Okay, so we're in a situation where the ref disagrees with what I assume is public opinion (maybe that's a jump too far)

My belief that it was a foul is formed on my subjective opinion that Tevez was impeded and could have done better had Evra not made contact with him (not like a single trailing boot contact either). Your opinion that it was not a foul is based on what? That Tevez could stay up and the ref didn't award it? Or your own opinion? In which case i'm interested to hear more of it.

Winston, you have completely misunderstood the rules of the game, it doesn't have to be excessive to give a foul. Here is a copy of the rule for you;

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits
any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the
referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent


A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his
own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the


Evra pushed or tripped Tevez yesterday, causing him to lose his balance and resulted in him losing the opportunity to have a proper shot on goal. It’s because people like you believe he has to go down for it to be foul that players dive.

Fully agree with BB and TCW.

Also Winston, your use of the term 'excessive force' is different to FIFA's:

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the
danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary
use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/28/law12-en.pdf

As shown in BB's previous post, you don't even have to touch a player for a foul to be awarded.

Getting back to the original point anyway;

Adhering to sportsmanlike conduct is commendable in a game where gamesmanship is rife.

winston, if it was Young He would have fallen like he got shot and awarded the penalty

------------------------------------------------------

I know AY played well yesterday, but addressing him as god is a bit too far don't you think?

You have to consider the fact he bottled a stone wall penalty Evra should have been given only a minute or two prior to this incident. That would have had a huge impact of his decision.

The fact is, he goes down it's a penalty, because he was tripped/ pushed, but staying on his feet he has lost both the chance of a penalty and the chance to score a goal because of Evra.

Why wouldn't you go down in this situation?

TCW - Only one Di Matteo ☆ (U6489)

But your justification for saying it's a foul is based on things that don't feature in the laws of game!

There are often challenges that come in from defenders that put pressure on strikers and involve contact but aren't fouls.

I'm undecided and would like to see it again... I just think fans don't realise what interpretation means.

Just because a fan decides it was a foul, doesn't mean that's how the referee saw it, and it doesn't mean the referee was wrong. The referee understands the laws far better than you or I.

BusbysBabes (U9083)

I haven't misunderstoof - I refereed for several years when I was younger, so please don't try and patronise me.

Go back and read what I wrote - I mentioned other factors involved, but picked out the one that was relevant to my point.

You ask:

Why wouldn't you go down in this situation?

Because you'd be cheating. You'd be trying to convince the referee that the contact was using more force than it actually was, and unduly influencing the referee.

as God****

No point sticking to the cast iron rules when it's not logical - situations are unique. I'd rather agree with something from first principles over it being 'part of the rules'...

But your justification for saying it's a foul is based on things that don't feature in the laws of game!



Seriously? I've just shown you the laws I the game.


I find it amusing that you have played a high level of football and refereed a lot when you were younger. In my experience people tend to do one or the other when young.

Are you suggesting Evra did neither of these?


• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• pushes an opponent

BusbysBabes (U9083)

You find it amusing - good for you.

Doesn't change the fact it's the truth though and if you drop the arrogant tone I might explain more about it.

I wasn't speaking to you when I said about justifying the foul with things that don't feature in the laws, by the way.

BusbysBabes (U9083)

I'm suggesting the referee may have interpreted that Evra didn't push or trip Tevez in line with the carless, reckless and excessive force consideration.

To be fair mate, I've played blue square for a couple seasons and I'd of received a bollocking from the gaffa if I didn't go down in that situation.

It's a part of the game now

We could have a nice debate here minus all the aggression

comment by TCW - Only one Di Matteo ☆ (U6489)

posted 3 minutes ago

No point sticking to the cast iron rules when it's not logical - situations are unique. I'd rather agree with something from first principles over it being 'part of the rules'...




Sorry, not sure what you mean?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
BusbysBabes (U9083)

I'm suggesting the referee may have interpreted that Evra didn't push or trip Tevez in line with the carless, reckless and excessive force consideration.



He may have, but he'd of been wrong. Evra carelessly tripped Tevez, he is lucky he didn't go down, plain and simple.

The point is, by not going down Tevez' chance was gone and he got no penalty for it.

In a game where winning is everything, most people would take the penalty in that situation which is the reason people dive after all.

Just mean that I prefer a referee who makes his decisions based on logic and doesn't feel tied by the book.

In black and white terms, you are right Winston. However, as you say, interpretation is not black and white.

Which is more likely to get the player a penalty? When he is challenged but stays on his feet, and gets a scuffed shot off, or if he goes down and doesn't get a shot off at all? I have to be honest, I can't think of a single example of the former. The same thing happened with Aguero earlier in the season and I made the same point then - if diving is to be eradicated and for players to stop going down too easily, then referees have to start giving those as penalties. Otherwise, there is absolutely no incentive for players to stay on their feet.

The other side is that say a player does go to ground, who is to say whether they are making the most of it or genuinely they can't keep their balance?

I think that is why Tevez is being commended for staying on his feet. Even if a penalty wouldn't have been given if he had gone down, there is no doubt that it would have increased the chances of it being given massively.

BusbysBabes (U9083)

So basically, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Great.

TCW - Only one Di Matteo ☆ (U6489)

I agree, but I think a lot of fans want robots refereeing and this means that common sense takes a back seat.

I just think fans need to recognise that interpretation is key, and it means that most decisions in football do not have a right or a wrong.

Whilst we might disagree, others won't, and that will form a big part in respecting the referees.

But you can see why Tevez is getting praise in the current climate, surely?? It's the climate that's the problem, not the praise.

Winston, a penalty's one of the biggest decisions for a ref to make. You'll see fouls awarded all over the pitch for challenges where the player doesn't go down, but very rarely in the penalty box. (As is very often the case with other kinds of fouls, such as aerial challenges, holding/pulling at corner kicks, etc.)

It's so unusual to give a penalty in such circumstances that doing so would probably have caused outrage in the United camp.

It's a catch-22 situation where refs only really have themselves to blame imo. A player is of course responsible for his actions, but the attitude taken by refs is a large contributor to the current situation.

meltonblue (U10617)

I'm sorry, but you're completely missing my point.

"Which is more likely to get the player a penalty? When he is challenged but stays on his feet, and gets a scuffed shot off, or if he goes down and doesn't get a shot off at all?"

They are completely different challenges, so why are you comparing them as the same?

If the challenge is strong enough to knock another player to the ground then it's different to one that doesn't.

As I have said - you as the player have no right to decide whether you've been fouled or not. Just because you feel contact, doesn't make it a foul, so if you decide 'I'm going to ground because he's more likely to give it' then you're wrong.

The referee might have seen the contact but decided it wasn't sufficient to be a foul.

If the player went to ground then the referee might believe the force used was enough to send the player to the ground, deeming it a foul i.e. he has been conned.