The Emirates FA Cup 3rd Round ** Spoilers ** [4th - 8th January 2024]

omnomnom said:
Assuming you think it was a dive then?
Click to expand...

I mean, yes ultimately. Unless you want to be pedantic about it never being a dive if there is contact. The contact was minimal and there is not a chance that was enough to take him off his feet.
 
fez said:
I mean, yes ultimately. Unless you want to be pedantic about it never being a dive if there is contact. The contact was minimal and there is not a chance that was enough to take him off his feet.
Click to expand...
So do you think it was a penalty?

This is exactly the point many were making. If you dont go down you dont get the decision.
 
Last edited:
Anyone decent would have put 6 past Wigan. We've been hideous again.
Pellistri must be gutted at the lack of game time he gets. He's easy worth 45 today with Rashford continuing to play poorly.
 
omnomnom said:
So do you think it was a penalty?

This is exactly the point many were making. If you dont go down you dont get the decision.
Click to expand...

No. A penalty should be for something concrete. Something where a defender has at least almost certainly denied a goalscoring opportunity or done something that is a clear foul. That was neither.

I know that if you don't go down you don't get the decision 95% of the time but that doesn't mean that if you go down and there is contact it should be a penalty.

I don't know if you can be giving out yellows when there is contact but its clearly a dive but you certainly don't have to give a penalty.
 
Calpol said:
He's easy worth 45 today with Rashford continuing to play poorly.
Click to expand...

If you watched Rashfords highlights from this game you would think he had scored a few and waltzed the game and the hightlights just missed his goals. Hes been strutting around like Messi all night.
 
A pretty dull game and a tame performance. Still looked pretty poor despite playing a bottom half League One side, got the job done at least. Not much else to say, really...
 
fez said:
No. A penalty should be for something concrete. Something where a defender has at least almost certainly denied a goalscoring opportunity or done something that is a clear foul. That was neither.

I know that if you don't go down you don't get the decision 95% of the time but that doesn't mean that if you go down and there is contact it should be a penalty.

I don't know if you can be giving out yellows when there is contact but its clearly a dive but you certainly don't have to give a penalty.
Click to expand...
A penalty is a foul in the box. Just like there isnt a law for not giving a yellow in the first 5 minutes there isnt one a seperate law for fouls in the box.
 
omnomnom said:
A penalty is a foul in the box. Just like there isnt a law for not giving a yellow in the first 5 minutes there isnt one a seperate law for fouls in the box.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that lesson on penalties :cry:

I'm not sure what you are saying about yellows. Refs reasonably regularly don't give a penalty when they think a player has made an absolute meal out of something in the box and they also don't give a yellow for a dive or simulation.

To be clear. No it shouldn't have been a penalty. Bruno probably shouldn't get a yellow because the current way the game is played means that if you do what he did, you usually get a penalty and there was contact. He was playing the game that we have created.
 
Good to see the media narrative around this penalty and the Jota one are entirely different, would say I'm shocked but I'm not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom