for diving yesterday or is it acceptable for good old English bloke Dazzler to do it but not Johnny Foreigner?? I await the howls of protest from the media and fans universally condemning his cheating.:rolleyes:
I think part of it is that he was fouled for the first 'penalty' that wasn't given and should have been so it seems fair that he got the second, even though he dived for it.
But I do agree that there does seem to be a tendency to see diving as a foreign import.
Why should he? The whole problem a lot of people had with the Eduardo incident was that he was being condemned and singled out for something that happens regularly. So now people want Darren Bent singled out for the same thing, Gerrard, Rooney etc get away with it but as they're England internationals it's ok. We either condemn all diving or none we can't be selective. Also Bent had firm contact from Gomes so it was a clearer penalty.
Although Harry Redknapp was heard to remark that Sandra doesn't go down as easily these days!
Why should he? The whole problem a lot of people had with the Eduardo incident was that he was being condemned and singled out for something that happens regularly. So now people want Darren Bent singled out for the same thing, Gerrard, Rooney etc get away with it but as they're England internationals it's ok. We either condemn all diving or none we can't be selective. Also Bent had firm contact from Gomes so it was a clearer penalty.
Although Harry Redknapp was heard to remark that Sandra doesn't go down as easily these days!
I think the key difference is that gomes blatantly makes contact with him and it was a stonewall penalty.
Yes he leaves his leg out to ensure the ref gives it but gomes still commits a foul as he catches him and is nowhere near the ball. 'Clever play' yes, not a dive.
I think the key difference is that gomes blatantly makes contact with him and it was a stonewall penalty.
Yes he leaves his leg out to ensure the ref gives it but gomes still commits a foul as he catches him and is nowhere near the ball. 'Clever play' yes, not a dive.
He was on his way to the ground before Gomes was anywhere near him!! As he's English he won't be subjected to endless column inches and radio phone ins as Eduardo was.
However any goalkeeper that comes flying out the way the keepers did in both situations is running the risk of a pen whether he makes contact with the player or not.
He was on his way to the ground before Gomes was anywhere near him!! As he's English he won't be subjected to endless column inches and radio phone ins as Eduardo was.
Doesn't matter at all, gomes made a lot of contact with bent's legs and got nowhere near the ball = foul. He may have made the most of it etc but its a stonewall penalty different to eduardo simulating contact when there was none.
Rooney did exactly the same thing against arsenal earlier this season, yet nothing was said about that, even being praised for 'clever play'
Doesn't matter at all, gomes made a lot of contact with bent's legs and got nowhere near the ball = foul. He may have made the most of it etc but its a stonewall penalty different to eduardo simulating contact when there was none.
Rooney did exactly the same thing against arsenal earlier this season, yet nothing was said about that, even being praised for 'clever play'
Sorry but thats wrong, Bent made contact with Gomez's body, you could see that in the replays that he delibaretly made sure his trailing leg made contact.
Sorry but thats wrong, Bent made contact with Gomez's body, you could see that in the replays that he delibaretly made sure his trailing leg made contact.
Bent was going down before Gomez was near him.
He should be given the Eduardo treatment.
Must be watching a different incident, gomes is the one who dives at bents feet! Is bent supposed to jump out of the way and end up in a worse position?
Not saying bent hasnt made the most of it to ensure he gets a pen but you cant argue gomes hasnt commited a foul when he recklessly dives in and makes contact with both of his legs, its laughable to call that cheating.
Doesn't matter at all, gomes made a lot of contact with bent's legs and got nowhere near the ball = foul. He may have made the most of it etc but its a stonewall penalty different to eduardo simulating contact when there was none.
Rooney did exactly the same thing against arsenal earlier this season, yet nothing was said about that, even being praised for 'clever play'
Exactly, Rooney did exactly the same against Arsenal- but he was praised with having the foresight to see Almunia coming out.
Must be watching a different incident, gomes is the one who dives at bents feet! Is bent supposed to jump out of the way and end up in a worse position?
