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
…
6
7
8
…
13

Dundee United v Rangers; Next match - Sat 10 Sep, 12:30
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2011, 10:52 AM (7,790 Views)
The Eggman	Sep 13 2011, 01:12 PM Post #91
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Cobardon Sep 13 2011, 01:08 PM 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. It wasn't too dissimilar to Grosso's v Australia in the 2006 World Cup. Grosso puts the ball past Neill, who 'falls' (his pretence; it's clear he knows he won't get the ball, and pretends he slips so he can impede Grosso and stop him getting to the ball), and Grosso, trying (not very hard) to hurdle him, trips. The ref awards the penalty, and then Australia spend the next four years crying about it.



findus	Sep 13 2011, 01:37 PM Post #92
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 13 2011, 01:12 PM Cobardon Sep 13 2011, 01:08 PM 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. It wasn't too dissimilar to Grosso's v Australia in the 2006 World Cup. Grosso puts the ball past Neill, who 'falls' (his pretence; it's clear he knows he won't get the ball, and pretends he slips so he can impede Grosso and stop him getting to the ball), and Grosso, trying (not very hard) to hurdle him, trips. The ref awards the penalty, and then Australia spend the next four years crying about it. Australia 4 - 9 Italy.



The Eggman	Sep 13 2011, 01:41 PM Post #93
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 13 2011, 01:37 PM Australia 4 - 9 Italy. Hmm, 4 years (until Italy won the World Cup in Berlin in 2006). Besides, presuming you mean 2002, the difference was that the ref rightly awarded the penalty to Italy against Australia, while the ref incorrectly disallowed what would've been the winner for Italy v South Korea. Still, apart from that, spot on



findus	Sep 13 2011, 01:45 PM Post #94
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 12:29 PM I have no idea where the line should be drawn between no foul, obstruction and foul. Talking about obstruction, an idea for clearing this up has been marbling around my head for a few years now -if you have not touched the ball, you do not have possession of the ball, and therefore any preventing of an opposition player getting to the ball is obstruction. This gets rid of the ridiculous situation we've had for the last decade or so where refs now refuse to ever give obstruction when a defender is ushering out a ball 5 metres away that he hasn't touched, blocking an opposition player who is desperately trying to get to the ball.



findus	Sep 13 2011, 01:46 PM Post #95
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 01:03 PM 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.



findus	Sep 13 2011, 01:48 PM Post #96
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 13 2011, 01:41 PM findus Sep 13 2011, 01:37 PM Australia 4 - 9 Italy. Hmm, 4 years (until Italy won the World Cup in Berlin in 2006). Besides, presuming you mean 2002, the difference was that the ref rightly awarded the penalty to Italy against Australia, while the ref incorrectly disallowed what would've been the winner for Italy v South Korea. Still, apart from that, spot on Riiight, so 4 years of Australia moaning and 9 years (and counting!) of Italy moaning... I'm not sure where the confusion is.



The Eggman	Sep 13 2011, 01:51 PM Post #97
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 13 2011, 01:48 PM Riiight, so 4 years of Australia moaning and 9 years (and counting!) of Italy moaning... I'm not sure where the confusion is. Your confusion stems from: Italy not moaning for nine years. They stopped moaning when they won the tournament four years later. And that Italy had cause to moan (the ref later being shown to be corrupt), while Australia didn't. All teams moan when critical decisions don't go their way. What makes Australia's moaning silly (or sillier) was their moaning when the ref has actually made the right decision. They also called the ref a cheat, despite the same ref having sent off Materazzi after 50 minutes for fouling another Italy player (an accidental collision).



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 13 2011, 01:54 PM Post #98
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 13 2011, 01:46 PM whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 01:03 PM 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. I still think he's cool.



findus	Sep 13 2011, 01:55 PM Post #99
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 13 2011, 01:51 PM findus Sep 13 2011, 01:48 PM Riiight, so 4 years of Australia moaning and 9 years (and counting!) of Italy moaning... I'm not sure where the confusion is. Your confusion stems from: Italy not moaning for nine years. They stopped moaning when they won the tournament four years later.



findus	Sep 13 2011, 02:23 PM Post #100
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 01:54 PM Dammit, that one works much better as an 'approaching' pic. Swapsies?



Cobardon	Sep 13 2011, 02:29 PM Post #101
Uncle Smurf Posts: 1,768 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: September 12, 2010	findus Sep 13 2011, 02:23 PM whatsthatonyourback Sep 13 2011, 01:54 PM Dammit, that one works much better as an 'approaching' pic. Swapsies? That poor bugger has become an internet meme now. In any case, it's a bit rich for Rangers to moan about any other team diving. Davis was very fortunate not to go for his outrageous swan...er better use another bird there I think...that is his tufted duck dive at the weekend. Though you could also argue that his forearm smash on Swannie while five yards from the ref was worthy of red anyway. Shit, when you think about it the ref was pretty pants overall actually wasn't he? Hey, is that little girl Des Lynham's kid? Edited by Cobardon, Sep 13 2011, 02:30 PM.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 13 2011, 02:42 PM Post #102
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Cobardon Sep 13 2011, 02:29 PM That poor bugger has become an internet meme now. Has he? What's he a meme for? I thought it was just findud, and even then I wasn't sure what he was getting at. I hope he makes a fortune from those lawsuits against the papers.



Skeletor	Sep 13 2011, 06:00 PM Post #103
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Sep 13 2011, 12:03 PM 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. It's a strange one this. The BBC Highlights show how pitiful Swanson's dive is, but they also show Goian sticking a leg out to perhaps attempt for the ball, but upon failure he leaves the leg in and puts up his hands in the typical hun "Not me, honest Reverend" fashion which accompanies a foul. Goian definitely knew he left his foot in as an obstacle, but Swanson probably could have easily skipped by the leg. So is that an attempt at obstruction which was cancelled by a poor bellyflop? Don't give a f*ck about how Celtic fans might enjoy it, they're a sad bunch of whining pricks, most of whom are nostalgic for a past they never had. Instead rejoice that all the misery dealt to United at the hands of one ultimately corrupt, rotten swarm of sectarian degenerates may have been accruing with interest in the bank of Sweet Justice, ready to transfer directly back into Rangers' account in one instalment.



Hamish	Sep 13 2011, 06:58 PM Post #104
Ian McCall Posts: 786 Group: Members Member #27 Joined: September 20, 2010	The fall/dive was typical Swanson. This cheers me up though... "I am satisfied that there is a real and substantial risk of insolvency if the tax case were to be decided against the defenders (Rangers) in favour of the Revenue" - Judge Lord Hodge http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14905815



Ivan	Sep 13 2011, 07:41 PM Post #105
F*cking plebs. Posts: 1,749 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: September 10, 2010	I hadn't watched any highlights until now and only had observations from the stand to go by but having watched the two incidents online now, I have to say that I'm going back to my original impressions. It was a penalty and it was never a headbutt. Granted, it was an aggressive movement of the head by Russell but there was never any intention to strike Clubfoot. And Clubfoot is an awful cunt for throwing himself to the ground in the moments before the incident.

Create a free forum in seconds. Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
6
7
8
…
13