Commentators obsession with Players Diving

[Chicog]

Was that a penalty for Liverpool yesterday in your opinion? I thought it harsh on Palace and wouldn't have give it - Benteke was looking for it.

Had a challenge similar to yesterday gone in favour of your team, you would gladly accept the penalty.

Over a season, decisions go for you and against you.

Like it or not, the officials make the final decision, and once that decision is made there ain't much you can do about it, except moan.

Had a similar challenge gone in favour of his team, we would have no mention of video replays for at least a week, or at least until the next injustice him and MrBo want to get their tits in a wringer about.

P.S. Video replays offered no definitive evidence either way, more proof that they are more trouble than they're worth <heh>.

[Bredbury Blue]

Alfie, If there was contact, it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc. If every time there is contact between defender and forward, and the forward goes down, are you saying that's a penalty? No it's not.

First you said "he clearly pulled out of the challenge" now you are saying "If there was contact it was minimal" if you couldn't see the contact then you've clearly got something wrong with your eyes.

Strange i ask you if it was carelessness by Delaney for catching Benteke with his knee ? and you reply it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc.

Whats going down got to do with it ? read my inital post as thats exactly what i wasn't saying.

Where's the contradiction in my posts. Delaney was going to tackle, he pulled out of it. If there was contact, it was minimal and not enough for me to be a penalty. Was Delaney reckless (sorry didn't realise your post was aimed at me directly)? Not in my opinion as he pulled out of the challenge. Momentum and Benteke angling in brought the players towards each other. Read my earlier post on contact - contact doesn't necessarily make a foul. Contact impeding the forward is a foul. I don't think Benteke was impeded. I thought he 'bought' the penalty.

[alfieconn]

Was that a penalty for Liverpool yesterday in your opinion? I thought it harsh on Palace and wouldn't have give it - Benteke was looking for it.

Had a challenge similar to yesterday gone in favour of your team, you would gladly accept the penalty.

Over a season, decisions go for you and against you.

Like it or not, the officials make the final decision, and once that decision is made there ain't much you can do about it, except moan.

Had a similar challenge gone in favour of his team, we would have no mention of video replays for at least a week, or at least until the next injustice him and MrBo want to get their tits in a wringer about.

P.S. Video replays offered no definitive evidence either way, more proof that they are more trouble than they're worth <heh>.

what !!!!! see the you tube clip i posted.

[Bredbury Blue]

I didn't think there was a foul. That's my opinion. You thought there was. That's your opinion.

no, your opinion is simply wrong. it was a foul. the referee and linesman got it right. credit to them.

Listen to yourself with your "your opinion is wrong".

[Bredbury Blue]

Was that a penalty for Liverpool yesterday in your opinion? I thought it harsh on Palace and wouldn't have give it - Benteke was looking for it.

Had a challenge similar to yesterday gone in favour of your team, you would gladly accept the penalty.

Over a season, decisions go for you and against you.

Like it or not, the officials make the final decision, and once that decision is made there ain't much you can do about it, except moan.

Had a similar challenge gone in favour of his team, we would have no mention of video replays for at least a week, or at least until the next injustice him and MrBo want to get their tits in a wringer about.

P.S. Video replays offered no definitive evidence either way, more proof that they are more trouble than they're worth <heh>.

Keep up Chicog, I already addressed what if it had been City who had prospered from that dubious decision. I also stated that though I'm for video refs, the one yesterday was one of those that would be a bugger for the video ref to make the decision on (or words to that effect).

[alfieconn]

To be fair Lads i don't give a monkeys about this Topic anymore cos i got a like off of Stevie, think that is the first ever

[stoneyboy]

Quite simply was never a penalty absolutely horrendous decision.

Next.

[alfieconn]

Alfie, If there was contact, it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc. If every time there is contact between defender and forward, and the forward goes down, are you saying that's a penalty? No it's not.

First you said "he clearly pulled out of the challenge" now you are saying "If there was contact it was minimal" if you couldn't see the contact then you've clearly got something wrong with your eyes.

Strange i ask you if it was carelessness by Delaney for catching Benteke with his knee ? and you reply it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc.

