The Kraken Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 What is amusing to me is that those who think that he deliberately dived are SO convinced that they are right that those of us that think that he didn`t dive are dimissed as biased and wearing red and white glasses. Surely the fact that there is such a split of opinions on here indicates that the situation is not as clear cut as it might be. I still maintain that he did not dive looking for a penalty. That is my opinion and I am allowed to have it..........aren`t I? Of course you're allowed to have it. And I'm allowed to disagree with it. I'm yet to see a cogent response from anyone as to why Rodriguez was completely unable to utilise either foot to stand on following the incident. Foul? Possibly. A dive to accentuate it? Absolutely definitely IMO. I went on to Football 365's forum this morning to get a neutral perspective on it. Unsurprisingly there were hardly any dissenting voices to the fact that it was a dive. MOTD's analysis last night (including an ex player of ours and a ex-striker more than known for exaggerating challenges in the box) labelled it a dive. The papers I've read this morning labelled it a dive. I could be concinced it wasn't a dive if someone could provide a decent reason as to why Rodriguez couldn't at least try to stumble on with his left leg. No-one has yet done that, so I'll continue thinking it was a dive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Haha. Brilliant You just know that when/if a player does to us what Rodriguez done, this place will be pretty unanimous with condemnation. And has in the past Don't you just love football!! You have just proved my point. Laughing at those with a different opinion to yours. If/when JRod, or any other Saints player deliberately and obviously dives to get a penalty, I will condemn it as strongly as anyone else but I will not condemn him when in my opinion he did not deliberately and obviously dive for a penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 You have just proved my point. Laughing at those with a different opinion to yours. If/when JRod, or any other Saints player deliberately and obviously dives to get a penalty, I will condemn it as strongly as anyone else but I will not condemn him when in my opinion he did not deliberately and obviously dive for a penalty Laughing at the debate and how this typifies football. Biased and completely tribal. It's what makes football what it is Everyone who has talked or written about this game thinks it was a dive bar some saints fans... Which is fair enough Just don't come here complaining when Suarez does it at SMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 1. I do not like divers. 2. Rodriguez dived. 3. We won. 4. I am therefore in a bit of a conflict of morals, and will therefore try and self justify Rodriguez actions. Bo!!oxs I'll take the 3 points and suffer the mental anguish. So you don't think the Villa defenders actions constituted a foul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Of course you're allowed to have it. And I'm allowed to disagree with it. I'm yet to see a cogent response from anyone as to why Rodriguez was completely unable to utilise either foot to stand on following the incident. Foul? Possibly. A dive to accentuate it? Absolutely definitely IMO. I went on to Football 365's forum this morning to get a neutral perspective on it. Unsurprisingly there were hardly any dissenting voices to the fact that it was a dive. MOTD's analysis last night (including an ex player of ours and a ex-striker more than known for exaggerating challenges in the box) labelled it a dive. The papers I've read this morning labelled it a dive. I could be concinced it wasn't a dive if someone could provide a decent reason as to why Rodriguez couldn't at least try to stumble on with his left leg. No-one has yet done that, so I'll continue thinking it was a dive. No you won`t. There have been several versions/explainations of what happened but none of them have convinced you yet. You have a strongly held opinion and you are entitled to it as I am to mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 (edited) No you won`t. There have been several versions/explainations of what happened but none of them have convinced you yet. You have a strongly held opinion and you are entitled to it as I am to mine. Read what I've said. Foul? Possibly. Trying to avoid contact from the defender's challenge? Possibly. A dive to accentuate all of that? Absolutely. Show me one post that has identified why Rodriguez couldn't have carried on with at least his left leg. Show me one, and I'll consider it. I haven't see one that I'm aware of. I think his right leg could also have tried to carry on, but we'll ignore that for now. Just a plausible reason as to why he lost balance so completely that his left leg was entirely upended with his right and he literally had no other option than to hit the floor. Edited 13 January, 2013 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Laughing at the debate and how this typifies football. Biased and completely tribal. It's what makes football what it is Everyone who has talked or written about this game thinks it was a dive bar some saints fans... Which is fair enough Just don't come here complaining when Suarez does it at SMS If Suarez or anyone else obviously and deliberately dives, I will come on here and complain (if that`s alright with you) but if Saurez, or anybody else gets involved in a situation like yesterdays, I will come on here and complain about the ref for making a balls up, because that`s what happened yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 So you don't think the Villa defenders actions constituted a foul? No, what foul did the Villa player commit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obelisk Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 No, what foul did the Villa player commit? In the referee's opinion it could have been an attempt to trip or kick. Therefore a foul in the penalty area. Result is