|
Post by Dougie07 on Jan 9, 2011 20:21:53 GMT
25 yards? Not far? It's a quarter of the bloody pitch! This will rumble on depending on your opinions of football as a contact sport, but keep it sensible. Claiming that a referee 25 yards away, on the wrong side of the incident is in a better position than his lineman is just a little silly.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 20:38:29 GMT
25 yards? Not far? It's a quarter of the bloody pitch! This will rumble on depending on your opinions of football as a contact sport, but keep it sensible. Claiming that a referee 25 yards away, on the wrong side of the incident is in a better position than his lineman is just a little silly. I did not say he was in a better position so don't know where you got that from? I have cut and pasted this from page five as I cannot be bothered to write it again. 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 Berbatov 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. In addition to the above, the 25 yards is Big Sam's view point it could be nearer. I don't know how well you can see but 25 yards is really not far. If you stand on the edge of the box and look at the goal, he was about another five yards behind that (you really think that's to far to see the incident?!). His view may have been better to see the trajectory of the ball than the linesman ie if it looked like Agger touched the ball or not. Keep what sensible?
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 20:49:37 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. It does raise the question 'How would even VT sort this out' ? We've debated for hours about it and still no further forward. As for the linesman and referee, both had their view obscured. The linesman couldnt have had a clear view and been absolutely sure. Webb had a slightly clearer view and would have seen Aggers leg stretch out and make no contact with the ball. I do think there is an element of guesswork in every decision like this. A referee cannot say every time 'Yes, I saw the foul. Penalty'. It is a case of putting two and two together and when you see an outstretched leg, the ball not change direction and the player go down you are making a decision based on that as opposed to actually being 100% sure you saw actual contact. People get put down for murder but the judge is never there when it happens. He weighs up the evidence and decides. Strange anallergy by me but you get what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jan 9, 2011 20:53:56 GMT
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. It does raise the question 'How would even VT sort this out' ? We've debated for hours about it and still no further forward. As for the linesman and referee, both had their view obscured. The linesman couldnt have had a clear view and been absolutely sure. Webb had a slightly clearer view and would have seen Aggers leg stretch out and make no contact with the ball. I do think there is an element of guesswork in every decision like this. A referee cannot say every time 'Yes, I saw the foul. Penalty'. It is a case of putting two and two together and when you see an outstretched leg, the ball not change direction and the player go down you are making a decision based on that as opposed to actually being 100% sure you saw actual contact. People get put down for murder but the judge is never there when it happens. He weighs up the evidence and decides. Strange anallergy by me but you get what I mean. So if Howard Webb is anything less than 100% certain there was contact, surely that means there must be no penalty awarded? I've seen it numerous times, and I can't tell for sure even with the benefit of slo-mo, reverse angle and so on. The fact that Berbatov went to ground two strides after the alleged trip indicates to me that Berbatov tried to con the ref.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 9, 2011 20:56:59 GMT
If you want to use that analogy then a jury has to give verdict that is "beyond reasonable doubt".
I have always defended the refs on here and I'm not blaming Howard Webb for this one. He gave what he thought he saw.
I have called for the use of VT. Any punishments should be handed out where the "offence" is "beyond reasonable doubt", but equally a penalty should only be given if the ref is sure "beyond reasonable doubt"
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 21:02:09 GMT
If you want to use that analogy then a jury has to give verdict that is "beyond reasonable doubt". I have always defended the refs on here and I'm not blaming Howard Webb for this one. He gave what he thought he saw. I have called for the use of VT. Any punishments should be handed out where the "offence" is "beyond reasonable doubt", but equally a penalty should only be given if the ref is sure "beyond reasonable doubt" Yes, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 1) Outstretched leg 2) Ball does not change direction 3) Attacker goes down That, to me, seems beyond reasonable doubt because you can see the attempted tackle has been made, nothing on the ball and the player going over. How much more 'beyond reasonable doubt' do you want it to be ?
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 21:02:49 GMT
It does raise the question 'How would even VT sort this out' ? We've debated for hours about it and still no further forward. As for the linesman and referee, both had their view obscured. The linesman couldnt have had a clear view and been absolutely sure. Webb had a slightly clearer view and would have seen Aggers leg stretch out and make no contact with the ball. I do think there is an element of guesswork in every decision like this. A referee cannot say every time 'Yes, I saw the foul. Penalty'. It is a case of putting two and two together and when you see an outstretched leg, the ball not change direction and the player go down you are making a decision based on that as opposed to actually being 100% sure you saw actual contact. People get put down for murder but the judge is never there when it happens. He weighs up the evidence and decides. Strange anallergy by me but you get what I mean. So if Howard Webb is anything less than 100% certain there was contact, surely that means there must be no penalty awarded? I've seen it numerous times, and I can't tell for sure even with the benefit of slo-mo, reverse angle and so on. The fact that Berbatov went to ground two strides after the alleged trip indicates to me that Berbatov tried to con the ref. In realation to when he went down, i don't think he did take two strides but i'm not gonna get into that as i have discussed earlier in this thread. I think what Baldy meant was that you weigh up everything when deciding if it was penalty even if you cannot see the exact contact. So from his angle he could see that Agger lunged across, he could see that he did not get the ball (trajectory) and he could see that Berbatov went down smoothly and from this he was 100% sure it was a penalty even without having the best angle to see the contact.