Whats going down got to do with it ? read my inital post as thats exactly what i wasn't saying.

Where's the contradiction in my posts. Delaney was going to tackle, he pulled out of it. If there was contact, it was minimal and not enough for me to be a penalty. Was Delaney reckless (sorry didn't realise your post was aimed at me directly)? Not in my opinion as he pulled out of the challenge. Momentum and Benteke angling in brought the players towards each other. Read my earlier post on contact - contact doesn't necessarily make a foul. Contact impeding the forward is a foul. I don't think Benteke was impeded. I thought he 'bought' the penalty.

Benteke was pass him, thats why he caught his back leg.

[StevieH]

Alfie, If there was contact, it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc. If every time there is contact between defender and forward, and the forward goes down, are you saying that's a penalty? No it's not.

First you said "he clearly pulled out of the challenge" now you are saying "If there was contact it was minimal" if you couldn't see the contact then you've clearly got something wrong with your eyes.

Strange i ask you if it was carelessness by Delaney for catching Benteke with his knee ? and you reply it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc.

Whats going down got to do with it ? read my inital post as thats exactly what i wasn't saying.

Where's the contradiction in my posts. Delaney was going to tackle, he pulled out of it. If there was contact, it was minimal and not enough for me to be a penalty. Was Delaney reckless (sorry didn't realise your post was aimed at me directly)? Not in my opinion as he pulled out of the challenge. Momentum and Benteke angling in brought the players towards each other. Read my earlier post on contact - contact doesn't necessarily make a foul. Contact impeding the forward is a foul. I don't think Benteke was impeded. I thought he 'bought' the penalty.

you're all over the place. you can't say he pulled out of the tackle and then in the next sentence say if there was contact it was minimal and not enough to be a penalty. because the one contradicts the other. go and look up the definition of contradiction.

if there was contact, which there definitively was as proven by the video above, delaney's knee clipping benteke's foot, it's a penalty. there is no mention in the law that a penalty-qualifying foul must have X pounds per square inch of force to it. a foul is a foul is a foul.

and your own personal definition of a foul is wrong. you're making up your own rules of the game now. the defender conceded the penalty. benteke did nothing wrong. and you sound as silly as pardew did.

[Bredbury Blue]

Was that a penalty for Liverpool yesterday in your opinion? I thought it harsh on Palace and wouldn't have give it - Benteke was looking for it.

Had a challenge similar to yesterday gone in favour of your team, you would gladly accept the penalty.

Over a season, decisions go for you and against you.

Like it or not, the officials make the final decision, and once that decision is made there ain't much you can do about it, except moan.

Had a similar challenge gone in favour of his team, we would have no mention of video replays for at least a week, or at least until the next injustice him and MrBo want to get their tits in a wringer about.

P.S. Video replays offered no definitive evidence either way, more proof that they are more trouble than they're worth <heh>.

what !!!!! see the you tube clip i posted.

Thought you were offering a clip of a new angle but that's the footage shown over and over last night (which I stated earlier, Given and Hutchison were arguing over). Did you watch the gave live Alfie or are you just going off youtube clips?

[StevieH]

To be fair Lads i don't give a monkeys about this Topic anymore cos i got a like off of Stevie, think that is the first ever

even a stopped clock, alfie.

[Bredbury Blue]

Alfie, If there was contact, it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc. If every time there is contact between defender and forward, and the forward goes down, are you saying that's a penalty? No it's not.

First you said "he clearly pulled out of the challenge" now you are saying "If there was contact it was minimal" if you couldn't see the contact then you've clearly got something wrong with your eyes.

Strange i ask you if it was carelessness by Delaney for catching Benteke with his knee ? and you reply it was minimal without any intent, recklessness, malice etc.

Whats going down got to do with it ? read my inital post as thats exactly what i wasn't saying.

