|
Post by YellowHoods on Jan 9, 2011 17:50:26 GMT
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. Well he's probably watching the same replays as you. Maybe a touch of humility is needed here Baldy. Just writing "clear" in capitals doesn't mean it's so. Obviously people's visual interpretations vary. Or perhaps you think your view is always right?
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 17:55:41 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. I guess this where me and you differ! IMO the video (slow motion) replay is just not conclusive. It seems that some on here such as you state there was no contact while others like LJS state there was. The fact that even with slow motion technology two people can have completely different views on whether there was contact or not just adds further evidence that the video replays do not tell us whether he dived or not.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 17:58:45 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. The game i watched, the ref did give the penalty for the foul on Walcott. He chnged his mind as the linesman had his flag up for offside!
|
|
|
Post by OxYellow on Jan 9, 2011 18:02:31 GMT
baldy how can you one minute be slamming theo walcott for diving like Tom Daley on another thread, then when Berbatov does exactly the same thing and wins a penalty that decides a crucial game, be defending it??!! It's a great shame, that the majority of cheats get away with it in these big games.
|
|
|
Post by ConcreteBob on Jan 9, 2011 18:04:51 GMT
baldy how can you one minute be slamming theo walcott for diving like Tom Daley on another thread, then when Berbatov does exactly the same thing and wins a penalty that decides a crucial game, be defending it??!! It's a great shame, that the majority of cheats get away with it in these big games. Because he has to apply his childish Manchester United bias to everything.
|
|
|
Post by Long Live Clarkey on Jan 9, 2011 18:05:08 GMT
Beginning to wish I hadn't started this thread. Some of the hostility that goes on here is really ridiculous, on every side. I think from now on I'll stop looking at the N&I section, it is a bit worrying that this thread has 6 pages of replies and yet 'thoughts arising from the aldershot game' barely has two. Not challenging any of your rights to post, but it's definitely worth mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 18:06:17 GMT
baldy how can you one minute be slamming theo walcott for diving like Tom Daley on another thread, then when Berbatov does exactly the same thing and wins a penalty that decides a crucial game, be defending it??!! It's a great shame, that the majority of cheats get away with it in these big games. The issue with Walcott is that nobody thought he had dived until he admitted it. Hence we know he dived. I can't see how anyone can be sure whether Berbatov dived or not!
|
|
|
Post by 'Beav' on Jan 9, 2011 18:16:46 GMT
Watched it and I'm almost certain it wasn't a dive. His left leg goes down and he's leaning forward and his right leg cannot keep him upright. I cannot tell if contact forced the error or he just lost balance.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 18:24:42 GMT
If you look at the incident closely Berbatov starts to tumble at the exact moment Agger stretches his leg which is also at the exact time his hand makes contact with Berbatovs back. Its not the hand on the back I'm calling for it is the contact between legs. There really isn't any sort of delayed reaction, sheer momentum says that he's going to end up a few feet from impact. The contact also appears to be from Aggers knee just clipping Berbatov as he goes past.
I admit that he wasnt scythed down but contact is still contact.
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 9, 2011 18:51:09 GMT
I think it's a shame Man Utd have to resort to conning the ref in their pursuit of success. Their ethos of winning at all costs will include cheating.
My view is that because referees will always give those decisions in favour of Man Utd, their players will go down easily knowing the ref will always give them the decision. Howard Webb is no different to Graham Poll and almost all refs who are just itching to give Man U a cheap penalty. Webb's first instinct, rather than look at his assistant who was not signalling was to give a penalty as if it's scripted beforehand.
Webb was ref for the Man U Arsenal match and gave them their obligatory non-penalty so he's got previous, you could tell that day he was just itching to give it. The ref has made his mind up before the match has started. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a cheeky wink between Webb and Fergie as they went off
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 9, 2011 19:03:20 GMT
I think it's a shame Man Utd footballers have to resort to conning the ref in their pursuit of success. Their ethos of winning at all costs will include cheating.
Time for video reviews and long bans/points deductions for clear cheating/feigning injury/etc.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 19:08:49 GMT
I think it's a shame Man Utd footballers have to resort to conning the ref in their pursuit of success. Their ethos of winning at all costs will include cheating. Time for video reviews and long bans/points deductions for clear cheating/feigning injury/etc. They already use video reviews (the should use it more). In this case, as the video even when slowed down is inconclusive, reviewing the video will not bring anything to the table. Diving is a very difficult thing to prove, even if a video shows no contact you have prove that the player dived and did not slip ect.
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 19:27:38 GMT
It is a very similar incident to the Campbell challenge on Rooney in Pizzagate. Rooney made full use of a stupid challenge and Ferguson asked the question 'Whats his leg doing outstretrched a foot and a half in the air and the ball 10 metres away'
He's still awaiting an answer and that was nearly six years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Dougie07 on Jan 9, 2011 19:44:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 9, 2011 19:45:55 GMT
It is a very similar incident to the Campbell challenge on Rooney in Pizzagate. Rooney made full use of a stupid challenge and Ferguson asked the question 'Whats his leg doing outstretrched a foot and a half in the air and the ball 10 metres away' He's still awaiting an answer and that was nearly six years ago. It was a rhetorical question.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 19:54:08 GMT
There is already a link in this thread for the video. The video you have linked is inconclusive. When your running a slight touch can make you fall. This video does not tell us anything apart from Berbatovs back leg does give way.
|
|
|
Post by Dougie07 on Jan 9, 2011 19:59:43 GMT
Apologies. I haven't read the whole thread. Missed a bit of it during the second half. However, if a slow-motion replay can't confirm enough contact to make a man fall, how can a referee overrule his linesman (who is in a vastly surperior position) with 100% certainty?
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 20:04:28 GMT
I dont think it is inconclusive but if the general feeling is that it is then perhaps we should look deeper. Berbatov has no reputation, at Man U or Spurs, for diving and why would he just fall down in that position.
He had beaten Agger on the outside and would have been in on the angle towards the six yard box. He had the ball under control, there was just no need to go over.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 20:14:38 GMT
Apologies. I haven't read the whole thread. Missed a bit of it during the second half. However, if a slow-motion replay can't confirm enough contact to make a man fall, how can a referee overrule his linesman (who is in a vastly surperior position) with 100% certainty? This is the thing I don't think he was in a significantly worse position. He was 25 yards (according to Big Sam) behind the play. Thats really not far. The linesman didn't flag for a penalty but he didn't for a dive either!
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 20:17:49 GMT
I dont think it is inconclusive but if the general feeling is that it is then perhaps we should look deeper. Berbatov has no reputation, at Man U or Spurs, for diving and why would he just fall down in that position. He had beaten Agger on the outside and would have been in on the angle towards the six yard box. He had the ball under control, there was just no need to go over. The general opinion (on here) seems to be that he dived. I disagree that the video shows this but it does not stand out as a def penalty to me either. Thats not me sitting on the fence, its my honest opinion of the video.
|
|