*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[Uppercut]

Whether or not Almunia brought him down (arguable as he was already on his way down) I don't see how he was denied an opportunity to score when he had no chance in hell of reaching the ball.

Yeah, still a foul though. Don't know why Almunia got a yellow card for it.

 

[duffer]

Yep. Doesn't make it not a foul though.

Let's be clear here. Rooney was running really, realllllly fast and he saw a large body about to throw itself in front of him. Was he supposed to keep on running normally and allow himself to be taken out?

As sledger said you can make the exact same case for Eduardo as Boruc was sliding into him. Rooney's obviously perfected the art better.

Like I said earlier if he had no chance of reaching the ball how exactly is it a penalty? Refs have been denying penalties for this very reason as there was no disadvantage to the attacking team.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yep. Doesn't make it not a foul though.

Let's be clear here. Rooney was running really, realllllly fast and he saw a large body about to throw itself in front of him. Was he supposed to keep on running normally and allow himself to be taken out?

That's the way "not diving" works, yes. That or leap over the advancing keeper.

I don't blame Whine for diving, pretty much every striker does it, but to say he's not diving when he's already falling over before any contact is made doesn't fit my understanding of it.

Call it what you want: "being cute", "earning the penalty", "drawing a foul", it all amounts to the same thing.

 

[Uppercut]

Like I said earlier if he had no chance of reaching the ball how exactly is it a penalty? Refs have been denying penalties for this very reason as there was no disadvantage to the attacking team.

Because Law 12 states that tripping a player in the other team is a foul, and should be punished with a direct free kick or a penalty if it occurs inside the penalty box. It doesn't say anything about having a chance of reaching the ball, the only exception is if the ball is out of play when the foul takes place.

If referees have been denying penalties because there was no disadvantage to the attacking team, they ballsed up. Simple as. It frustrates me how many football fans don't know the basic rules of the game.

 

[Uppercut]

That's the way "not diving" works, yes. That or leap over the advancing keeper.

I don't blame Whine for diving, pretty much every striker does it, but to say he's not diving when he's already falling over before any contact is made doesn't fit my understanding of it.

Call it what you want: "being cute", "earning the penalty", "drawing a foul", it all amounts to the same thing.

Don't rightly agree. If you've ever been tripped while running full-pelt you'll know how quickly it happens, and how horribly unpleasant it is. Only in the context of a football match would anyone re-watch it in super-slo-mo to show that you actually started to fall 0.001 seconds before you were taken out (a natural self-preserving reaction).

 

[sledger]

Because Law 12 states that tripping a player in the other team is a foul, and should be punished with a direct free kick or a penalty if it occurs inside the penalty box. It doesn't say anything about having a chance of reaching the ball, the only exception is if the ball is out of play when the foul takes place.

If referees have been denying penalties because there was no disadvantage to the attacking team, they ballsed up. Simple as. It frustrates me how many football fans don't know the basic rules of the game.

Yeah indeed, my main gripe with the penalty was the fact that this is what the rules say rather than the fault of the referee for giving it. That said, if a player in midfield booted the ball out and was clattered after getting rid, I would expect to see a card dealt, so really I can't feel that hard done by, just frustrated I guess.

 

[duffer]

Because Law 12 states that tripping a player in the other team is a foul, and should be punished with a direct free kick or a penalty if it occurs inside the penalty box. It doesn't say anything about having a chance of reaching the ball, the only exception is if the ball is out of play when the foul takes place.

If referees have been denying penalties because there was no disadvantage to the attacking team, they ballsed up. Simple as. It frustrates me how many football fans don't know the basic rules of the game.

Heh, well then please explain to me how a player already falling over can be deemed to have been tripped by the goalkeeper. Or how exactly Fletcher got away with a far more stonewall penalty earlier in the same game.

 

[Uppercut]

Heh, well then please explain to me how a player already falling over can be deemed to have been tripped by the goalkeeper. Or how exactly Fletcher got away with a far more stonewall penalty earlier in the same game.

Regarding Fletcher, because the referee made a mistake.

Incidentally, the rules of football also state that attempting to trip a player is a direct free kick offence too. So even if Rooney had hurdled Almunia and no contact was actually made, a penalty still would have been the right decision. Truth be told, once Almunia threw himself in front of Rooney while he was running full-speed, the striker's actions became irrelevant and penalty was the correct decision.

