Penalty if not a goal

[LaticsPete]

According to interview on the OS (some of us still read it) if Smith hadn't scored then a penalty would have been given. Who would have taken it?

 

"The 6ft 6in striker also revealed he was pulled back as he got on to the end of a last-gasp cross from Jose Baxter to poke home the ball.

 

"I was pulled back and the referee actually said it would have been a penalty for shirt pulling had I not scored," he said. "

[opinions4u]

You mean we could have made it really controversial to rub their noses in it? Another last gasp pen and red card!

 

Bouzanis!

Edited October 14, 2012 by opinions4u

[oldhamains]

I'd of brought Connor Brown on and made him take it.

[oldhamandy1]

Croft

[IceStationLatic]

Similar to last season when Kuqi was fouled only for Creswell to pull off a superb goal-scoring header anyway

[IceStationLatic]

And credit to Smith by the way. Some strikers would have gone down when they felt the contact if that was the case, and the referee might not have given it - particularly in the context.

 

To stop diving being the best option, for the most part, we can't rely on honest players. Referees need to pull back play and give fouls after a brief advantage. It does my nut in hearing MOTD commentators moaning about diving one minute, then saying 'if he'd gone down there he probably would have got the penalty' the next!

[jsslatic]

And credit to Smith by the way. Some strikers would have gone down when they felt the contact if that was the case, and the referee might not have given it - particularly in the context.

 

To stop diving being the best option, for the most part, we can't rely on honest players. Referees need to pull back play and give fouls after a brief advantage. It does my nut in hearing MOTD commentators moaning about diving one minute, then saying 'if he'd gone down there he probably would have got the penalty' the next!

 

We went along to 606 at the Crucible after the game, an interesting discussion which largely turned into Savage and Roberts vs the audience. What became evident is that players have clearly been taught to go down if they feel something, or in the case of Roberts, to run into a trailing leg if it's been left out by a defender. It's all on the iPlayer, it really was very interesting to hear their side on it.

[IceStationLatic]

We went along to 606 at the Crucible after the game, an interesting discussion which largely turned into Savage and Roberts vs the audience. What became evident is that players have clearly been taught to go down if they feel something, or in the case of Roberts, to run into a trailing leg if it's been left out by a defender. It's all on the iPlayer, it really was very interesting to hear their side on it.

 

Totally understand their viewpoint - as a player you do whatever it takes, whatever works (!), to win. It's not their place to give a damn about the ethics of the game etc

That's the problem, of two parts. 1 It works, so it is encouraged. 2 They get away with it.

It's becoming a joke now - take Andy Carroll's dive and Gareth Bale's one, both when they went past the goalkeeper and, particularly the former, still had a chance to score.

The former point is massively encouraged for another reason - the last-man rule. Not only do you get a goal from the penalty in most cases, but you often get one of the opposition sent off. It's a double bonus! Teams see it happen to them, so managers are always going to urge their players to swing those decisions their way.

Video replays - which aren't going to happen - would help for me. They wouldn't slow the game down. It would take less than a minute for a fourth official to watch a few replays. When a penalty and red card is given, it usually takes at least that time when you think of the players protesting, surrounding the referee and the red-carded player slowly trudging off the pitch. It should be done for game-changing offside calls too. But that's just a pipe dream.

The only realistic option at present is retrospective punishment for diving, when it's obvious. Then for players, it might still 'work' if it was used to get the points at the time, but the manager won't be patting him on the back quite as hard if his star striker was then suspended for the next three games.

Some might say it would be hard to ban a player for subtly 'leaving his trailing leg' - but I think in most cases it's pretty obvious when it's done deliberately, particularly as it's followed by a theatrical superman dive. If it can't be proved, so what. At least they would have looked into it - players would know they were being watched and the 'risk' of diving, which would become a double-edged sword.

[Dave_Og]

Why is diving worse than hauling strikers over when waiting for a corner to come in?