|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 16:25:58 GMT
The fact of the matter is that berbatov dived. What is perhaps more significant is that the assistant who was about 15 yards away didn't give it, but Webb, who was 25 yards away and without a clear view of the incdent, did. If you have to, as a ref, be sure its a penalty in order to give it how can Webb have been sure of such non-existant contact when he was so far away and couldn't see it. And, what is the point of having an assistant ref if he is going to be too sh!tscared to take responsibility. At the end of the day it was always going to be a penalty because the game was being played at old trafford and we all know what happens to ref's who don't give pens there, even when they aren't penalties at all. Then we have the gerrard sending off. A clear red really, although perhaps had i been the ref i would have been slightly more lenient given the nature of the game as a derby. The real issue with that was the fact that here we have a ref giving a straight red for a kind of challenge which should, but soes not always, result in a red card, and the ref giving it was one who in another recent game thought trips, cynical stamps and karate kicks were perfectly acceptable challenges. You say it is a fact but it is not. I bet that Berbatov is not charged with diving by the FA, why? Because there is not conclusive evidence that he dived and it is, therefore, not a fact that he dived. I agree with your point about the linesman but not the ref. The ref was 25 yards (according to big Sam) away and he was in line with the incident. This amount of distance even if accurate is really not that far away. From his angle he could see that Agger lunged across, he could see that he did not get the ball and he could see that Berbatove went down. I understand 100% why he gave the penalty. If it was a dive (IMO video evidence is inconclusive) then be angry with Berbatov but for me the ref is not at fault for this one. Good post and you are dead right, if all this forum bar a few of us, every pundit and everyone else say its a dive then surely the FA will charge Berbatov tomorrow morning with diving. Like you say, no way will they. Why ?
|
|
|
Post by The Resurrection on Jan 9, 2011 16:26:34 GMT
Blatant dive from Berbatov, how anyone can defend it, I don't know. Cheat.
From what I saw of the Giggs one, the defender got the ball.
And to Junior, why post that video of Gerrard? I know you're a Man Utd fan but most of the rest of us are Oxford fans, not Liverpool fans.
|
|
|
Post by ConcreteBob on Jan 9, 2011 16:27:20 GMT
So basically -
Arsenal player dives, VERY BAD!
Manchester United player dives, GREAT!
I get it.
|
|
|
Post by OxYellow on Jan 9, 2011 16:32:10 GMT
How anyone can defend Berbatov's cheating I don't know!
Minimal contact if there was ANY WHATSOEVER! from Agger when he went in, berbatov takes a step around his foot, takes another step then falls! Obvious dive!
Baldy and Junior, I expect you both were whinging about Walcott's dive yesturday, so how can you possibly defend Berbatov and claim it was a penalty! Get a grip, and lose your pathetic Man Utd bias!
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 16:34:32 GMT
Blatant dive from Berbatov, how anyone can defend it, I don't know. Cheat. From what I saw of the Giggs one, the defender got the ball. And to Junior, why post that video of Gerrard? I know you're a Man Utd fan but most of the rest of us are Oxford fans, not Liverpool fans. I am not defending diving! My point is that the video is not conclusive and from an objective point of view, therefore, it is not really clear to me if he dived or not. If it is a dive i hope the FA charge him with it but from what i have seen they will find it very hard to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 9, 2011 16:35:25 GMT
You say it is a fact but it is not. I bet that Berbatov is not charged with diving by the FA, why? Because there is not conclusive evidence that he dived and it is, therefore, not a fact that he dived. I agree with your point about the linesman but not the ref. The ref was 25 yards (according to big Sam) away and he was in line with the incident. This amount of distance even if accurate is really not that far away. From his angle he could see that Agger lunged across, he could see that he did not get the ball and he could see that Berbatove went down. I understand 100% why he gave the penalty. If it was a dive (IMO video evidence is inconclusive) then be angry with Berbatov but for me the ref is not at fault for this one. Good post and you are dead right, if all this forum bar a few of us, every pundit and everyone else say its a dive then surely the FA will charge Berbatov tomorrow morning with diving. Like you say, no way will they. Why ? Do you think they will charge walcott with diving? There was about as much contact as the berbatov incident and theo even admitted it. If that's a dive, as you said it was yesterday, then the berbatov one has to be to surely? Hell, even junior called it a dive on the Liverpool v man U thread. I bet he's hastily deleting his comment now he's discovered master has a different view. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 9, 2011 16:51:05 GMT
OK, I'll try to adopt a more reasonable stance. There are two issues here. First, given the benefit of slow motion replays and several TV angles, was it a penalty? Secondly, as the referee and linesman had no such assistance available, could they be forgiven for making the wrong decision at the time.
