"You ran around saying 'impeded' when the laws of the game typically classify impeding as involving no contact"
"And where did I say a player can't be impeded with contact?"
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
"You ran around saying 'impeded' when the laws of the game typically classify impeding as involving no contact"
"And where did I say a player can't be impeded with contact?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious?
No where do I say that impeding cannot involve contact. I say it typically doesn't.
Is English your first language?
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/impeding-the-opponent/
The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).
Several weeks on after telling everyone that the Salah incident was 100% a penalty, TOOR still doesn't know which offence supposedly took place.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
"You ran around saying 'impeded' when the laws of the game typically classify impeding as involving no contact"
"And where did I say a player can't be impeded with contact?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious?
No where do I say that impeding cannot involve contact. I say it typically doesn't.
Is English your first language?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why can't I say the defender impeded Salah when he pulled him back?
Nevermind, just read your next comment. Anyhow he impeded him but that's not the term used by law. Regardless, the point still stands. He was pulled back from behind and it impeded his progress towards goal, whatever the term is for that by law, it's a foul and a penalty, which is what was called, so all good. Yes he dived and yes nobody likes it but that's what players do when they're fouled, in order to highlight it as referees don't give penalties otherwise. Of course sometimes it happens without a foul, like Salah's one after the Newcastle game, or Son's yesterday and you don't get a penalty.
You’re just circling the issue now to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
If you want to state it’s 100% foul (and not a matter of opinion) then you need to be sure of the law that has been applied.
You still have absolutely no idea, so the idea you can start telling me it’s 100% a foul is truly laughable. I think deep down you know that as well.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 35 minutes ago
"If officials were going to start carding for players for going down easily then they need to change the rules, don't they?"
Not really - I think simulation is quite clear.
Deceiving the referee by pretending to be fouled, isn't it?
If the referee decides that is what Son did, and I would agree, then he made the correct decision.
But yes, there's a huge inconsistency across the game with this and so many players do it, you would rightly say that its harsh on Son.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of argument, let's say there was minimal contact on Son. The point I'm making is he intentionally hit the deck subsequent to that contact. So you have a situation where you have a foul - followed by simulation. I thought that was still a penalty and it's generally why people talk about players "winning penalties".
comment by Poch's Coat. The RC is back. (U22012)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 35 minutes ago
"If officials were going to start carding for players for going down easily then they need to change the rules, don't they?"
Not really - I think simulation is quite clear.
Deceiving the referee by pretending to be fouled, isn't it?
If the referee decides that is what Son did, and I would agree, then he made the correct decision.
But yes, there's a huge inconsistency across the game with this and so many players do it, you would rightly say that its harsh on Son.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of argument, let's say there was minimal contact on Son. The point I'm making is he intentionally hit the deck subsequent to that contact. So you have a situation where you have a foul - followed by simulation. I thought that was still a penalty and it's generally why people talk about players "winning penalties".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, the contact does not mean it’s definitely a foul.
The referee has a judgement to make in relation to the nature of the challenge and the force involved.
So by diving, Son has exaggerated the contact and tried to influence the referee’s opinion regarding the extent of the contact.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 minutes ago
You’re just circling the issue now to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
If you want to state it’s 100% foul (and not a matter of opinion) then you need to be sure of the law that has been applied.
You still have absolutely no idea, so the idea you can start telling me it’s 100% a foul is truly laughable. I think deep down you know that as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you don't. You dont have to know what terms are used to know if a foul has been committed.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 minutes ago
You’re just circling the issue now to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
If you want to state it’s 100% foul (and not a matter of opinion) then you need to be sure of the law that has been applied.
You still have absolutely no idea, so the idea you can start telling me it’s 100% a foul is truly laughable. I think deep down you know that as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you don't. You dont have to know what terms are used to know if a foul has been committed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do if you want to claim it as 100%.
Some laws are binary but many are not. If you don’t understand which are which, you can’t possibly know on what basis it is a foul.
Glad we have finally been able to clarify that you don’t know what you’re on about though - you’d dodged it for a while.
You don't. A defender could punch the ball in his box and you could call it boxing. It's still a penalty whether you call it boxing or handball.
I know you love to be pedantic but you've been pushing this one on every article for ages now. Time to give it up. If you believe it wasnt a foul, that's fine. Not many agree but you're entitled to that opinion and I'm entitled to think you're wrong. Move on.
This is a new low for you, TOOR.
Fact is, you’re going around these forums telling everyone it’s a 100% penalty and you don’t even know why. You don’t know the law.
