TCW - Only one Di Matteo ☆ (U6489)

Not really.

I have played football for years, and I only go to ground if I can't stay up.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it's a sad state of affairs when we have to praise people for just playing honestly.

Here it is though - referees consistently fail to pick up what by majority opinion are fouls in the area when the attacker fails to go down.

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.



Absolute rubbish.

There's only one person to blame for diving, and that's the person diving.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it's a sad state of affairs when we have to praise people for just playing honestly.

-----

Indeed. Welcome to the modern game. The climate is the problem. In the climate the praise is justified.

Here it is though - referees consistently fail to pick up what by majority opinion are fouls in the area when the attacker fails to go down.



But most people don't know how the laws should be interpreted, so what does the majority's opinion have to do with it?

In the climate the praise is justified.



Totally disagree.

Praising someone for staying on their feet is accepting diving as a part of the game, and I make no apologies for not doing that.

Back to the 'interpretation' argument. Taking again yesterday as an example - IMO you don't need the rulebook to make a decision there, you just need to make a decision on whether Evra caused Tevez to lose fluency with his challenge.

Well done for such a moralistic stance, i'm afraid i'm a little more realistic, and until diving is combated it is here to stay

Absolute rubbish.
--

That definitely adds a lot to the discussion.

you just need to make a decision on whether Evra caused Tevez to lose fluency with his challenge
#


Thank you for proving my point.

Nowhere in the rules does it mention causing a player to 'lose fluency'... so you've invented something and convinced yourself that means it was a penalty.

I don't care about the bloody rule book, that's the point. I'm using a more basic logic.

Look this is going in circles now.

That definitely adds a lot to the discussion.


My memory isn't great, but I don't remember it being a two word post, you numpty.

I don't care about the bloody rule book, that's the point. I'm using a more basic logic.


Then I'm afraid you have no place to criticise a refereeing decision.

Whatever you say.

you numpty.
--

So does that.

So does that



So does that

Two can play at this game.

TCW - Only one Di Matteo ☆ (U6489)

I have to be honest - criticising a referee's decision and then saying you don't care about the rule book is one of the most ludicrous things I've read on forums like these.

Surely you can see the funny side of what you've written?!

I think that it's funny how much you cling to that rulebook, when you've agreed that it's just as important to independently evaluate each situation, using the rulebook as a basic guide.

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

That is the whole point though, they aren't, they are both fouls, the only difference being you are far more likely to get a foul by going down, and so the incentive to stay in your feet isn't there.

If there is contact and a player goes down, it does not mean they couldn't have stayed on their feet.

meltonblue (U10617)

Okay, I think we're talking at cross purposes.

I'm discussing two challenges - one that forces the player to go to ground, the other doesn't.

Please re-read my previous post on that basis?

TCW - Only one Di Matteo ☆ (U6489)

Cling to the rulebook?

If the referees are not their to apply the laws of the game, what are they there to do?

The laws require interpretation, which is where the common sense comes in. But every decision made by a referee will be with a view to applying the laws.

Can you imagine the referee giving a pen and saying 'I don't care about the laws, I'm using my own logic'?

Laughable.

Let me explain something; a foul takes place when a player is deemed to use excessive force (amongst other things).

So, if one player forces another to the ground, you can begin to claim excessive force. If the player's challenge does not force the other player to the ground, then it's questionable that excessive force has been used.
--

Excessive force is a straight red - yet according to your own explanation you seem to imply it's anything that makes a player fall over, but I'm the numpty who talks absolute rubbish.

Ok, I get what you are saying Winston, but I think you are more trusting that players don't go to ground easily than me! The issue I have is that I cannot remember a penalty given for a foul where the player has got a scuffed shot off. Now, whatever way you look at it, that is stopping, or lessening the chances, of a goal scoring opportunity and so should be given as a penalty. Until they are given, players will keep going to ground.

It is not saying that diving is an accepted thing, it is saying that diving, or maximising impact, is the done thing and the fact he is being praised for it is because people don't want that to be the accepted thing.

itsonlyagame - 4928 days and counting (U6426)

Oh dear - you seem rattled. Calm down dear.

If you want to discuss this like an adult, then fine. If not, go and play with the traffic.

I was wrong to use the word excessive in that way - I appreciate how it came across. I am discussing the force with which a challenge is made.

Now, let me know if you want to discuss the topic - because all you've done so far is pick a couple of words out of posts and cry about them.

If you want to discuss this like an adult, then fine.
--

It wasn't me who started the childish name-calling Winston.

I was discussing the topic politely enough until you stated with your infantile statements.