For me, the answers are "no" and "yes".
Agger went for the tackle, so he did stick the leg out. But the leg didn't make contact. The contact was a slight shove in the back from Agger on Berbatov. If Berbatov had gone straight down I could understand a penalty being given. He didn't. He carried on for another step - with perfect balance - before throwing himself. The shove did not cause him to go down. No penalty.
However, whenever a human being is involved mistakes can be made.
And talk of whether Berbatov will be charged or not is a nonsense red herring. How many times is ANY player charged under similar circumstances? If players were charged every time a dodgy decision was made the FA's administration would buckle.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 16:52:13 GMT
Good post and you are dead right, if all this forum bar a few of us, every pundit and everyone else say its a dive then surely the FA will charge Berbatov tomorrow morning with diving. Like you say, no way will they. Why ? Do you think they will charge walcott with diving? There was about as much contact as the berbatov incident and theo even admitted it. If that's a dive, as you said it was yesterday, then the berbatov one has to be to surely? Hell, even junior called it a dive on the Liverpool v man U thread. I bet he's hastily deleting his comment now he's discovered master has a different view. ;D ;D It will be interesting to see what they do with Walcott to be honest. I think he should be charged. You say there was as much contact as the one with Walcott. This is interesting in that it was only after Walcott admitted that he dived that it was brought up on here and none of the pundits (to my memory) said at the time that he dived. This means that until he admitted it most people on here and the pundits did not think he dived. So basically if one was thought of as a dive at the time and one was not, why was this when as you say there was a similar amount of contact. Would it be because most people thought that Walcott did not dive at the time? If so then it kinda shows how hard it is to be 100% that someone has dived. To me the amount of contact is not always important when your running, the slightest touch could make you lose your balance. The fact that someone did not go down straight away does not, to me, say that it was a dive. If you lose your balance you can easily take a couple of strides to go down. I do not condone diving! I am not a Man Utd supporter! To me, purely from an objective view, the evidence is inconclusive that Berbatov dived. The same as it was with Walcott until he admitted it!
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 16:54:10 GMT
OK, I'll try to adopt a more reasonable stance. There are two issues here. First, given the benefit of slow motion replays and several TV angles, was it a penalty? Secondly, as the referee and linesman had no such assistance available, could they be forgiven for making the wrong decision at the time. For me, the answers are "no" and "yes". Agger went for the tackle, so he did stick the leg out. But the leg didn't make contact. The contact was a slight shove in the back from Agger on Berbatov. If Berbatov had gone straight down I could understand a penalty being given. He didn't. He carried on for another step - with perfect balance - before throwing himself. The shove did not cause him to go down. No penalty. However, whenever a human being is involved mistakes can be made. And talk of whether Berbatov will be charged or not is a nonsense red herring. How many times is ANY player charged under similar circumstances? If players were charged every time a dodgy decision was made the FA's administration would buckle. they don't get charged because it is a very hard thing to prove. If it is very obvious they often get booked. if it is not that obvious it means it is very hard to prove, even with video and thus the FA will not charge.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 9, 2011 16:58:18 GMT
Do you think they will charge walcott with diving? There was about as much contact as the berbatov incident and theo even admitted it. If that's a dive, as you said it was yesterday, then the berbatov one has to be to surely? Hell, even junior called it a dive on the Liverpool v man U thread. I bet he's hastily deleting his comment now he's discovered master has a different view. ;D ;D It will be interesting to see what they do with Walcott to be honest. I think he should be charged. You say there was as much contact as the one with Walcott. This is interesting in that it was only after Walcott admitted that he dived that it was brought up on here and none of the pundits (to my memory) said at the time that he dived. This means that until he admitted it most people on here and the pundits did not think he dived. So basically if one was thought of as a dive at the time and one was not, why was this when as you say there was a similar amount of contact. Would it be because most people thought that Walcott did not dive at the time? If so then it kinda shows how hard it is to be 100% that someone has dived. To me the amount of contact is not always important when your running, the slightest touch could make you lose your balance. The fact that someone did not go down straight away does not, to me, say that it was a dive. If you lose your balance you can easily take a couple of strides to go down. I do not condone diving! I am not a Man Utd supporter! To me, purely from an objective view, the evidence is inconclusive that Berbatov dived. The same as it was with Walcott until he admitted it! I'm sorry but i have to disagree. If that is the case with Berbatov then he could not possibly have taken at least two more confident strides like he did before falling over. And if he was indeed tripped why did he not go down like he was tripped and not, to borrow a phrase from baldy, 'like he had been shot by a sniper.' EDIT: And you're not telling me that a hand on the back is enough to put you off balance? Are you?
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 17:10:20 GMT
It will be interesting to see what they do with Walcott to be honest. I think he should be charged. You say there was as much contact as the one with Walcott. This is interesting in that it was only after Walcott admitted that he dived that it was brought up on here and none of the pundits (to my memory) said at the time that he dived. This means that until he admitted it most people on here and the pundits did not think he dived. So basically if one was thought of as a dive at the time and one was not, why was this when as you say there was a similar amount of contact. Would it be because most people thought that Walcott did not dive at the time? If so then it kinda shows how hard it is to be 100% that someone has dived. To me the amount of contact is not always important when your running, the slightest touch could make you lose your balance. The fact that someone did not go down straight away does not, to me, say that it was a dive. If you lose your balance you can easily take a couple of strides to go down. I do not condone diving! I am not a Man Utd supporter! To me, purely from an objective view, the evidence is inconclusive that Berbatov dived. The same as it was with Walcott until he admitted it! I'm sorry but i have to disagree. If that is the case with Berbatov then he could not possibly have taken at least two more confident strides like he did before falling over. And if he was indeed tripped why did he not go down like he was tripped and not, to borrow a phrase from baldy, 'like he had been shot by a sniper.' EDIT: And you're not telling me that a hand on the back is enough to put you off balance? Are you? I have just looked at the replay again and he does not take two confident steps after he does or does not get touched, as you say. He barely takes one! From the other angle (not on this video i have linked) you can see his back foot give way. I am not saying he did not dive but i can not in the life of me see how any of the video evidence is conclusive. Unless some type of snicker technolgy is used (like the cricket) then for me the evidence is really not clear on this one. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIzaCZ6Ptew
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 17:12:27 GMT
It will be interesting to see what they do with Walcott to be honest. I think he should be charged. You say there was as much contact as the one with Walcott. This is interesting in that it was only after Walcott admitted that he dived that it was brought up on here and none of the pundits (to my memory) said at the time that he dived. This means that until he admitted it most people on here and the pundits did not think he dived. So basically if one was thought of as a dive at the time and one was not, why was this when as you say there was a similar amount of contact. Would it be because most people thought that Walcott did not dive at the time? If so then it kinda shows how hard it is to be 100% that someone has dived. To me the amount of contact is not always important when your running, the slightest touch could make you lose your balance. The fact that someone did not go down straight away does not, to me, say that it was a dive. If you lose your balance you can easily take a couple of strides to go down. I do not condone diving! I am not a Man Utd supporter! To me, purely from an objective view, the evidence is inconclusive that Berbatov dived. The same as it was with Walcott until he admitted it! I'm sorry but i have to disagree. If that is the case with Berbatov then he could not possibly have taken at least two more confident strides like he did before falling over. And if he was indeed tripped why did he not go down like he was tripped and not, to borrow a phrase from baldy, 'like he had been shot by a sniper.' EDIT: And you're not telling me that a hand on the back is enough to put you off balance? Are you? Asolute rubbish. You are saying that from the point of contact Berbatov took TWO full strides (5', maybe 6') before hitting the deck. And I also assume you are saying that he was NOT on the way down but that he just decided to fling himself to the floor two strides later ? Have I interpreted what you are saying correctly ?
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 9, 2011 17:14:46 GMT
It is very, very easy to keep your balance while running. Far easier than when standing still. Any slight knocks are easily brushed off, any tugs easily brushed off, shoulder barges will simply make you change your direction. If someone snaps at your ankles, you just put your head down and you're right back on balance. Berbatov had a hand on his shoulder. While running he probably wouldn't have felt that, let alone have it push him down. He dodged the leg, it very clearly doesn't touch him and there's no way Agger actively would try and foul him in the box. No penalty.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 17:23:02 GMT
It is very, very easy to keep your balance while running. Far easier than when standing still. Any slight knocks are easily brushed off, any tugs easily brushed off, shoulder barges will simply make you change your direction. If someone snaps at your ankles, you just put your head down and you're right back on balance. Berbatov had a hand on his shoulder. While running he probably wouldn't have felt that, let alone have it push him down. He dodged the leg, it very clearly doesn't touch him and there's no way Agger actively would try and foul him in the box. No penalty. Are you are a sports scientist because you really are talking a load of rubbish. Have you ever played football? A shoulder barge or a slight knock when your running at full speed can send you flying! In addition i don't think that Agger tried to foul him, i think he tried to get the ball. Most fouls are committed by people trying to get the ball but missing and only a small amount of fouls are caused by people deliberately fouling, again surely anyone who likes football would know this.I don't know if he dived or not, IMO the video is far from conclusive!