An extreme example is ridiculous because in this example we’re actually discussing a decision that we don’t agree on. Yet you tell me I’m wrong without knowing the relevant law.
I used to give you some credit for handling your debates well on here but after your recent childish outbursts and now this, I can only laugh at you. Unbelievable.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Poch's Coat. The RC is back. (U22012)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 35 minutes ago
"If officials were going to start carding for players for going down easily then they need to change the rules, don't they?"
Not really - I think simulation is quite clear.
Deceiving the referee by pretending to be fouled, isn't it?
If the referee decides that is what Son did, and I would agree, then he made the correct decision.
But yes, there's a huge inconsistency across the game with this and so many players do it, you would rightly say that its harsh on Son.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of argument, let's say there was minimal contact on Son. The point I'm making is he intentionally hit the deck subsequent to that contact. So you have a situation where you have a foul - followed by simulation. I thought that was still a penalty and it's generally why people talk about players "winning penalties".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, the contact does not mean it’s definitely a foul.
The referee has a judgement to make in relation to the nature of the challenge and the force involved.
So by diving, Son has exaggerated the contact and tried to influence the referee’s opinion regarding the extent of the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If what you're saying is true then it seems to me that the majority of penalties given are incorrect decisions. In the event of contact, players now subsequently throw themselves to the ground to highlight this contact. Even the most exaggerated dives are being given as fouls.
The refs aren't stupid. They know when someone is going down easily. For instance, no one raises their arms to brace for a fall prior to actually falling. Especially not raising their hands above their head (to attract attention).
Not sure you can be right on the rules if you're saying these are all non penalties.
If you are right, the rules clearly don't work. There will be several Son like incidents given as penalties in professional English football next week.
If you want officials to come down like a ton of bricks on people going down easily I'll probably get onboard. It will of course lead to outrageous inconsistencies, ala Son.
I doubt they will. From what I can see they only give fouls for simulation without contact. Diving post contact is institutional. Thus the, "he should have gone down" comments.
Poch's Coat. The RC is back. (U22012)
It’s not that throwing yourself to the floor means it can’t be a foul. It’s just that it removes any ability for us to make a complete judgement.
It is fair to say that the game is fecked though, because this is going on all the time. Every single game.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 hours, 28 minutes ago
This is a new low for you, TOOR.
Fact is, you’re going around these forums telling everyone it’s a 100% penalty and you don’t even know why. You don’t know the law.
An extreme example is ridiculous because in this example we’re actually discussing a decision that we don’t agree on. Yet you tell me I’m wrong without knowing the relevant law.
I used to give you some credit for handling your debates well on here but after your recent childish outbursts and now this, I can only laugh at you. Unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said before, use whichever term you know pulling a player from behind, impeding his progress towards goal, to be, I really dont mind and will take no offence. Regardless of the term used, it's still a foul. Regardless of whether he dived, he did, it's still a foul. The referee got it right, former referees commenting on the game stated the referee got it right, no harm done, right decision, the world moves on. Apart from Winston of course, you go on about it on every article for weeks. It is at this point I have to leave you to it, as this article will go on forever otherwise. Enjoy.
Problem is TOOR, it’s not a foul in my opinion, nor in the opinion of lots of others.
You tell me I’m wrong but you don’t even know what law is relevant.
The reason it keeps coming up is because it’s relevant to every debatable decision - if you don’t know which law the referee is applying then you can’t possibly make a credible judgement.
You have proven that you don’t understand the laws. You just base your opinions on what you think the decision should be, tell everyone else they’re definitely wrong and then try to make the laws fit.
Now you’ve been caught out and so every opinion you have on fouls or misconduct are baseless.
“I don’t need to know the laws of the game to know whether Salah was fouled or not”
TOOR, February 2019
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
“I don’t need to know the laws of the game to know whether Salah was fouled or not”
TOOR, February 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why people leave you to it, always having to get the last word in. You're so desperate now that you're changing what I said and turning it into a quote. Hard to not come back to put you right there but then you know that, hence why you did it. Youd love this to go on forever. Must resist....arghh. This time!
It's exactly what you're saying, TOOR.
You want the right to be able to tell people what the correct decision is, without being able to reference any reasoning from the laws of the game.
The only reason our debates go on for so long is because you can't admit when you made a mistake.
'He impeded him'
'No, wait, he pulled him'
'No, wait... '
"I don't know what foul was committed, but I know it was a foul"
TOOR, February 2019
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 20 hours, 32 minutes ago
I think he throws himself down at most opportunities.
======================
Well let's look at that line.