Where's the contradiction in my posts. Delaney was going to tackle, he pulled out of it. If there was contact, it was minimal and not enough for me to be a penalty. Was Delaney reckless (sorry didn't realise your post was aimed at me directly)? Not in my opinion as he pulled out of the challenge. Momentum and Benteke angling in brought the players towards each other. Read my earlier post on contact - contact doesn't necessarily make a foul. Contact impeding the forward is a foul. I don't think Benteke was impeded. I thought he 'bought' the penalty.

you're all over the place. you can't say he pulled out of the tackle and then in the next sentence say if there was contact it was minimal and not enough to be a penalty. because the one contradicts the other. go and look up the definition of contradiction.

if there was contact, which there definitively was as proven by the video above, delaney's knee clipping benteke's foot, it's a penalty. there is no mention in the law that a penalty-qualifying foul must have X pounds per square inch of force to it. a foul is a foul is a foul.

and your own personal definition of a foul is wrong. you're making up your own rules of the game now. the defender conceded the penalty. benteke did nothing wrong. and you sound as silly as pardew did.

I'm all over the place? You understand to commit to a tackle and to pull out of a tackle don't you? He pulls out of the tackle. Full stop. His momentum and Benteke angling his run in/body brings them towards each other. Full stop. If there's contact it's minimal and not enough in my opinion to be a penalty. Full stop. Some of us on here didn't think it was a penalty but Benteke bought the penalty (loved his interview). I'm fully in agreement with Nevs comment above...too many players go down at the slightest thing to cheat the ref in to awarding a penalty.

[stoneyboy]

Here is that immense contact that was enough to give a penalty.

[StevieH]

there's nothing in the rules of the game about how much pressure/contact constitutes a foul. did the player clip benteke? yes he did. then it's a foul. and since it was in the area, it's a penalty. i don't know why i'm bothering to keep this argument up to be honest. it was a foul, it was a penalty, it was really stupid defending and it was a great spot by the linesman. you keep bringing your opinion to it BB and you sound like a flat-earther arguing with simple facts.

[alfieconn]

Had a similar challenge gone in favour of his team, we would have no mention of video replays for at least a week, or at least until the next injustice him and MrBo want to get their tits in a wringer about.

P.S. Video replays offered no definitive evidence either way, more proof that they are more trouble than they're worth <heh>.

what !!!!! see the you tube clip i posted.

Thought you were offering a clip of a new angle but that's the footage shown over and over last night (which I stated earlier, Given and Hutchison were arguing over). Did you watch the gave live Alfie or are you just going off youtube clips?

Whats that got to do with it ? they were both showing the same game weren't they

Actually i watched the game live and from the initial camera angle you couldn't see the contact but that doesn't mean there wasn't contact plus the ref and lino were viewing from different angles,

[Bredbury Blue]

Guardian

"The sense of despair was palpable at the final whistle. Palace could rage in the belief Christian Benteke had been on the tumble well before [WELL BEFORE] his left foot made slight contact with a sliding Damien Delaneys right knee. The centre-half, having initially and unwisely slid in as the striker eased around him, had been checking [HAD BEEN CHECKING] his left-foot challenge when Benteke flicked out to find contact [FLICKED OUT TO FIND CONTACT] with the Irishmans follow-through. The linesman in front of the visiting supporters flagged for the spot kick immediately, even if the referee Andre Marriner needed some persuasion to confirm the award. The conversion itself, six minutes into stoppage time, was the last action of the match".

[alfieconn]

there's nothing in the rules of the game about how much pressure/contact constitutes a foul. did the player clip benteke? yes he did. then it's a foul. and since it was in the area, it's a penalty. i don't know why i'm bothering to keep this argument up to be honest. it was a foul, it was a penalty, it was really stupid defending and it was a great spot by the linesman. you keep bringing your opinion to it BB and you sound like a flat-earther arguing with simple facts.

It's alright Stevie, the next time it happens they are going to call in CSI to give a definite psi contact and anything under 80 psi won't be deemed a foul

[Bredbury Blue]

there's nothing in the rules of the game about how much pressure/contact constitutes a foul. did the player clip benteke? yes he did. then it's a foul. and since it was in the area, it's a penalty. i don't know why i'm bothering to keep this argument up to be honest. it was a foul, it was a penalty, it was really stupid defending and it was a great spot by the linesman. you keep bringing your opinion to it BB and you sound like a flat-earther arguing with simple facts.