You might disagree with them, but they're the rules.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't rightly agree. If you've ever been tripped while running full-pelt you'll know how quickly it happens, and how horribly unpleasant it is. Only in the context of a football match would anyone re-watch it in super-slo-mo to show that you actually started to fall 0.001 seconds before you were taken out (a natural self-preserving reaction).

Don't buy the "Rooney's a soft-****" argument, tbh & doubt he'd thank you for making it for him either. There's no way he couldn't have avoided either going to ground or avoiding the challenge if he were so minded. You're defending the indefensible.

 

[Uppercut]

Bollocks. If you think Rooney did anything wrong by going down in anticipation of being taken out while running ridiculously fast then I suspect it's been a long, long time since you played the game yourself.

 

[duffer]

Regarding Fletcher, because the referee made a mistake.

Incidentally, the rules of football also state that attempting to trip a player is a direct free kick offence too. So even if Rooney had hurdled Almunia and no contact was actually made, a penalty still would have been the right decision. Truth be told, once Almunia threw himself in front of Rooney while he was running full-speed, the striker's actions became irrelevant and penalty was the correct decision.

You might disagree with them, but they're the rules.

He came to play the ball, he didn't attempt to trip Rooney and neither did he actually trip Rooney.

 

[Uppercut]

Nevertheless, the point is that flinging yourself in front of someone running full-pelt is a penalty offence regardless of the actions of that player.

 

[Loony BoB]

Bollocks. If you think Rooney did anything wrong by going down in anticipation of being taken out while running ridiculously fast then I suspect it's been a long, long time since you played the game yourself.

Let alone watched your own team. >_>

 

[duffer]

What, where? So defenders aren't allowed to throw themselves at the ball when a player is through on goal? Which is what Almunia did.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bollocks. If you think Rooney did anything wrong by going down in anticipation of being taken out while running ridiculously fast then I suspect it's been a long, long time since you played the game yourself.

That's just a rehash of the old "if you can't do, don't criticise" argument. Taken to its conclusion it would render 99.99% of the criticism any player of any sport gets on CW pointless.

Check out FIFA's current guidelines for the interpretation of Law 12 (page 114). A player is deemed to have commited the offence of unsportsman like behavious if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)", not mention of "unless he's running really quickly and thinks he'll probably be fouled anyway".

 

[Loony BoB]

Curious, actually - what do you guys think is better out of the following? I honestly don't care, but I'm interested because I've seen this happen so many times...

1. Striker runs flat out towards goal, goalkeeper slides in front of him giving little time for striker to move out of way. Striker hurls himself over keeper, effectively diving.
2. Striker runs flat out towards goal, goalkeeper slides in front of him giving little time for striker to move out of way. Striker slams into keeper foot first, potentially injuring keeper.

Honestly don't mind either, as I said, but one has to wonder if the striker can ever 'win' in such a situation. I've seen Rooney do both of these things and have also seen him simply jump over the keeper if he has time. So it's not a matter of being biased to any of them as he's done them all... what I'm interested in is what decision of the above two, should the striker not have time to properly jump over (ie, landing on feet and thus avoiding any controversy), is the right thing for the striker to do?

EDIT: Also, don't really get why Arsenal fans are making such a big deal about this given that their club has won many trophies by doing exactly what Rooney did on many an occasion. In fact, some of their players would (possibly still do) roll around on the floor Anderson/Ronaldo-like after doing such a thing. Have I ever mentioned how much I hated Reyes?

 

[GIMH]

Should jump over them and stay on your feet IMO

 

[Uppercut]

What, where? So defenders aren't allowed to throw themselves at the ball when a player is through on goal? Which is what Almunia did.

They're not allowed to miss the ball completely and obstruct the path of the on-rushing striker, giving him no chance whatsoever to get out of the way. I've no idea how he's become the victim in all of this. Horrendous bit of keeping and a definite foul.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Bollocks. If you think Rooney did anything wrong by going down in anticipation of being taken out while running ridiculously fast then I suspect it's been a long, long time since you played the game yourself.

You should stop posting about cricket then huh, heard you're mightily **** at it.

 

[Loony BoB]

Should jump over them and stay on your feet IMO

And if your footing doesn't allow for it given how late the keeper came in?

Please note: Hypothetical situation, not to be confused with the exact scenario featuring Rooney/Almunia. I just see this happen all the time and even the commentators say it's too late to jump due to speed/footing etc... so which of those two is the 'right' thing to do if you can't make a simple jump?