You believe, that in most circumstances, given the opportunity, Mo Salah throws himself to the ground.🤣
I mean seriously, where does that nonsense originate ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://the18.com/soccer-news/mo-salah-dive-compilation
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 20 hours, 32 minutes ago
I think he throws himself down at most opportunities.
======================
Well let's look at that line.
You believe, that in most circumstances, given the opportunity, Mo Salah throws himself to the ground.🤣
I mean seriously, where does that nonsense originate ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://the18.com/soccer-news/mo-salah-dive-compilation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkZB_j7In4
This one in particular is embarrassing.
We have seen Alli go down this season with no contact whatsoever and Spurs fans rightly have a go at him for this and he was rightly booked. Son's this weekend was clear contact but exaggerated....just like the Salah one above vs Newcastle, slight pull on the arm, exaggerated collapse to the floor. Difference being penalty for Salah, yellow for Son.
This pathetic one vs Palace a few weeks back is not even dealt with retrospectively. It's a clear attempt to win a penalty.
West Ham & Everton have had players banned retrospectively for diving in the area. Where has that rule gone? Why is it applied to some obvious situations but not others.
One of the frustrating things on here is that the likes of TOOR defend their players regardless. Yes, the statement that Salah throws himself to the floor to win pens at every opportunity is not accurate but you focus on demanding proof of this statement, and not on the fact that actually Salah dives and exaggerates contact a lot, and yet you do not condone it.
Players like Kane are labelled divers when actually they, like most, are guilty of the odd bit of exaggeration, but NEVER have you seen Kane go down like Salah did vs Palace.
Players like Lamela are called divers after VVD, with a full swing of his leg, kicked his calf for a last minute penalty. You can totally understand why that pen was given https://streamable.com/yr1tb Its undeniable.
Yet some will deny it was a penalty, call him a diver and deny that Salah ever goes down easily or without contact.
'but NEVER have you seen Kane go down like Salah did vs Palace'.
🤣
Kane is one of, if no the worst offenders in the league for outright diving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA1LMbKv-Ko
Sign in if you want to comment
Son & Maddison Incidents...
Page 4 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 11/2/19
"You ran around saying 'impeded' when the laws of the game typically classify impeding as involving no contact"
"And where did I say a player can't be impeded with contact?"
posted on 11/2/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
"You ran around saying 'impeded' when the laws of the game typically classify impeding as involving no contact"
"And where did I say a player can't be impeded with contact?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious?
No where do I say that impeding cannot involve contact. I say it typically doesn't.
Is English your first language?
posted on 11/2/19
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/impeding-the-opponent/
The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).
posted on 11/2/19
Several weeks on after telling everyone that the Salah incident was 100% a penalty, TOOR still doesn't know which offence supposedly took place.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
"You ran around saying 'impeded' when the laws of the game typically classify impeding as involving no contact"
"And where did I say a player can't be impeded with contact?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious?
No where do I say that impeding cannot involve contact. I say it typically doesn't.
Is English your first language?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why can't I say the defender impeded Salah when he pulled him back?
posted on 11/2/19
Nevermind, just read your next comment. Anyhow he impeded him but that's not the term used by law. Regardless, the point still stands. He was pulled back from behind and it impeded his progress towards goal, whatever the term is for that by law, it's a foul and a penalty, which is what was called, so all good. Yes he dived and yes nobody likes it but that's what players do when they're fouled, in order to highlight it as referees don't give penalties otherwise. Of course sometimes it happens without a foul, like Salah's one after the Newcastle game, or Son's yesterday and you don't get a penalty.
posted on 11/2/19
You’re just circling the issue now to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
If you want to state it’s 100% foul (and not a matter of opinion) then you need to be sure of the law that has been applied.
You still have absolutely no idea, so the idea you can start telling me it’s 100% a foul is truly laughable. I think deep down you know that as well.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 35 minutes ago
"If officials were going to start carding for players for going down easily then they need to change the rules, don't they?"
Not really - I think simulation is quite clear.
Deceiving the referee by pretending to be fouled, isn't it?
If the referee decides that is what Son did, and I would agree, then he made the correct decision.
But yes, there's a huge inconsistency across the game with this and so many players do it, you would rightly say that its harsh on Son.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of argument, let's say there was minimal contact on Son. The point I'm making is he intentionally hit the deck subsequent to that contact. So you have a situation where you have a foul - followed by simulation. I thought that was still a penalty and it's generally why people talk about players "winning penalties".
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Poch's Coat. The RC is back. (U22012)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 35 minutes ago
"If officials were going to start carding for players for going down easily then they need to change the rules, don't they?"
