breakthewallsdown
Well-known member
But it's not, it's a dive. He was expecting contact, which never come, so went over.
If that was against us, we'd all be fuming on here.
Forss
- Thread starter Quicksilvera
- Start date
If that was against us, we'd all be fuming on here.
Hap
Well-known member
It's a subjective one. The keeper didn't make contact so it's not a pen.
He did get out of the keepers way and had he not done that it would 've been a pen.
But no contact, no pen. If the tables were turned youd rightly be unhappy.
Teesste
Well-known member
He deserved that bit of luck last night as he has ran his socks off for the cause these last few games. Fantastic assist for Jones’ goal too.
If I had one minor criticism of him last night he maybe could have been stronger when their defender sliced the ball goalwards and the defender bullied him out of the way to clear it off the line.
If I had one minor criticism of him last night he maybe could have been stronger when their defender sliced the ball goalwards and the defender bullied him out of the way to clear it off the line.
Canyoudigit
Well-known member
He's played a big part this last 2 matches and is starting to look an asset, as for the penalty I'm sorry but I can't stand cheating,diving,whatever you want to call it.
Its absolutely pathetic and if found guilty of going down without being touched,I would implement an instant 3 game ban,zero tolerance, only way to stop it
festa5
Well-known member
Yeah I always think those sort of incidents are hard to judge whether it's an intentional dive or not. I suppose if there's no contact then it's pretty much universally accepted it's not a penalty.
However harsh to say it's definitely a dive. The only reason there's no contact is because the striker has taken action to evade the tackle. The ball has long gone, so that's not a factor.
If a striker doesn't react quickly enough or is agile enough then the keeper catches him and it's definitely a pen.
I think there's an argument it should still be a pen if the striker manages to get out of the way. The test possibly being "would there have been contact initiated by the keeper if the striker hadn't taken evasive action". Seems a bit strange that forwards are penalised for not taking the hit and that the rule as it stands encourages them not to move out of the way.
However appreciate that is currently the rule (or "law"for the pedants), or is at least the accepted interpretation of it, therefore as it stands it shouldn't have been a pen.
Linny
Well-known member
Ah right.
So that Ronaldo penalty should have been given all those years ago when Fergie said he “anticipated contact” but wasn’t touched.
Come on fellas. Don’t excuse diving. It’s the scourge of the game.
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants
Well-known member
That incident sticks in my mind. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.Ah right.
So that Ronaldo penalty should have been given all those years ago when Fergie said he “anticipated contact” but wasn’t touched.
Come on fellas. Don’t excuse diving. It’s the scourge of the game.
The fact Andy Gray etc were only s week later suggesting that penalties in other games were the wrong decision as there was no contact.
BoroMart
Well-known member
agreed, although with the keeper flying out so aggressively I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was expecting to get clattered and taking avoiding action. If he keeps going down though...
MickaelDebevePhenomenal
Well-known member
That is what baffles me, his energy and pressing at the top of the pitch was exactly the qualities wilder wanted!
BoroMart
Well-known member
It's exactly why he kept playing Connolly. Forss has that same energy but is a better player.
BoroMart
Well-known member
...anyway. Forss had been written off as a waste of money by some on here, so I'm really glad to see him prove the naysayers wrong with that performance. I wanted us to sign him a year earlier, when Brentford first went up. Think a year of Carrick coaching and he'll be an excellent striker because he's a good finisher, can shoot from anywhere, and has good movement and physical attributes like acceleration. Might be a bit of a Slaven with his head mind. Thought he should have jumped and nodded that sliced clearance in
Great assist with his head though
BoroMart
Well-known member
agreed, just not sure he'd have gone for it if there were defenders challenging near him, seems a little bit of a 'duck out of header' type from what I've seen
MickaelDebevePhenomenal
Well-known member
It was exactly the same as the Ronaldo one at the riverside, which was given against Schwarzer, which i think we were all fuming with at the time! Expects contact so dives, keeper doesn't initiate contact so no foul
18MFC76
Well-known member
It shouldn't be a surprise that the lad is doing well for us. Brentford fans rated him. He contributed a lot in their promotion season. I remember reading one of their forums when he signed for us and a lot of them thought he was the best finisher at the club and were sad to see him go. Look at the way he finished his penalty last night! Scott has identified a young, proven Championship striker. The fact Wilder wouldn't play him just contributed to his downfall.
Rofesleg
Well-known member
Off topic but I am genuinely interested. Why did you call it a rule and then put the correct term in brackets for pedants?
Why not just call it a law in the first place?
Was it so that pedants would realise that you do in fact know the correct term but have dumbed it down for everyone else?
That way you keep the pedants happy without excluding the non-pedants.