a penalty kick. That is the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1956 Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Why is the player getting blamed for the ref`s poor decision, if JRod was a more cynical player he would have left his foot in, took the pain, and one the penalty fair and square, think the point that Nigel is making that the intent was there. Great day out, terrific support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 No, what foul did the Villa player commit? Swung his boot at Rodriguez which would have had a fair amount of impact if Rodriguez hadn't got his leg out of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1956 Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 one = won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Well it obviously will never be conclusively proven if he dived or was just trying to avoid the tackle. The simple fact is though: from a defensive point of view, if you are going to put in awful tackles like that in the box then you have to accept there is a very strong chance of giving away a penalty. Symptomatic of Villa's young and inexperienced back line perhaps, but top flight defenders should know better than to be that reckless in the tackle. The defender really only has himself to blame for giving the referee a decision to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Of course you're allowed to have it. And I'm allowed to disagree with it. I'm yet to see a cogent response from anyone as to why Rodriguez was completely unable to utilise either foot to stand on following the incident. Foul? Possibly. A dive to accentuate it? Absolutely definitely IMO. I went on to Football 365's forum this morning to get a neutral perspective on it. Unsurprisingly there were hardly any dissenting voices to the fact that it was a dive. MOTD's analysis last night (including an ex player of ours and a ex-striker more than known for exaggerating challenges in the box) labelled it a dive. The papers I've read this morning labelled it a dive. I could be concinced it wasn't a dive if someone could provide a decent reason as to why Rodriguez couldn't at least try to stumble on with his left leg. No-one has yet done that, so I'll continue thinking it was a dive. I gave you one in post #199. Clearly you've chosen to ignore it. My view of it is that because he was already at full stretch to get his right foot to the ball, his trailing leg is almost on tiptoe when he instinctively moves his right foot out of the way. From that point the laws of gravity take over and whatever he did next he was inevitably going to hit the floor. Just my view of it - I could be wrong of course, but that's how it looks to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Swung his boot at Rodriguez which would have had a fair amount of impact if Rodriguez hadn't got his leg out of the way. If that were the case of fouls, then the game as we know it would last an awful lot longer than it does now, you cant give free kicks/penalties on what possibly could happen, if that were criminal law we would be ******, it would be like that Minority Report film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Well it obviously will never be conclusively proven if he dived or was just trying to avoid the tackle. The simple fact is though: from a defensive point of view, if you are going to put in awful tackles like that in the box then you have to accept there is a very strong chance of giving away a penalty. Symptomatic of Villa's young and inexperienced back line perhaps, but top flight defenders should know better than to be that reckless in the tackle. The defender really only has himself to blame for giving the referee a decision to make. The game as we know it is dying, is this a physical game or a game of simulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obelisk Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 If that were the case of fouls, then the game as we know it would last an awful lot longer than it does now, you cant give free kicks/penalties on what possibly could happen, if that were criminal law we would be ******, it would be like that Minority Report film.Read Law 12. The word "attempts" is quite clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 A few years ago I remember Rob Styles giving a penalty for Liverpool against Sheffield Utd when a defender attempted to tackle Gerrard, made no contact at all but the penalty was given. If that is indeed the rule then it's a rubbish one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 I gave you one in post #199. Clearly you've chosen to ignore it. My view of it is that because he was already at full stretch to get his right foot to the ball, his trailing leg is almost on tiptoe when he instinctively moves his right foot out of the way. From that point the laws of gravity take over and whatever he did next he was inevitably going to hit the floor. Just my view of it - I could be wrong of course, but that's how it looks to me. Clearly you ignored my response in posts #200, #202 and #204. I listened to your reasoning but didn't agree with it. I summarised thus: Fair enough. Can't say I agree but fair play if that's your opinion. I personally see no reason to disagree with the MOTD analysis that it was a clear dive. Not that it matters any more, 3 points won is great, the peno award only sours it a tiny touch for me. I simply don't believe that explanation, that he completely lost his balance from his right foot moving backwards. If he had truly lost his balance I'd expect the legs to fully extend backwards up into the air and for him to plunge straight downwards as a consequence. He doesn't do that, his left foot actually gets thrown out to ensure he goes down, rather than try to keep him upright. As I said, it matter not, and I think I'll call a halt there as I'm off out to watch the Man Utd v Liverpool game and to see if Suarez and his mates can top JRod's 9.9 effort.