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 9, 2011 21:03:12 GMT
I don't completely go along with the argument that 'if there's contact, it's a pen'. err, no it isn't, it has to be a clear foul.
Baldy is trying to justify a simulation by pointing to a slight contact. This is the issue, the opponent see's a defender coming in to challenge or stick his foot out to block a shot, attacker pre empts this and brushes off the defender or goes over once contact has been made because they know if there's contact, refs will give a pen. That doesn't mean it's right, contact or no contact is irrelevant, it has to be a clear foul.
Perhaps a rule change is neccesary?
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 9, 2011 21:05:41 GMT
If you want to use that analogy then a jury has to give verdict that is "beyond reasonable doubt". I have always defended the refs on here and I'm not blaming Howard Webb for this one. He gave what he thought he saw. I have called for the use of VT. Any punishments should be handed out where the "offence" is "beyond reasonable doubt", but equally a penalty should only be given if the ref is sure "beyond reasonable doubt" Yes, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 1) Outstretched leg 2) Ball does not change direction 3) Attacker goes down That, to me, seems beyond reasonable doubt because you can see the attempted tackle has been made, nothing on the ball and the player going over. How much more 'beyond reasonable doubt' do you want it to be ? This is the problem 1) I see defender coming in to challenge 2) he makes any sort of contact 3) I fall over / pretend he fouled me 4) I get a penalty
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 9, 2011 21:06:32 GMT
If you want to use that analogy then a jury has to give verdict that is "beyond reasonable doubt". I have always defended the refs on here and I'm not blaming Howard Webb for this one. He gave what he thought he saw. I have called for the use of VT. Any punishments should be handed out where the "offence" is "beyond reasonable doubt", but equally a penalty should only be given if the ref is sure "beyond reasonable doubt" Yes, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 1) Outstretched leg 2) Ball does not change direction 3) Attacker goes down That, to me, seems beyond reasonable doubt because you can see the attempted tackle has been made, nothing on the ball and the player going over. How much more 'beyond reasonable doubt' do you want it to be ? Interesting that you make no mention of any kind of contact.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 21:06:44 GMT
If you want to use that analogy then a jury has to give verdict that is "beyond reasonable doubt". I have always defended the refs on here and I'm not blaming Howard Webb for this one. He gave what he thought he saw. I have called for the use of VT. Any punishments should be handed out where the "offence" is "beyond reasonable doubt", but equally a penalty should only be given if the ref is sure "beyond reasonable doubt" Agree but you do know that beyond reasonable doubt does not mean 100% sure ie that no doubt exists. From what Webb saw i am sure he was beyond reasonable doubt by the way.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 9, 2011 21:11:56 GMT
If you want to use that analogy then a jury has to give verdict that is "beyond reasonable doubt". I have always defended the refs on here and I'm not blaming Howard Webb for this one. He gave what he thought he saw. I have called for the use of VT. Any punishments should be handed out where the "offence" is "beyond reasonable doubt", but equally a penalty should only be given if the ref is sure "beyond reasonable doubt" Agree but you do know that beyond reasonable doubt does not mean 100% sure ie that no doubt exists. From what Webb saw i am sure he was beyond reasonable doubt by the way. As I said Webb gave what he saw (or thought he saw).
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 9, 2011 21:26:40 GMT
If the consensus is that the video evidence is inconclusive (which even baldy agrees with) then the reality must also have been similarly inconclusive. If that is the case then Webb still should not have given it as a penalty because he could not have been sure that it was so. This is when he should have looked at his assistant who had not flagged and not given the penalty.
Sadly it was at OT where even the weakest of penalty appeals from the home side invariably results in a decision while the strongest of calls from the opposition fall on deaf ears.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox on Jan 9, 2011 21:37:50 GMT
If the consensus is that the video evidence is inconclusive (which even baldy agrees with) then the reality must also have been similarly inconclusive. If that is the case then Webb still should not have given it as a penalty because he could not have been sure that it was so. This is when he should have looked at his assistant who had not flagged and not given the penalty. Sadly it was at OT where even the weakest of penalty appeals from the home side invariably results in a decision while the strongest of calls from the opposition fall on deaf ears. Nor had he flagged to say that he had dived. The reality of a slow motion replay and the reality of a fast moving incident that you only see once are two different things. Therefore, to say that Webb could not have been sure that it was correct based on not being sure from a slow motion replay is not a very good argument. Being sure about something and being correct about it are not the same. A couple of years ago i got injured playing football. I was sure my ankle was broken but the xray at the hospital told me it wasn't. My view is Webb was sure which is why he gave the penalty. Whether he was correct, well that's imconclusive IMO!