Not really - I think simulation is quite clear.
Deceiving the referee by pretending to be fouled, isn't it?
If the referee decides that is what Son did, and I would agree, then he made the correct decision.
But yes, there's a huge inconsistency across the game with this and so many players do it, you would rightly say that its harsh on Son.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of argument, let's say there was minimal contact on Son. The point I'm making is he intentionally hit the deck subsequent to that contact. So you have a situation where you have a foul - followed by simulation. I thought that was still a penalty and it's generally why people talk about players "winning penalties".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, the contact does not mean it’s definitely a foul.
The referee has a judgement to make in relation to the nature of the challenge and the force involved.
So by diving, Son has exaggerated the contact and tried to influence the referee’s opinion regarding the extent of the contact.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 minutes ago
You’re just circling the issue now to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
If you want to state it’s 100% foul (and not a matter of opinion) then you need to be sure of the law that has been applied.
You still have absolutely no idea, so the idea you can start telling me it’s 100% a foul is truly laughable. I think deep down you know that as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you don't. You dont have to know what terms are used to know if a foul has been committed.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 minutes ago
You’re just circling the issue now to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
If you want to state it’s 100% foul (and not a matter of opinion) then you need to be sure of the law that has been applied.
You still have absolutely no idea, so the idea you can start telling me it’s 100% a foul is truly laughable. I think deep down you know that as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you don't. You dont have to know what terms are used to know if a foul has been committed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do if you want to claim it as 100%.
Some laws are binary but many are not. If you don’t understand which are which, you can’t possibly know on what basis it is a foul.
Glad we have finally been able to clarify that you don’t know what you’re on about though - you’d dodged it for a while.
posted on 11/2/19
You don't. A defender could punch the ball in his box and you could call it boxing. It's still a penalty whether you call it boxing or handball.
I know you love to be pedantic but you've been pushing this one on every article for ages now. Time to give it up. If you believe it wasnt a foul, that's fine. Not many agree but you're entitled to that opinion and I'm entitled to think you're wrong. Move on.
posted on 11/2/19
This is a new low for you, TOOR.
Fact is, you’re going around these forums telling everyone it’s a 100% penalty and you don’t even know why. You don’t know the law.
An extreme example is ridiculous because in this example we’re actually discussing a decision that we don’t agree on. Yet you tell me I’m wrong without knowing the relevant law.
I used to give you some credit for handling your debates well on here but after your recent childish outbursts and now this, I can only laugh at you. Unbelievable.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Poch's Coat. The RC is back. (U22012)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 35 minutes ago
"If officials were going to start carding for players for going down easily then they need to change the rules, don't they?"
Not really - I think simulation is quite clear.
Deceiving the referee by pretending to be fouled, isn't it?
If the referee decides that is what Son did, and I would agree, then he made the correct decision.
But yes, there's a huge inconsistency across the game with this and so many players do it, you would rightly say that its harsh on Son.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of argument, let's say there was minimal contact on Son. The point I'm making is he intentionally hit the deck subsequent to that contact. So you have a situation where you have a foul - followed by simulation. I thought that was still a penalty and it's generally why people talk about players "winning penalties".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, the contact does not mean it’s definitely a foul.
The referee has a judgement to make in relation to the nature of the challenge and the force involved.
So by diving, Son has exaggerated the contact and tried to influence the referee’s opinion regarding the extent of the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If what you're saying is true then it seems to me that the majority of penalties given are incorrect decisions. In the event of contact, players now subsequently throw themselves to the ground to highlight this contact. Even the most exaggerated dives are being given as fouls.
The refs aren't stupid. They know when someone is going down easily. For instance, no one raises their arms to brace for a fall prior to actually falling. Especially not raising their hands above their head (to attract attention).
Not sure you can be right on the rules if you're saying these are all non penalties.
If you are right, the rules clearly don't work. There will be several Son like incidents given as penalties in professional English football next week.
posted on 11/2/19
If you want officials to come down like a ton of bricks on people going down easily I'll probably get onboard. It will of course lead to outrageous inconsistencies, ala Son.
I doubt they will. From what I can see they only give fouls for simulation without contact. Diving post contact is institutional. Thus the, "he should have gone down" comments.
posted on 11/2/19
Poch's Coat. The RC is back. (U22012)
It’s not that throwing yourself to the floor means it can’t be a foul. It’s just that it removes any ability for us to make a complete judgement.
It is fair to say that the game is fecked though, because this is going on all the time. Every single game.
posted on 12/2/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 hours, 28 minutes ago
This is a new low for you, TOOR.