You clearly have not noticed, that there are OTHERS on here beside me that do not agree it was a penalty.

[Bredbury Blue]

Had a similar challenge gone in favour of his team, we would have no mention of video replays for at least a week, or at least until the next injustice him and MrBo want to get their tits in a wringer about.

P.S. Video replays offered no definitive evidence either way, more proof that they are more trouble than they're worth <heh>.

what !!!!! see the you tube clip i posted.

Thought you were offering a clip of a new angle but that's the footage shown over and over last night (which I stated earlier, Given and Hutchison were arguing over). Did you watch the gave live Alfie or are you just going off youtube clips?

Whats that got to do with it ? they were both showing the same game weren't they

Actually i watched the game live and from the initial camera angle you couldn't see the contact but that doesn't mean there wasn't contact plus the ref and lino were viewing from different angles,

Point was, in the youtube you were clearly jumping up and down about, there was nothing new in it and therefore nothing in it to change my opinion.

[alfieconn]

Had a similar challenge gone in favour of his team, we would have no mention of video replays for at least a week, or at least until the next injustice him and MrBo want to get their tits in a wringer about.

P.S. Video replays offered no definitive evidence either way, more proof that they are more trouble than they're worth <heh>.

what !!!!! see the you tube clip i posted.

Thought you were offering a clip of a new angle but that's the footage shown over and over last night (which I stated earlier, Given and Hutchison were arguing over). Did you watch the gave live Alfie or are you just going off youtube clips?

Whats that got to do with it ? they were both showing the same game weren't they

Actually i watched the game live and from the initial camera angle you couldn't see the contact but that doesn't mean there wasn't contact plus the ref and lino were viewing from different angles,

Point was, in the youtube you were clearly jumping up and down about, there was nothing new in it and therefore nothing in it to change my opinion.

So why did you ask me if i watched the game live then ? what was the point of that question ?

[Bredbury Blue]

^Obvious isn't it. I was checking whether you were just going off that little clip or were going off ALL the angles shown in the live feed. Doh!

[Chicog]

It's one of those "sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't" situations.

The ref consulted his assistant.

Between them they made a decision.

If it had gone the other way, a mickey mouser would be going mental.

But that's football.

And adding stupid video refs to waste time arguing about it is pointless.

[Bredbury Blue]

^Chicog, I think that's a decent enough summing up.

Reckon I out-Alfied Alfie ;-) Amazing what you can do when you've as much time on your hands as he has.

oops here comes...

[alfieconn]

^Chicog, I think that's a decent enough summing up.

Reckon I out-Alfied Alfie ;-) Amazing what you can do when you've as much time on your hands as he has.

oops here comes...

How ironic, you've been posting about the Liverpool incident constantly since 13.40, the 1st time i comment about it is 14.41 and then you talk about how much time i have on my hands

[mrbojangles]

I think the fact that even on here the decision is split (I think it was harsh) and the headlines are split and calling the decision "controversial" indicates it wasn't a 100% nailed on pen.

'The fact that penalties are awarded almost weekly but rarely do they get this much ink in the papers, also suggest it wasn't nailed on.

[SantiSuk]

Agree with the sentiments of BB, Chic and Mr Bo. Disagree with anyone who says it was nailed on either way!

Could have gone either way. Borderline. No right or wrong. It was given and you could understand why. Had it not been given you could have understood why.

[wilai]

"that got it all started". That's a bold statement that deserves facts to prove "it was Frannie Lee that got it all started"...Lee One Pen.

Can't believe a guy who appears to 'live' on the internet has missed this one

"In the 1971–72 season, Lee set a British record for the number of penalties scored in a season, with 15 of his 35 goals scored from the penalty spot. Many of the penalties resulted from fouls on Lee, earning him the nickname Lee One Pen. Some journalists, holding the opinion that Lee gained a number of penalties by diving, used the name Lee Won Pen instead.^[3] Lee's name is often cited in debates about diving in football; referees' chief Keith Hackett described him as a player who "had a reputation of falling down easily".

