rooney

He didn't dive and there was quite a bit of contact.

You don't think that a player of his physical stature could stay on his feet after another player brushed against his legs then??

@ Sir Robert Paisley says

Brushed if thats what you want to call it,Im really glad you noticed is was his LEGS and not his little toe, so therefore he must of been entitled to fall down

Yeah, seeing as Rio clipped Adams toe nail - which means he was 'entitled' to fall according to the scousers.

I am sure Rooney could have stayed up but he probably would have given a freekick away, and as it was in the 92nd minute i doubt he could be a$$ed to stay on his feet so he just went down

"...I am sure Rooney could have stayed up..."


So you think he was justified in diving because he was caught slightly.???

Sir Robert Paisley says

Can't you see that Greg was mocking you

You thick scouse muppet, you even said yourself the guy made contact with both his legs

It was a foul therefore it was a penalty, if you change direction and are kicked on your standing leg you go down, have you ever played football?

Why are you arguing something so pointless, we were winning with seconds to go anyway.

There was contact and Rooney went down. It was right in front of the ref who deemed it worthy of a penalty.

Whether it's minimal contact, or a lot of contact is pretty irrelevant these days - most players will go down with any sort of contact, even if they could manage to stay up.

If you want to call it diving, then so be it, but then it's simply a case that most players are diving anyway.

If you have ever played football in your life you will know that if you skip past a defender in their box and they stick their leg over your two legs to stop you from going past, without touching the ball might i add.. its a 100% penalty... Whereas, the Adam incident was the softest pile of cr4p i have ever seen, but even so.. it was our own legendary Giggs fault that your dirty ugly SCHOUSHA Schhtteevie Ghherrard schoored