Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 1,119
isn't it irrelevant if the goalkeeper is "trying" to catch him???
Greenlizard0 Premier League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [30/31 Dec 23 1/2 Jan 24]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,254
- Location
- newcastle
I apologise for that comment it was unnecessary
Sadly it's been the same for decades. Officials are scared to make big decisions unless they're forced to. By staying on their feet, even when they've clearly been impeded, forwards give officials the excuse not to make a decision.
Anyway, Dale Johnson has had his say. Diaz was a nailed on pen and while VAR probably wouldn't have given the Jota pen (had it not been awarded onfield) it was never going to overturn it either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
So how many steps then? Should it be until there is no advantage gained and the player then throws himself on the floor?
I think you should replace "less balanced" with "took more time to process I should hit the deck"
It is funny how people can defend this, he dived, yes there was a foul, a soft one but a foul but he stayed on his feet only throwing himself to the floor later.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
You'd be banned from RAWK for that comment. Fair play.
I agree but I don't think this applies here at all. Mane was good for staying on his feet when he shouldn't and didn't get a few penalties but he was clearly very impeded and it 100% changed the outcome.
This is the real issue. If you want to argue that contact which potentially changes the outcome of a shot should be a penalty then you have to ban contact in the box completely. There has to be some level of "thats football" when it comes to common sense decisions like this. Dozens of penalties aren't given every week when a defender is competing with an attacker shoulder to shoulder and their shot is 100% impacted by that contact. I understand that contact on different parts of the body affects you very differently but not every touch on the lower half of an attackers body is a penalty.
In this case, Jota was either not impacted at all or it was so minimal as to be irrelevant unless we want a non contact sport.
There needs to be a balance and probably part of that is referees need to start awarding penalties when players try to stay on their feet but either can't or its obvious they have been seriously negatively effected by the contact. The part of the Jota dive that is so jarring is how blatant it was. It was a bad dive. There are loads of penalties where either the striker is 100% looking for it or the contact is minimal but they go down at the right time to sell it. None of that is good for the game but at least its a bit more ambiguous.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Nunez is nowhere near being good enough to be Liverpool's no9
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
A tap tackle in rugby most often brings down the player by getting the leg tapped to hit the standing leg. That was nothing like a tap tackle.
So how many strides before going down can a player do before it becomes a dive in your eyes?
Why can't you just admit he dived?
Whats a dive? Genuine question. If its a case of a player has gone down easily i.e the contact isnt enough then there is 30 "dives" a game.
what classifies a dive in your opinion? You've said it was a penalty at point of contact, if jota takes the shot and misses, should play be called back? Why does a player *have* to go down to get a foul and a penalty?
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 1,119
Not sure how anyone other than Jota can "know" this..
Goalkeeper didn't trip him, 100% dive. You can see the delay as he decides he's going to throw himself at the floor.
So you cant see the clear clip by the goalkeeper on Jotas foot?
You're clearly living in an alternate reality m8
A reality in which the contact is clear as day ?You're clearly living in an alternate reality m8
Because there was no impact to anything he was doing. He quite literally took another step and then threw himself to the floor unconvincingly. I have played sport my entire life and watched a lot of football. When there is enough contact to impact a player its pretty clear that the impact has done something. Yes players are very good at exaggerating or initiating contact at times but there are also ridiculously obvious dives and this was one of them. You can bring down the likes of Haaland with very little contact if you do it right but you will see what effect that "little" contact has because it will knock them off balance or clip their heels together. There was none of that here. He felt the contact and his brain processed it so slowly that by the time he was going down it was comical.
The number of steps should be irrelevant. If a player is fouled, the ref should blow as soon as there is no advantage, regardless of whether that player goes down or not. Had Jota been unable to reach the ball due to the foul, the ref would have blown. Jota would have been incentivised to stay on his feet and try to play on, in the knowlege that play could then have been pulled back for the foul had he been unable to get a shot off.
You're admitting that there was a foul, so I can't understand why you think it shouldn't be a penalty. At the very least, once there is a foul the attacker should have the option of playing on or taking the foul. By falling over, Jota clearly chose the latter. There should be a more elegant way of doing this, however, such as refs being willing to give fouls even where a player does not go down.
Last edited:
- Status