StevieH,,,,Let the trolls fight amongst themselves (seem to be mainly City and Spuds fans) Maybe they're worried ...Anyone who has half a brain knows that it was a penalty. The fact that the idiot attempted to pull out of the challenge...but failed! is irrelevant. He caught him, end of story. Ref couldn't see from his angle but assistant had a clear view, advised the ref accordingly, and Marriner... correctly gave the decision. We'll see if the officials get a ban if the powers that be decide they got it wrong!

Falling down 'easily' or not does not mean that a penalty is an incorrect decision...as any City fan of reasonably long standing should know....or at least appreciate

Anyway, that's my (correct ) opinion on the subject so I would ask that the #LFCOBSESSED buggers turn their attention to the travesty at the Hawthorns, when an innocent little Spaniard who "would never hurt a fly" was unjustly sent off for two palpable yellow card offences

[mrbojangles]

StevieH,,,,Let the trolls fight amongst themselves (seem to be mainly City and Spuds fans)

........and Arsenal fans....and United. So basically nearly all who post on this forum except Liverpool fans, feel in the main it could have gone either way, it was harsh or it was not nailed on.

[Bredbury Blue]

^Chicog, I think that's a decent enough summing up.

Reckon I out-Alfied Alfie ;-) Amazing what you can do when you've as much time on your hands as he has.

oops here comes...

How ironic, you've been posting about the Liverpool incident constantly since 13.40, the 1st time i comment about it is 14.41 and then you talk about how much time i have on my hands

I think everybody else knows what I mean if though it whistled past your bonce

[Bredbury Blue]

"that got it all started". That's a bold statement that deserves facts to prove "it was Frannie Lee that got it all started"...Lee One Pen.

Can't believe a guy who appears to 'live' on the internet has missed this one

"In the 1971–72 season, Lee set a British record for the number of penalties scored in a season, with 15 of his 35 goals scored from the penalty spot. Many of the penalties resulted from fouls on Lee, earning him the nickname Lee One Pen. Some journalists, holding the opinion that Lee gained a number of penalties by diving, used the name Lee Won Pen instead.^[3] Lee's name is often cited in debates about diving in football; referees' chief Keith Hackett described him as a player who "had a reputation of falling down easily".

StevieH,,,,Let the trolls fight amongst themselves (seem to be mainly City and Spuds fans) Maybe they're worried ...Anyone who has half a brain knows that it was a penalty. The fact that the idiot attempted to pull out of the challenge...but failed! is irrelevant. He caught him, end of story. Ref couldn't see from his angle but assistant had a clear view, advised the ref accordingly, and Marriner... correctly gave the decision. We'll see if the officials get a ban if the powers that be decide they got it wrong!

Falling down 'easily' or not does not mean that a penalty is an incorrect decision...as any City fan of reasonably long standing should know....or at least appreciate

Anyway, that's my (correct ) opinion on the subject so I would ask that the #LFCOBSESSED buggers turn their attention to the travesty at the Hawthorns, when an innocent little Spaniard who "would never hurt a fly" was unjustly sent off for two palpable yellow card offences

How did I miss the point you've highlighted in Blue...I didn't, I was a season-ticket holder that season and went to all the home games and lots of the away games. How old are you - sounds like a eureka moment for you there kid. City fans also find the Lee One Pen highly amusing.

Trolls...there are two, possibly three on the football forums that I class as THE TROLLS (Liverpool/Spurs fans), who appear regular as clock work around the forums trying to wind people up, I think most of us know who they are.

From your "Anyone who has half a brain knows that it was a penalty" it's pretty clear you only read a small portion of the comments on this entertaining forum. Clearly didn't read Chicog's, Clearly didn't read Santi's, Clearly didn't read MrBJ's...as many totally disagree that it was a penalty.

Not sure why you raise the Mata incident (topic is about Players Diving). It was not a debatable incident, and I think that most of us know what LvG was trying to say about Mata...there are players like Mata who don't seem to have an aggressive nature at all so his 2 bookings in short time was out of character was all LvG was trying to say. Be better to open a separate topic to discuss it if there is indeed anything to discuss.