Fact is, you’re going around these forums telling everyone it’s a 100% penalty and you don’t even know why. You don’t know the law.
An extreme example is ridiculous because in this example we’re actually discussing a decision that we don’t agree on. Yet you tell me I’m wrong without knowing the relevant law.
I used to give you some credit for handling your debates well on here but after your recent childish outbursts and now this, I can only laugh at you. Unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said before, use whichever term you know pulling a player from behind, impeding his progress towards goal, to be, I really dont mind and will take no offence. Regardless of the term used, it's still a foul. Regardless of whether he dived, he did, it's still a foul. The referee got it right, former referees commenting on the game stated the referee got it right, no harm done, right decision, the world moves on. Apart from Winston of course, you go on about it on every article for weeks. It is at this point I have to leave you to it, as this article will go on forever otherwise. Enjoy.
posted on 12/2/19
Problem is TOOR, it’s not a foul in my opinion, nor in the opinion of lots of others.
You tell me I’m wrong but you don’t even know what law is relevant.
The reason it keeps coming up is because it’s relevant to every debatable decision - if you don’t know which law the referee is applying then you can’t possibly make a credible judgement.
You have proven that you don’t understand the laws. You just base your opinions on what you think the decision should be, tell everyone else they’re definitely wrong and then try to make the laws fit.
Now you’ve been caught out and so every opinion you have on fouls or misconduct are baseless.
posted on 12/2/19
“I don’t need to know the laws of the game to know whether Salah was fouled or not”
TOOR, February 2019
posted on 12/2/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
“I don’t need to know the laws of the game to know whether Salah was fouled or not”
TOOR, February 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why people leave you to it, always having to get the last word in. You're so desperate now that you're changing what I said and turning it into a quote. Hard to not come back to put you right there but then you know that, hence why you did it. Youd love this to go on forever. Must resist....arghh. This time!
posted on 12/2/19
It's exactly what you're saying, TOOR.
You want the right to be able to tell people what the correct decision is, without being able to reference any reasoning from the laws of the game.
The only reason our debates go on for so long is because you can't admit when you made a mistake.
'He impeded him'
'No, wait, he pulled him'
'No, wait... '
posted on 12/2/19
"I don't know what foul was committed, but I know it was a foul"
TOOR, February 2019
posted on 12/2/19
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 20 hours, 32 minutes ago
I think he throws himself down at most opportunities.
======================
Well let's look at that line.
You believe, that in most circumstances, given the opportunity, Mo Salah throws himself to the ground.🤣
I mean seriously, where does that nonsense originate ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://the18.com/soccer-news/mo-salah-dive-compilation
posted on 12/2/19
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 20 hours, 32 minutes ago
I think he throws himself down at most opportunities.
======================
Well let's look at that line.
You believe, that in most circumstances, given the opportunity, Mo Salah throws himself to the ground.🤣
I mean seriously, where does that nonsense originate ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://the18.com/soccer-news/mo-salah-dive-compilation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkZB_j7In4
This one in particular is embarrassing.
We have seen Alli go down this season with no contact whatsoever and Spurs fans rightly have a go at him for this and he was rightly booked. Son's this weekend was clear contact but exaggerated....just like the Salah one above vs Newcastle, slight pull on the arm, exaggerated collapse to the floor. Difference being penalty for Salah, yellow for Son.
This pathetic one vs Palace a few weeks back is not even dealt with retrospectively. It's a clear attempt to win a penalty.
West Ham & Everton have had players banned retrospectively for diving in the area. Where has that rule gone? Why is it applied to some obvious situations but not others.
One of the frustrating things on here is that the likes of TOOR defend their players regardless. Yes, the statement that Salah throws himself to the floor to win pens at every opportunity is not accurate but you focus on demanding proof of this statement, and not on the fact that actually Salah dives and exaggerates contact a lot, and yet you do not condone it.
Players like Kane are labelled divers when actually they, like most, are guilty of the odd bit of exaggeration, but NEVER have you seen Kane go down like Salah did vs Palace.
Players like Lamela are called divers after VVD, with a full swing of his leg, kicked his calf for a last minute penalty. You can totally understand why that pen was given https://streamable.com/yr1tb Its undeniable.
Yet some will deny it was a penalty, call him a diver and deny that Salah ever goes down easily or without contact.
posted on 12/2/19
'but NEVER have you seen Kane go down like Salah did vs Palace'.
🤣
Kane is one of, if no the worst offenders in the league for outright diving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA1LMbKv-Ko
Page 4 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10