THE Penalty!

Murphy is on the panel that decides if a player deserves further punishment is he not ?and he was straight to the point on MOTD with no hesitation contact so no simulation. I can't see Richarlison getting any further punishment for this. He will be a marked man now and I think refs will have an eye on him. Hopefully senior players will teach him as he does seem rather theatrical at times, I noticed this with the game against muff. Again comments on MOTD summed it up if it was other way round Arsen would of expected it given to him , you understand fam blod


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Are people trying to say that players didn't get away with diving ten years ago? Utter rubbish. Utter, utter, rubbish. Utter, utter, utter, rubbish. What you describe has been in the game since I have known it going back to the seventies. But, IMHO, this was not the case here. Richarlison was at full pelt chasing the ball, and whether he could have stayed up or not, there was no reason for him to put any effort into doing so. Comparing this to the repugnanat sheet that was getting into the game over the last few years is totally unfair. He didn't boot the ball and wait for the challenge. He was pretty much shoulder to shoulder with Bellerin. Your picture above does not show Richarlison leaving his foot in to be caught (I thought you were joking, and it is such a bad example I am still not sure you are not winding us up); Bellerin is ahead of the trailing foot!! The very point of leaving the foot in is so the 'offending' player catches it despite coming in late - see Bournemouth ad-nauseum. Sorry, but that's crazy.

You seem to be lamenting a by gone age that never quite existed, and comparing a player going down in the heat of the game to cynical, game changing tactics that were so underhand that a new method of review had to be created to counter its use. If Richarlison is even reviewed I'll be amazed and disapointed. If he is found guilty of a deceitful act, then I will lament the fact that the game is dying in its underpants.

Love your stuff on the history thread by the way.

 

I think with this retrospective punishment thing (which I fully agree with) pens like this are bound to get far more analysis. Before it came in it would’ve been a case of it being described as ‘soft’ but fully in the ‘seen them given’ camp as far as the pundits are concerned, and then they’d move on. Now penalty’s like this will get discussed to death because there is a need to categorise them as either a penalty or a dive. Because there is now a case to discuss further consequences (the retrospective ban) this will inevitably be discussed, whereas before there would’ve been no need.

The fact that you need to look at a few replays and some of the pundits are split on their decisions shows it wasn’t a dive, just a soft pen. A dive would need one replay to see it was a dive. We all know there are shades of grey with things like this, but some of the pundits obviously seem to be struggling with it and feel the need to categorise it one way or the other because of the new rule.

 

I believe that if it hadn't been for the Bournemouth 'trailing leg' penalty boom , the review would not have been put in place. The punishment should be referred to as a "Bournemouth Vacation".

 

It might be argued that it was a softish penalty, but as for retrospective action against Richarlison, that is utter tosh, he did not dive, there was definitely a clash of knees!

It was a 50/50 decision for the ref, and on this occasion it went our way for a change

 

Yes with Robbie "Watford Fan Favourite" Savage as co-commentator. The memory of the expression on his face after the final whistle when they returned the studio for comment will keep me warm throughout the coming long, dark and cold winter nights..

 

To be fair to McManaman he did come on after and said he did not think it was a dive. Neither did I. Soft penalty.....for sure.....reminded me of a certain Knockheart.....but certainly not a dive.

 

Got a slight nudge in the back I thought, seeing as Rich was travelling at speed the nudge in the back and the legs clipping each other sent him down.

 

I think this is the crucial point - refs might now be much less willing to give free kicks or pens in favour of Richie even when he is genuinely fouled. Worse still, he may get penalised.

Though refs may also just take the view that it was standard Wenger whining, and not give it a second thought.

 

It was also noticeable that Deeney alluded to the fact that it takes a bulldozer to knock him off his feet and, as a result, often does not get given clear fouls/penalties. The game has encouraged this kind of “dive” (which it wasn’t) so can hardly be up in arms now.

 

I thought at the time it was soft, I now think it was very soft but I do agree with the MOTD panel last night. There was some contact, he was traveling at pace and if it had been at the other end any opposition manager would be shouting to the heavens for a penalty.

 

It really makes me wish that next time Arsenal get a soft penalty they play it along side Richarlisons, and Wenger’s reaction to it, and ask him to explain the difference. Media in this instance has no balls, or cajones as Deeney puts it.

 

Graham Poll.

Is this Graham Poll that was so splendid in the 2006 World Cup?

I don't think I will pay too much attention to his expertise thanks all the same!

 

Murphy put Wenger back in his box, and Wright who was probably all set to call it an exaggeration had no choice but to a agree he would have claimed for it.

It's only because we've upset Wenger that it's a big deal but he's spent 20 years deflecting blame. Troy was spot on.

 

Isn't it wonderful that we now have a player capable of such exciting runs into the penalty area like this

 

Lol i see the tin foil hat brigade are back.

Soft penalty but the majority of players would've gone down for that.

 

It's not even close to being offside, the ball has already travelled 10 yards and he's level, so at the point of the ball being struck goalward, Troy would have been behind Mertesacka*****.

 

Can't see him being banned as there was contact, however minimal. It would make a mockery of this new 2-game ban rule if Ricky got a ban and Alli goes unpunished for his blatant dive against Huddersfield just because we were awarded a penalty and they weren't.

 

No doubt it's a penalty. Contact in two places at the same time. Plus at the pace he's going it takes very little to get upended. It's physics baby.

