in the Arabzone commentary that, having turned in to the box and the outstretched leg, was he supposed to try and hurdle over it?? Depends on the colour shirt you're wearing / playing against.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 13 2011, 10:41 AM Post #78
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Sep 10 2011, 11:49 AM Thanks, Wassa. Not entirely sure how all that would help Bain's case, which by memory is: "this business is fcked and it was me what fcked it. Give me money for getting sacked". As to the game, we have as good a hope as ever of winning but, if we lose then, hey ho, it's Rangers. Wha'eva. I think that may have been Bain's rather weak argument if RFC had gone through the usual disciplinary procedures. As it is, he was suspended pending a disciplinary, at which point Whyte went straight to the press constructively dismissing him. While Bain doesn't deserve a penny, RFC deserve to be taken for every penny the way they've made a complete twat of dismissing a complete twat (no offence to all the twats out there). Even today, Whyte is in the press venting about this unfair dismissal case. He really should shut up for the sake of RFC. For the sake of the rest of us, I hope he keeps at it. I must say, I'm very pleased to see that the new Ranger Saviour has managed to turn a justified dismissal into an unfair one. The huns are in excellent hands.



Naebody	Sep 13 2011, 12:03 PM Post #79
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	Setenza Sep 11 2011, 08:16 PM Penalty on bbc highlights looks like it's not a penalty really, but have been given previously, so guess could claim that it wasn't a total dive. I'm sorry to keep this going, but on what planet is this not a penalty? Must admit I've not paid enough attention to Craig Whyte's takeover. He's so obviously the buyer of last resort for an unfixable business that it just feels a bit tribal to glory in the shambles of it all. Any pleasure I can take in watching Rangers move inexorably towards administration is nullified by thinking about the pleasure Celtic fans are taking from it.



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 13 2011, 12:14 PM Post #80
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	It didn't look to me that Swanson had been tripped. His fall didn't coincide with collision with the hun leg. He was falling of his own accord. I don't think stills can show that.



Setenza	Sep 13 2011, 12:16 PM Post #81
Knitting with only one needle Posts: 6,057 Group: Admin Member #7 Joined: September 10, 2010	Conan the Destroyer Sep 13 2011, 12:14 PM It didn't look to me that Swanson had been tripped. His fall didn't coincide with collision with the hun leg. He was falling of his own accord. I don't think stills can show that.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 13 2011, 12:29 PM Post #82
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Setenza Sep 13 2011, 12:16 PM Conan the Destroyer Sep 13 2011, 12:14 PM It didn't look to me that Swanson had been tripped. His fall didn't coincide with collision with the hun leg. He was falling of his own accord. I don't think stills can show that. Can't believe I'm even bothering to reply to this, but I've just been given a mug of tea that is too hot to drink, so... It was one of those grey area ones where the defender places some part of his body between the attacker and the ball, and the attacker has a choice of whether to evade the defensive body part or allow a collision to happen. Sometimes it's easy to avoid the collision, sometimes it's difficult. And sometimes the attacker makes it look more difficult than it actually is. I have no idea where the line should be drawn between no foul, obstruction and foul. So far, so unhelpful. After a few replays, I think it was probably a penalty, but on first viewing I thought it was a dive. Life would be so much easier if you claim the authorities are conspiring against you and referees are all useless and biased against you/for the other guys, wouldn't it? ETA: Tea is now at perfect temperature.



Naebody	Sep 13 2011, 12:38 PM Post #83
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	Let me see if I understand your argument. While all the circumstances were there for a stonewaller -- through on goal, collision with an awkward dog-leg after no challenge made, ball several feet away -- Swanson's fall was not unconvincing enough. If we assume for a moment that it was a dive, it's a dive that makes no sense. All angles I've seen suggest contact, and all Swanson would have had to do to be stopped by the contact have been to keep moving forward. Your argument, if I understand it, is that it wasn't a penalty because Swanson wanted one. That seems to me unnecessarily harsh. ETA: this is all just genuine curiosity about opposite opinions, by the way. I've watched the highlights a dozen times now and can't understand the "dive" argument, but I'm entirely at peace with the concept that referees sometimes get stuff wrong.



Ivan	Sep 13 2011, 12:39 PM Post #84
F*cking plebs. Posts: 1,749 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: September 10, 2010	Conan the Destroyer Sep 13 2011, 12:14 PM It didn't look to me that Swanson had been tripped. His fall didn't coincide with collision with the hun leg. He was falling of his own accord. I don't think stills can show that. It looks to me much like the Robson dive/penalty at the shed end. I put that one down as a dive because he was already in the process of going down before he made contact with Darren Dods' leg.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 13 2011, 12:42 PM Post #85
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Sep 13 2011, 12:38 PM Let me see if I understand your argument. While all the circumstances were there for a stonewaller -- through on goal, collision with an awkward dog-leg after no challenge made, ball several feet away -- Swanson's fall was not unconvincing enough. If we assume for a moment that it was a dive, it's a dive that makes no sense. All angles I've seen suggest contact, and all Swanson would have had to do to be stopped by the contact have been to keep moving forward. Your argument, if I understand it, is that it wasn't a penalty because Swanson wanted one. That seems to me unnecessarily harsh. Conan - I believe that one's for you.



The Eggman	Sep 13 2011, 01:01 PM Post #86
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 12:29 PM It was one of those grey area ones where the defender places some part of his body between the attacker and the ball, and the attacker has a choice of whether to evade the defensive body part or allow a collision to happen. Sometimes it's easy to avoid the collision, sometimes it's difficult. And sometimes the attacker makes it look more difficult than it actually is. I have no idea where the line should be drawn between no foul, obstruction and foul. Getting a touch on the ball has an influence, surely.



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 13 2011, 01:02 PM Post #87
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Sep 13 2011, 12:38 PM Let me see if I understand your argument. While all the circumstances were there for a stonewaller -- through on goal, collision with an awkward dog-leg after no challenge made, ball several feet away -- Swanson's fall was not unconvincing enough. If we assume for a moment that it was a dive, it's a dive that makes no sense. All angles I've seen suggest contact, and all Swanson would have had to do to be stopped by the contact have been to keep moving forward. Your argument, if I understand it, is that it wasn't a penalty because Swanson wanted one. That seems to me unnecessarily harsh. ETA: this is all just genuine curiosity about opposite opinions, by the way. I've watched the highlights a dozen times now and can't understand the "dive" argument, but I'm entirely at peace with the concept that referees sometimes get stuff wrong. I'm suggesting that any collision with awkward dog-leg was incidental as Swanson had already decided to chuck himself to the floor. I agree a dive makes no sense, but perhaps by the time he realised he was through on goal the little devil whispering "go down" in his ear had already won? I'm not 100%, it's moving very quickly, but it just doesn't look like a natural trip/fall to me. And before anyone suggests TV evidence is intrinsically flawed, I'm as comfortable that not every incident is clearly resolvable as Naebs is that sometimes refs get stuff wrong.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 13 2011, 01:03 PM Post #88
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 13 2011, 01:01 PM whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 12:29 PM It was one of those grey area ones where the defender places some part of his body between the attacker and the ball, and the attacker has a choice of whether to evade the defensive body part or allow a collision to happen. Sometimes it's easy to avoid the collision, sometimes it's difficult. And sometimes the attacker makes it look more difficult than it actually is. I have no idea where the line should be drawn between no foul, obstruction and foul. Getting a touch on the ball has an influence, surely. An insignificant touch on the ball - no. Just because a stud scraped the ball, but the striker was still able to run on to the ball, doesn't make it a fair challenge. I can hear findus approaching.



The Eggman	Sep 13 2011, 01:07 PM Post #89
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 01:03 PM An insignificant touch on the ball - no. Just because a stud scraped the ball, but the striker was still able to run on to the ball, doesn't make it a fair challenge. I can hear findus approaching. I agree with that, although I'm not sure what a ref's take on it would be (apart from the ref in question, who didn't give the penalty).



Cobardon	Sep 13 2011, 01:08 PM Post #90
Uncle Smurf Posts: 1,768 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: September 12, 2010	It's one of those ones isn't it? Swanson could have gone round the leg or over it, and in the ref's opinion chose to go over the leg and was therefore booked. But I've seen them given lots of times. I'll be keeping an eye out for very similar instances in games that squidman is reffing in future though. He'd better decide in favour of the defender in every other case of the same thing, that's all. Including where strikers nip the ball past the keeper and aim for his outstretched limbs.

Free Forums with no limits on posts or members. Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7
…
13