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 21:45:36 GMT
I don't completely go along with the argument that 'if there's contact, it's a pen'. err, no it isn't, it has to be a clear foul. Baldy is trying to justify a simulation by pointing to a slight contact. This is the issue, the opponent see's a defender coming in to challenge or stick his foot out to block a shot, attacker pre empts this and brushes off the defender or goes over once contact has been made because they know if there's contact, refs will give a pen. That doesn't mean it's right, contact or no contact is irrelevant, it has to be a clear foul. Perhaps a rule change is neccesary? There doesn't have to be contact for it to be a penalty. If a forward skips over a trailing leg but his balance causes him to go over then that is a penalty. I think there was contact today, I'm sure of it, but even had there not of been Aggers challenge was rash and nowhere near the ball so if berbatov hurdled that challenge but his momentum took him down then that is a penalty. Its a penalty whichever way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by 'Beav' on Jan 9, 2011 21:54:33 GMT
I don't completely go along with the argument that 'if there's contact, it's a pen'. err, no it isn't, it has to be a clear foul. Baldy is trying to justify a simulation by pointing to a slight contact. This is the issue, the opponent see's a defender coming in to challenge or stick his foot out to block a shot, attacker pre empts this and brushes off the defender or goes over once contact has been made because they know if there's contact, refs will give a pen. That doesn't mean it's right, contact or no contact is irrelevant, it has to be a clear foul. Perhaps a rule change is neccesary? There doesn't have to be contact for it to be a penalty. If a forward skips over a trailing leg but his balance causes him to go over then that is a penalty. I think there was contact today, I'm sure of it, but even had there not of been Aggers challenge was rash and nowhere near the ball so if berbatov hurdled that challenge but his momentum took him down then that is a penalty. Its a penalty whichever way you look at it. I swear you're contradicting yourself with a comment about Nasri that's been said earlier in the season but i'm not going down that route. I might have changed my mind. It might be a pen From 11 seconds you see that Berbatov reaches over his leg essentially he could have just won a penalty by not trying to carry on over Aggers leg and gone down that way but he tries to remained balances but as you see he can't (a spray of grass comes off his boot) then his right leg goes down at a weird angle in an attempt to correct himself. No dive in my opinion. Penalty... gaaahhhhhhhhh
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Jan 9, 2011 22:57:51 GMT
There doesn't have to be contact for it to be a penalty. If a forward skips over a trailing leg but his balance causes him to go over then that is a penalty. I think there was contact today, I'm sure of it, but even had there not of been Aggers challenge was rash and nowhere near the ball so if berbatov hurdled that challenge but his momentum took him down then that is a penalty. Its a penalty whichever way you look at it. I swear you're contradicting yourself with a comment about Nasri that's been said earlier in the season but i'm not going down that route. I might have changed my mind. It might be a pen From 11 seconds you see that Berbatov reaches over his leg essentially he could have just won a penalty by not trying to carry on over Aggers leg and gone down that way but he tries to remained balances but as you see he can't (a spray of grass comes off his boot) then his right leg goes down at a weird angle in an attempt to correct himself. No dive in my opinion. Penalty... gaaahhhhhhhhh Yep, just looked at it eight times and I concur with you - penalty. I don't want to stoke this any more but was there a case for sending Agger off ? I mean Berbatov is in on goal if he's not fouled. Just had another look and I think Liveropool get away with that - red card.
|
|
|
Post by ConcreteBob on Jan 9, 2011 23:00:48 GMT
Yep, just looked at it eight times and I concur with you - penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Jan 9, 2011 23:25:08 GMT
Baldy, you've had alot to say on this subject and that's your opinion, fair enough, I respect it nonetheless. But don't you dare come on this forum again and start barking about Eduardo, Nasri, and Robin Van Persie 'going down easy', 'cheating', 'conning the ref' and 'touch their ankles and they go over like they've been shot' and shit like that because today we have seen a classic example of exactly the sort of sportmanship which you are ever so quick to criticise, especially if it concerns an Arsenal player.
You will forever have this thrown in your face, be warned...
|
|
|
Post by The Resurrection on Jan 9, 2011 23:36:47 GMT
As far as I'm concerned it's a dive. The contact is absolutely minimal, certainly not enough to make anyone go down. He definatly carries on running after the 'tackle' as well.
^ Good post by Moobs too.
|
|