 

Soft call but not a dive

Will probably get a ban anyway

 

You dont agree with me then?
Yes there were occasions in the past when players went down a little too lightly. Ian Rush against us in the FA cup for instance.. but the fact we remembered that 30 years later suggests it wasnt as prevalent as in today's game where we seem to be highlighting cases all the time.
I think the the psyche of the game has changed in recent times. Hard to say when this changed but i would say since the Prem era really took off.. since the rewards became so great perhaps. I think the psyche of the fans has also changed with it. Now we look for the merest justification that a player has "earned" a decision. "look there was a rubbing of knees there. Defo a pen!" I cant recall people doing that in the past. We seem to have picked that up from TV showing incidents over and over again in slow mo.. ad-nauseum.

You've completely misunderstood my point about he's foot in that pic. Did i say anything about 'leaving his foot in'? No i did not & i cant see how you came to that conclusion other than making a different point to prove me wrong. My point was that so often when i see a player who is looking to to take a tumble they trail their rear foot in preparation to go over. Seen it hundreds of times. That's not a natural position to have your foot if you had any inclining of taking another step and it also doesnt look like a natural way to fall either.. one foot planted and the other already in fall over mode! So i would say he was looking for it yes.
Oh and whats-more have another look at that pic. Our boy is already going over before Bellerin's hand comes up. Kinda debunks the shove theory.


Anyway my main lament wasnt with the way the game is going or whether or not our player had earned a penalty or not.. it was with the way some people are so certain it was a pen. In fairness most people have said it was soft.. that it was a 50/50 decision that went our way.
So i cant see how others are so certain it was a pen.
Nothing can surely be so certain in those situations? and if the cleat was on the other foot i very much doubt it would be.

 

The rules are it only goes to the panel if a team benefited,e.g awarded a penalty or a player sent off. Therefore we benefited, Spurs did not. But it wasn't a "dive" in the sense that he faked contact. I think the panel has to be unanimous and I don't see how they can be

 

I'm firmly in the not offside camp, but where I've circled the ball is the point it hits Carrillo and changes it's forward trajectory, so it's from this point that Troy needs to be level. Which he is From Holebas' original shot, you're right - he was well onside.

 

Sorry Stevo. You are right. I thought you were implying that the trailing foot was akin to the type of trickery I was discussing. I thought, because your post followed mine, that you were replying to my point. Again, sorry. I can see now what you were saying.

That said, I still totally disagree with the point you were making, and stand by the rest of my post.

You say the image indicates he has no intention of staying up. But when you see where this frame came in the sequence, it is clear that his leg is trailing not because he is going down, but because he is stretching for the ball.

Like I say. I think it was soft, but I think it was entirely justifiable to give it as a penalty. Your picture, if taken properly in context, is anything but proof that Richarlison simulated the contact, and if anything, shows why Bellerin's contact may have caused an out stretched player to go down.

My main lament is that you seem desperate to put blame on a player where IMHO there is no blame. That is why I am keen to ensure my point is made.

 

Even though there was contact we will be made an example of unfortunately. Simple as that.

 

He is a disgrace to the refereeing profession. He was at the BT sport studio, saw all the replays, of the incident, all slo mo's from all the angles. Yet said that there was definitely "no contact" and a definite dive, for which Rich should be banned. Disgraceful!

Then, to make it worse, he then concluded that, based on Bellerin's meek and mild protest, "There may have been a little contact after all" effectively saying that he accepts a players reaction over his own eyes, in slow motion and repeated endlessly.

What a bell-end!

 

...and I'd like to see whether Ozil was offside for the "chance" that should have killed us off!

 

Desperate to put blame on a football culture that sees people claim a definite penalty at the merest touch from an opposition player. If he'd have proper clattered into him then yes clear penalty. When it's just a coming together, as this was, then i say it's down to interpretation. Nothing "definite" about it.

You seem to have read more into the pic i posted than i have. I was only saying that when ive seen that in the past (and it's been quite a few times) it is when a player is setting himself up to take a tumble. It doesnt look entirely natural to me. It's not "proof" but it is my surmising that he was happy to go down especially knowing contact had been made. Modern game and all that.

 

If they ban Richarlison then they will also need to ban Welbeck for a quite blatant dive earlier in the match. Watching the highlights back when I got home even the commentators said he was looking for it.

 

Marcus Rashford, the darling ludicrously overrated English player of the moment, dived at the end of last season in a game and won a penalty.

Instead of the media gunning for him the way that they are Richarlison, they almost praised him for doing so. The BT Sport pundits refused to call it a dive and even went to lengths to justify the dive by suggesting that he fell because he thought there was going to be contact.

The media did not want to upset a young, marketable, English Man Utd player in case it ruins their future relationship with him.

Deli Alli dived in a game a few weeks ago. ONLY Alan Shearer had the balls to call him a cheat, and even then Lineker farted out 'lets move on'.

When the media call it fairly for all clubs and all players, I'll accept their opinion. I couldn't give a toss what they think about this incident as it's only a dive in their eyes because it cost 'good old' Arsenal and their magnificent coach a win. It's the same on pretty much any game they lose to a team outside the 'big 5'.

It's only 5 now. Arsenal are ******* ****.

 

If they ban him for 2 games it will set a very dangerous precedent. You will effectively putting an end to what has been the accepted call that a player has earned the right to go down at the merest contact. I genuinely cannot see how they can ban him and not open a whole can of worms which will resonate for the rest of the season and possibly beyond.

Edit: I’d even go so far to say the bigger clubs would not want him to be banned knowing how often they probably do get given decisions like this.

 

If it is reviewed then all 3 members of the review panel must agree that there was a dive for a ban to be issued.

I doubt they could agree unanimously on this one.

 

Lol, just you watch them.