I don't see going down under contact as acceptable personally, if it's enough that you physically can't stand up then yeah fair enough, contact does not = foul

comment by Mex- El Tigre and Fideo! Muy Muy Bueno (U6687)
posted 2 minutes ago

I don't see going down under contact as acceptable personally, if it's enough that you physically can't stand up then yeah fair enough, contact does not = foul
--------------------------------
What if it's enough contact to make you lose that extra step on the defender, but not enough to make you go down?

comment by Isle of Manc - Year of the Januzaj (U18323)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Mex- El Tigre and Fideo! Muy Muy Bueno (U6687)
posted 2 minutes ago

I don't see going down under contact as acceptable personally, if it's enough that you physically can't stand up then yeah fair enough, contact does not = foul
--------------------------------
What if it's enough contact to make you lose that extra step on the defender, but not enough to make you go down?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you stay on your feet, it can be a foul without the player falling over

The only time it's acceptable to go down if its off of two pillows,contact or not.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Then you stay on your feet, it can be a foul without the player falling over
---------------------------------------
Referee's already have a hard time spotting those kinds of fouls though. Players that stay up just lessen their chances of getting it. Look at Diame vs Flamini last weekend

Professional fouls are a great part of the game imo like Gary Neville said when commentating the QPR vs Liverpool game something like I know you don't want to hear it but he needs to bring sterling down there. The only issue is and its slight is when the referees are too lenient.

Watch Kun Aguero play football, he's the best player in the league and the most honest, nobody has a bad word to say about him, he doesn't get hard done by on decisions

if you're fouled you're allowed to take a tumble - the ref might not see it otherwise

nothing dishonest about that

professional fouls and grabbing shirts is also acceptable.

There was contact between Moses and Rangel at the weekend, was Moses within his rights to go down then?

imo if a player makes a challenge and gets nowhere near the ball but slightly clips the opposition player then the opposition has the right to go down and its kinda sad people defend the stupid player making a stupid challenge getting nowhere near the ball just because it was minimal contact?

I don't like players going down when its shoulder to shoulder though and they've just purely been bullied off the ball. I think you should be able to hit the opposition player as hard as you fecking well want aslong as its shoulder to shoulder . Its up there with getting your body between player and ball to draw the foul, Suarez was a master of it and its an art in football as far as im concerned intelligent play.

its an issue is because players (Ashley Young for example) who knock the ball past a defender kick that defender then do a front flip and ask for a penalty.

I don't like players going down when its shoulder to shoulder though and they've just purely been bullied off the ball. I think you should be able to hit the opposition player as hard as you fecking well want aslong as its shoulder to shoulder
------------------------------------------
Completely agree. I can't stand those players that go down under no challenge just because of a little shoulder to shoulder contact. I understand that tackles coming in can trip you up in full flight, but your legs should never fold under you because of a body shove. They're so easy for refs to spot as well.

Vardy against us

There doesn't have to be contact to be a foul.

If someone recklessly lunges in your line and you have to take evasive action it's still a foul.

comment by Mex- El Tigre and Fideo! Muy Muy Bueno (U6687)
posted 18 minutes ago
I don't see going down under contact as acceptable personally, if it's enough that you physically can't stand up then yeah fair enough, contact does not = foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree,if you can stay on your feet you should do,the decision should be left to the ref if it's a foul or not.

Posted initally on the Maidenhead United board. I used to take the pi$$ out of other posters for doing that. I guess that's what 2 glasses of wine and three kids to put to bed does to you.

Back on subject though, it seems that most of us are annoyed with the same thing. I just wonder why the game's governing bodies sren't foing the obvious to erradicate it.

comment by righteous1 (U7048)
posted 2 minutes ago
There doesn't have to be contact to be a foul.

If someone recklessly lunges in your line and you have to take evasive action it's still a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely, but by the same token, just because there is contact between players doesn't mean it's a foul

If the player has made a challenge and clipped you ever so slightly but got nowhere near the ball, just because its not enough to put you on your backside doesn't mean it isn't a foul. I mean the slightest touch can put any player off whilst running at speed or even attempting to shoot or w.e. And if that the challenging player doesn't get any of the ball then its unfair isn't it ? so its a foul isn't it ?

Of course

comment by Mex- El Tigre and Fideo! Muy Muy Bueno (U6687)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
I don't see going down under contact as acceptable personally, if it's enough that you physically can't stand up then yeah fair enough, contact does not = foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mex, what about a shirt grab? Still a foul

Thanks for that mudd

Although there is a fine line I agree a player is entitled to go down under contact. It's the ref's decision to call a pen or not.

Unacceptable: biting. Acceptable: rabonas

I completely disagree with your first point. For the sheer fact that I consider voluntarily throwing yourself to the ground to be a dive, slight contact or not. If both players can stay on their feet and both decide to fall, they're both dives. I don't see why one is a heinous act and the other is okay because "he felt contact."

Mamadou

That's fair enough. But if the defending player does the same thing and has the same impact, without making slight contact, surely the same principles apply. That's why they're both dives or are both okay imo.