Scousers v. Brum

Originally Posted by BryanRobson'sLiver

Will Gerrard be "having a word" like he claimed he would if he saw one of his own team diving must be the question on everybody's lips.

I heard he beat N'gog to within an inch of his life. He was THAT disgusted.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Yeah but this is my point, in Ngog's case he was going up before the total lack of contact whereas in Rooney's case he may have started to go down a TV frame before he was hit by Almunia. I was wondering about how the lack of contact and fact he leapt so early was irrelevant for Ngog wheras it apparantly wasn't in a split second for Rooney, which is what was suggested.

I can't see how anyone could argue Rooney as a dive and no penalty then argue Ngog's actions as irrelevant and that it was a penalty.

Personally for me rooney's was certainly a penalty. ngog's could have gone either way ( ref's discretion, I think even in fifa's law books they leave it to ref's discretion for the decision on whether a player was impeded or not irrespective of contact ), but ngog should have been booked for exaggeration. Bent's was a total dive.

Originally Posted by wiganste

I heard he beat N'gog to within an inch of his life. He was THAT disgusted.

considering that he took the penalty with a big grin on his face, the above is 100% true.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

This is very different to your view of the Rooney penalty against arse isn't it, you thought that was a dive and not a penalty I seem to remember. Interesting, civen the rashness of the challenge by almunia and the fact that it clearly impeded the player that you didn't think that "irrelevant"?

That was merely a technical observation, which admittedly is very difficult for the referee to make. In the Rooney incident, he dived before contact from Almunia. My point was simply that if this is the case, then he's committed the first offence so therefore should be penalised first. In this instance, the dive comes after or as a reaction the challenge, so is the second offence.

Originally Posted by Zorg

There's no doubt it was a dive, but I think the point some are making is that when deciding on a foul a referee doesn't - or shouldn't - base his decision on the offendee but the offender. Players often throw their arms in the air and put that 'I'm being eaten by lions' expression on their face, but if they've been fouled, it's still a penalty. The fact that they made a meal of it is annoying but ultimately irrelevant. Referees are not supposed to look at anything but what the potential offender did. In this case, it's all about what Carsley did, not what Ngog did.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Billy Baroo

but it didn't impede him because he had already launched himself in the air

i think he expected contact and decided he was on his way but embarrassingly for him no contact occurred

Disagree with that, actually. N'Gog's body shape and posture is perfectly normal when Carsley arrives. I don't think it's a premeditated decision to go down, or at least there's no evidence of that. Usually when a player is planning on diving, you see some change in their body shape, be it leaning forward, dragging a leg, slowing down on anticipation of contact etc. N'Gog does none of this. In fact, he's the one who avoids contact with Carsley. Had he wanted to execute the dive perfectly, he could quite easily have ensured contact. He went down after the challenge, not before it. So if Carsley committed an offence, that came first.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I don't think it's a premeditated decision to go down, or at least there's no evidence of that. Usually when a player is planning on diving, you see some change in their body shape, be it leaning forward, dragging a leg, slowing down on anticipation of contact etc. N'Gog does none of this. In fact, he's the one who avoids contact with Carsley. Had he wanted to execute the dive perfectly, he could quite easily have ensured contact. He went down after the challenge, not before it. So if Carsley committed an offence, that came first.

I don't think he premeditated his dive either, but that certainly doesn't mean it was a foul. I think he stepped over Carsley's right leg, which was easy to do since it was flat against the ground, saw that the covering defender and goal line were contriving to disposses him, and flung himself to ground in order to win a penalty.

Originally Posted by Grimson

I don't think he premeditated his dive either, but that certainly doesn't mean it was a foul. I think he stepped over Carsley's right leg, which was easy to do since it was flat against the ground, saw that the covering defender and goal line were contriving to disposses him, and flung himself to ground in order to win a penalty.

I was just making the distinction between that and the Rooney incident. Rooney was almost on his knees by the time he and Almunia came together. I agree with your overview. But if N'Gog isn't going to be able to get to the ball in part because of Carsley's challenge, then he's been impeded. Take Carsley out of the move and he may well release the ball earlier or have a better chance of beating the covering defender to it. This is quite hypothetical, but I can understand if the referee were to take that view. To rule that the Carsley challenge is disruptive to N'Gog's progress would be perfectly reasonable, imo. Perhaps that's the main point on which we disagree.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I was just making the distinction between that and the Rooney incident. Rooney was almost on his knees by the time he and Almunia came together. I agree with your overview. But if N'Gog isn't going to be able to get to the ball in part because of Carsley's challenge, then he's been impeded. Take Carsley out of the move and he may well release the ball earlier or have a better chance of beating the covering defender to it.

That's where we disagree I guess. The touch he took to split the two defenders was always going to run him out of time/space with covering defenders or the endline. In fact, if we took Carsely out of it (which obviously is a slippery slope thing), I bet the #14 defender would have just stepped forward and tackled/cleared. He held his ground because of Carsley's challenge.

Originally Posted by BryanRobson'sLiver

Will Gerrard be "having a word" like he claimed he would if he saw one of his own team diving must be the question on everybody's lips.

SG: "Players like Carvalho and Ronaldo are damaging football."

SG: "If I saw a team-mate doing it, I would definitely have a word."

SG: "I don't think there's anything worse than a player diving when no one's been anywhere near him. It does ruin the game."

I assume the references to rooney's dive are to the one against villareal for which he apologised.

if I thought anyone meant the deliberate attempt to impede rooney by campbell, with no attempt to play the ball whatsoever, and with rooney taking necessary avoiding action, I would feel obliged to ban someone.

ngog dived. he wasn't impeded in any way and he simply folded before he reached carsley's leg.