Is this a dive?

McMav · 8 May 2013 at 07:08

Illgresi said:
Contact?

Nope shows defender stopped and Scuba Pawlett on his way down faster than a granny on Wayne Rooney.

G|mp · 8 May 2013 at 07:36

He dived, blatantly, as much as you don't want it to be a dive, it is.

Get over it.

AshenShugar1873 · 8 May 2013 at 08:49

How OP doesn't see that as a blatant dive I don't know, I thought I was watching the Hunt For Red October. He plants both feet and jumps forward, it's so bad it would be comical if it didn't affect another club so significantly.

Gilly · 8 May 2013 at 11:38

Illgresi said:
So you're saying the defender has the right to step into his path, and the attacker is then obliged to run around him? As had he continued on his path, ran into the defender, potentially been injured, and forfeited a goalscoring opportunity, it still wouldn't have been a penalty?

No I didn't say that at all. Stop putting together a strawman argument in a desperate (and bad) ploy to back your very, very weak argument up.

The defender can't step into his path. If the defender is in his path the attacker has to run around him.

The attacker can never go down without there being contact. That is always cheating.

Illgresi · 8 May 2013 at 14:57

McMav said:
Only getting a 2 match ban. I hope they appeal it and it gets doubled. He's already i believe been done for it twice this seasons so a 2 match ban isn't obviously long enough to teach him a lesson.It should have been at least 4 this time.

It is a difficult one. Fight against the corrupt SFA and the blatant injustice that's been done to PeePaw, or accept his ban and let him miss two completely meaningless end of season games. Incidentally, would probably open the door for a youngster to make his debut.

Heart says first, head says second.

G|mp said:
He dived, blatantly, as much as you don't want it to be a dive, it is.

Get over it.

As I said in post #9, I'd be delighted if he had 'dived, blatantly' to get ex-Rangers thug John Brown relegated. As it is, it's pretty obvious there was contact.

Robbo · 8 May 2013 at 15:05

Illgresi said:
As it is, it's pretty obvious there was contact.

No it isn't... :confused:

Any contact there would have been extremely minimal, certainly not enough to cause him to go down like he did. It was a dive, plain and simple.

Gilly · 8 May 2013 at 15:16

Where is there any injustice? :confused:

The only contact was minimal and happened after he'd dived. That is still cheating.

If he's already been cheating this season he should get a longer ban.

McMav · 8 May 2013 at 15:44

Any contract happened AFTER he decided to dive. Cheat pure and simple. You enjoying it Sums up your clubs support perfectly.

Illgresi · 8 May 2013 at 16:07

McMav said:
Any contract happened AFTER he decided to dive. Cheat pure and simple. You enjoying it Sums up your clubs support perfectly.

I don't think a fan of your club has any position of moral authority, but that's not really on topic.

The picture above clearly shows the defender's right knee impaled in PeePaw's left thigh at a time when PeePaw is still very much upright...

CliffyG · 8 May 2013 at 16:13

He brushes into his leg and falls over, hardly impaled. Just because there is contact doesn't make it a penalty.

Gilly · 8 May 2013 at 16:17

Illgresi said:
I don't think a fan of your club has any position of moral authority, but that's not really on topic.

Leave it there, both of you.

Illgresi said:
The picture above clearly shows the defender's right knee impaled in PeePaw's left thigh at a time when PeePaw is still very much upright...

No, he's on his way down before there is any contact. That's what makes it a dive.

The fact that the contact was minimal just makes it more farcical.

div0 · 8 May 2013 at 16:32

As a Dons fan, it's a horrible dive.

First time I watched it I did think he'd been caught, but you can clearly see from the replay there is absolutely no contact and he throws himself down. Defender even pulls out of trying to make a challenge, just before he dives.

Look at 4:08 (in the replay) - you can even see him break stride to leave his left leg 'hanging' where he expects the defender to 'catch' it. He is clearly looking to go down, but doesn't actually get fouled. It is the very definition of a dive.

Illgresi · 8 May 2013 at 17:13

Probably the sensible course of action. Nice swipe at the BBC there (note, we haven't banned them from our stadium...):

Following the notice of complaint issued by the SFA to Peter Pawlett yesterday, the Club can confirm it will not be pursuing an appeal against his two match ban.

A spokesperson said: "The action the Club has taken does in no way mean we are not backing our player. While there was undoubtedly contact in the incident, we feel we would rather draw a line under the situation. The trial by television and subsequent coverage in sections of the media had almost sealed Peter's fate and as a result it was felt an appeal would have been fruitless."

Robbo · 8 May 2013 at 17:22

Illgresi said:
The picture above clearly shows the defender's right knee impaled in PeePaw's left thigh at a time when PeePaw is still very much upright...

It was a dive. Get over it. They won't take the goal away.

Purdy · 8 May 2013 at 17:35

Quality is so **** I find it hard to say clear cut either way but he was looking for it, but so does like everyone else

McMav · 8 May 2013 at 17:45

div0 said:
As a Dons fan, it's a horrible dive.

First time I watched it I did think he'd been caught, but you can clearly see from the replay there is absolutely no contact and he throws himself down. Defender even pulls out of trying to make a challenge, just before he dives.

Look at 4:08 (in the replay) - you can even see him break stride to leave his left leg 'hanging' where he expects the defender to 'catch' it. He is clearly looking to go down, but doesn't actually get fouled. It is the very definition of a dive.

I applaud your honesty.

Gilly · 9 May 2013 at 06:49

Of course an appeal would have been fruitless. Also frivolous and stupid.