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 17:23:13 GMT
It is very, very easy to keep your balance while running. Far easier than when standing still. Any slight knocks are easily brushed off, any tugs easily brushed off, shoulder barges will simply make you change your direction. If someone snaps at your ankles, you just put your head down and you're right back on balance. Berbatov had a hand on his shoulder. While running he probably wouldn't have felt that, let alone have it push him down. He dodged the leg, it very clearly doesn't touch him and there's no way Agger actively would try and foul him in the box. No penalty. My god, some of that takes some believing. You are saying that it is easier to trip up a man, lets say 6' tall, when he is standing still and bolt upright than it is when he is running along ? I would say it is nigh impossible to trip someone up standing still but very, very easy to do so when they are jinking along with a ball at their foot. Just to paint the picture, I am sitting here shaking my head in disbelief when posting this.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 17:25:11 GMT
It is very, very easy to keep your balance while running. Far easier than when standing still. Any slight knocks are easily brushed off, any tugs easily brushed off, shoulder barges will simply make you change your direction. If someone snaps at your ankles, you just put your head down and you're right back on balance. Berbatov had a hand on his shoulder. While running he probably wouldn't have felt that, let alone have it push him down. He dodged the leg, it very clearly doesn't touch him and there's no way Agger actively would try and foul him in the box. No penalty. Are you are a sports scientist because you really are talking a load of rubbish. Have you ever played football? A shoulder barge or a slight knock when your running at full speed can send you flying! In addition i don't think that Agger tried to foul him, i think he tried to get the ball. Most fouls are committed by people trying to get the ball but missing and only a small amount of fouls are caused by people deliberately fouling, again surely anyone who likes football would know this.I don't know if he dived or not, IMO the video is far from conclusive! You keep beating me to these replies but I totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 9, 2011 17:40:05 GMT
I'm sorry but i have to disagree. If that is the case with Berbatov then he could not possibly have taken at least two more confident strides like he did before falling over. And if he was indeed tripped why did he not go down like he was tripped and not, to borrow a phrase from baldy, 'like he had been shot by a sniper.' EDIT: And you're not telling me that a hand on the back is enough to put you off balance? Are you? Asolute rubbish. You are saying that from the point of contact Berbatov took TWO full strides (5', maybe 6') before hitting the deck. And I also assume you are saying that he was NOT on the way down but that he just decided to fling himself to the floor two strides later ? Have I interpreted what you are saying correctly ? Argument about the number of strides taken is just desperate deflection on your part baldy. You paint berbatov as a 6 foot sphinx in one post and then imply that a hand on his houlder is enough to cause him to go down. The leg DID NOT MAKE CONTACT. If it had i would not be arguing because it would have been a clear penalty. As it was it didn't and you are trying to argue that a six foot something supposedly powerful striker like berbatov was felled by less than a pat on the back.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Jan 9, 2011 17:45:08 GMT
There was contact... slight contact.
But the thing that makes me laugh (in all these penalty shouts, not just this one) is just because there was contact why everyone assumes there should then be a penalty.
If legs making contact is a foul, then practically every tackle in every game all over the pitch would be a foul!
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 17:46:34 GMT
Asolute rubbish. You are saying that from the point of contact Berbatov took TWO full strides (5', maybe 6') before hitting the deck. And I also assume you are saying that he was NOT on the way down but that he just decided to fling himself to the floor two strides later ? Have I interpreted what you are saying correctly ? Argument about the number of strides taken is just desperate deflection on your part baldy. You paint berbatov as a 6 foot sphinx in one post and then imply that a hand on his houlder is enough to cause him to go down. The leg DID NOT MAKE CONTACT. If it had i would not be arguing because it would have been a clear penalty. As it was it didn't and you are trying to argue that a six foot something supposedly powerful striker like berbatov was felled by less than a pat on the back. There is CLEAR contact leg on leg. I dont know what you are watching to call it differently.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jan 9, 2011 17:48:55 GMT
Berbatov's penalty claim was just as much a penalty for Walcott's one that wasn't given yesterday. But because it was at Old Trafford the ref gave it. Berbatov being awarded the MOM award was a total disgrace by ITV and sends a message out to children up and down the country that it's perfectly acceptable to cheat your way to victory.
|
|