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Read Law 12. The word "attempts" is quite clear. And what does it say about simulation? Also law 12 as well. Pretending to be fouled, simulation, or are you saying Rodriguez falls like that everytime after a tackle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 A few years ago I remember Rob Styles giving a penalty for Liverpool against Sheffield Utd when a defender attempted to tackle Gerrard, made no contact at all but the penalty was given. If that is indeed the rule then it's a rubbish one. Gerrard if I recall slipped and it was given? Getting out of the way of a tackle is one thing, simulating a tackle is another after seeing this again thats whats I believe happened, in other words cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Yes. Every other club has at least one person doing it. Though its a pity after 30m quid spent that we have to resort to it. Seriously tickled by those answering "no"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Alpine, I normally agree with you good sir but we have to agree to disagree on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obelisk Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 And what does it say about simulation? Also law 12 as well. Pretending to be fouled, simulation, or are you saying Rodriguez falls like that everytime after a tackle?Indeed it does mention simulation. However, the referee thought that a foul had been committed and that no simulation was involved. The result was a penalty kick. That is now a matter of fact. Having mulled the matter over I'm inclined to agree with Halsey's opinion on this occasion but I have to admit I could be biased. I don't think the pundits and commentators completely understand law 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSteve Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Its actually quite amusing seeing the increased determination on here to avoid saying that one of our players had an exaggerated reaction to win a penalty. As if it damns us as a club and is a bitter blow that we'll never recover from if we admit it. He dived, plain and simple. It'll be forgotten about by the next game. Gareth Bale has been booked for it 5 times this season, I don't think we're in the category just yet. It'll be interesting to see what happens on here the next time we have a dodgy penalty given against us because of simulation. If this thread is anything to go by I imagine that there will a lot of sympathy for the diving striker and the fact that there doesn't have to be contact made for him to collapse to the floor like he's been shot. What a lot of drivel you talk... how do you know J-Rod dived.. have you spoken to him and he's admiited i ? No, in fact he denied it and was not even claiming a fould had been committed. He lost his balance when trying to avoid having his ankle damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 How do you know an ankle would of been damaged? Does he always fall over like that when he has lost his balance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Indeed it does mention simulation. However, the referee thought that a foul had been committed and that no simulation was involved. The result was a penalty kick. That is now a matter of fact. Having mulled the matter over I'm inclined to agree with Halsey's opinion on this occasion but I have to admit I could be biased. I don't think the pundits and commentators completely understand law 12. Turn it around, would you of been outraged at the decision if it had not been given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Is it not possible he just fell over, and was given a penalty by a poor refereeing decision. How many times have you seen players fall over and the comment has been they haven't the right studs, if any on their boots. Clyne is one of our players who seems to just slip/fall over when just about to kick the ball. If it happens up field nothing is said. Also look at how many free kicks are given nowadays when no contact has been made. Unfortunately for Villa this happened in their penalty area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 From looking at the gallery on the OS images 9 through 12 seem to show Guzman bringing down Puncheon. Without seeing the whole sequence you can't be sure but it looks iffy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Yes. Every other club has at least one person doing it. Though its a pity after 30m quid spent that we have to resort to it. Seriously tickled by those answering "no"... Alpine, I normally disagree with you good sir but I have to agree with you on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 13 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Is it not possible he just fell over No. By the way, are you friends with the poster called Spudgun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Just watching MoTD, and Shearer commenting on the Chelsea penalty. Mata went down, not touched by Shawcross, and Shearer says he doesn't think it's a penalty. No uproar over that then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 13 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Just watching MoTD, and Shearer commenting on the Chelsea penalty. Mata went down, not touched by Shawcross, and Shearer says he doesn't think it's a penalty. No uproar over that then? The thread is about whether you are happy for Saints players to cheat. If you think Jay dived, the question is "are you happy about that?", If you don't think he dived, what do you think happened? What Mata did is irrelevant as this thread is about Saints players (I suppose you could argue that if everyone else is cheating then why shouldn't we). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Dunlop Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 The old cliche comes to mind - the decisions even themselves out over the course of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obelisk Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Turn it around, would you of been outraged at the decision if it had not been given?I'd have been rather more peeved at a defender making an uncontrolled lunge like that. Earlier this season I've been disappointed that JRod has been clattered in the box and no pen has been awarded. I've been peeved that we've conceded penalties for no good reason as well. Football's a fast game with loads of contact. Mistakes happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Football's a fast game with loads of contact. Mistakes happen. I think you hit the nail on the head there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 How do you know an ankle would of been damaged? That's the point. Rodriguez didn't know how bad the tackle was going to end up. He simply reacted in case it turned out to be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 The thread is about whether you are happy for Saints players to cheat. If you think Jay dived, the question is "are you happy about that?", If you don't think he dived, what do you think happened? What Mata did is irrelevant as this thread is about Saints players (I suppose you could argue that if everyone else is cheating then why shouldn't we). The sub-text is clearly about whether JR dived to get an advantage. I don't think he did, any more than Mata did. Perfectly valid in the context of the thread. My view, as you ask, is that he pulled his foot away in anticipation of a challenge that was coming from a long way off, and that caused him to go down. I guess a lot would be happier if he'd dangled his leg and waited for the inevitable contact. Personally I inhabit a world which consists of shades of grey (if I can still say that); most things are not black or white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 So therefore a penalty is given? His reaction to a potential injury is staggering as well, flailing arms and then saying to opposition players I didn't dive is one hell of a preemptive reaction to a possible tackle................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 The sub-text is clearly about whether JR dived to get an advantage. I don't think he did, any more than Mata did. Perfectly valid in the context of the thread. My view, as you ask, is that he pulled his foot away in anticipation of a challenge that was coming from a long way off, and that caused him to go down. I guess a lot would be happier if he'd dangled his leg and waited for the inevitable contact. Personally I inhabit a world which consists of shades of grey (if I can still say that); most things are not black or white. Thats true, but Mata has no relevance in this as it was a different game, we are discussing whether what Rodriguez did was warranted, diving, fallling over is not accepted usually as an accepted method of preemptive action against possible injury is it? It is usually used to gain an unfair advantage into being awarded a free kick or penalty, what seems more likely after seeing the evidence and where this incident took place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 13 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Personally I inhabit a world which consists of shades of grey (if I can still say that) I don't understand the bit of your post that I have highlighted in bold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 I don't understand the bit of your post that I have highlighted in bold. Possibly a reference to the book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 13 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Why would he not be able to say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Is it not possible he just fell over, and was given a penalty by a poor refereeing decision.. Absolutely. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 6 pages discussing something which happened in a split second ! Similar things happen in most games these days (not saying I condone it!) and I'm sure that JRod will learn from the media backlash which he has received, Nigel will have a quiet word and that should be the end of it ! Christ, maybe we should all be self-harming as penance for such an evil act perpetrated in our name ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Possibly a reference to the book? Possibly, possibly not. Some things should be left to the reader's imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Possibly, possibly not. Some things should be left to the reader's imagination. What am I thinking now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baird of the land Posted 13 January, 2013 Share Posted 13 January, 2013 I'd prefer the premier league to have a challenge system such as Tennis/American Football/Cricket etc where the managers have a small number of times to challenge big decisions to a video ref. As the system stands i have no problem with Rodriguez taking advantage by diving as it is no different to deliberately handballing/going down with minimal contact etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 13 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Possibly, possibly not. Some things should be left to the reader's imagination. Like anal fisting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 13 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2013 Similar things happen in most games these days (not saying I condone it!) By "similar things", do you mean diving (hence the need for the qualification about not condoning it?) Nigel will have a quiet word and that should be the end of it ! Sorry, but how do you know what Nigel will do? Where have you got this information from, that he will have a quiet word? Christ, maybe we should all be self-harming as penance for such an evil act perpetrated in our name ?? No-one has suggested it was an evil act and no-one, other than you, has been silly enough to suggest self harm. The question is, is it ok if Saints players cheat? Reading between the lines of your rather silly post, it seems your answer is "Yes, but it's no big deal". If that's your answer then thats fine, I probably go along with it, but why make it in such a daft manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now