Not saying bent hasnt made the most of it to ensure he gets a pen but you cant argue gomes hasnt commited a foul when he recklessly dives in and makes contact with both of his legs, its laughable to call that cheating.
Nope, Gomez was early enough to dive for the ball but not to get it. Bent made sure he got a touch and went down quicker than a $20 ****.
Its all a question of the order in which things happened.
As I watched the incident in real speed, I thought that something looked odd about Bent's fall.
In slow motion, it is quite clear that he starts to drop/collapse his legs BEFORE Gomes hits him.
This is the begining and the end of the issue.
1. It means he was cheating.
2. It was not a penalty.
3. Bent should have been given a yellow card for diving.
As far as posts above where people seem to have completely lost either their eyesight or moral compass or both, it is completely irrelevant whether;
a) Bent was fouled before and did or did not get given a penalty;
Although Bent himself may be seeking some form of compenation for what he didn't get given before, this is no justification for his action, or for the referee to give a penalty for the second incident if that incident doesn't stand up to it on its own merits or because the Referee realises that he made a mistake on the first incident and must therefore, adjudicate a 'make-up' decision on the second one.
b) that Gomez hit his legs, therefore it was a penalty;
What are we saying here? That a player can blatently act on the basis of what might be about to happen ('I went down because I was about to be bought down' - This argument was used by Eduardo). So that if what he thought might happen does happen, then that justifies his act of cheating prior to the actual act?
c) that Rooney did it (v Arsenal) and that this in some way clears the way for the likes of Bent and others becuase Rooney got a penalty and was not villified 'Eduardo style' for it;
Rooney makes many attempts to stay on his feet and not give in to Collapsing Leg Syndrome, but against Arsenal, he dived. He should have been pulled over the coals.
Anyone who has played at even a half decent level knows that if you keep running properly in these situations, you will be far more likely to stay on your feet and get past the keeper/defender (as I have seen Rooney do on many occasions - his desire to keep playing, attacking and get the chance to score outweighing his desire to give in to this nauseating practice of winning a free kick/penalty by collapsing your legs).
And here maybe the knub of it as spotted by Alan Shearer on MOTD when he said that Bent had actually pushed the ball too far. Ergo. in the next split second, Bent made a conscious decision to go down and thereby get hit by Gomez and thereby increase the liklihood of him getting a penalty because he knew that his ability to convert the chance had evaporated.
To be fair to the Referee, these incidents happen so fast, that unless they ran to the side and had a look at a replay, they are going to give a penalty more often than not becasue it looked like it was a penalty in real time and at the time.
But I believe that it was a dive, plain and simple. It was cheating and Bent should be singled out and villified for it whichever team he plays for and wherever he comes from, just like Eduardo was.
Nope, Gomez was early enough to dive for the ball but not to get it. Bent made sure he got a touch and went down quicker than a $20 ****.
Didn't get the ball, thats the key point, late challenge, contact made, penalty, yellow card. Call it cheating if you wish but those are just the rules of football. Bent didn't 'simulate' the contact he just used gomes' recklessness to win a penalty for his team, there was, by the laws of the game, a clear foul. Bents actions, before or after the incident become irrelevant when this happens.
b) that Gomez hit his legs, therefore it was a penalty;
What are we saying here? That a player can blatently act on the basis of what might be about to happen ('I went down because I was about to be bought down' - This argument was used by Eduardo). So that if what he thought might happen does happen, then that justifies his act of cheating prior to the actual act?
Well yes, correct me if im wrong but there is nothing in the laws of the game to prevent this. Bent hasnt simulated the contact (exaggerated or feigned it completely) but merely 'anticipated' the contact and gone down accordingly. This is not covered by the simulation rule, bent acted within the laws of the game. Once gomes makes contact it ceases to become a dive and then becomes 'clever play'
since i am always right on these matters, i can clear this up for you guys
its not cheating its called bracing yourself, gomes is already flying at him and once he gets the nick on the ball he can see the foul coming as there was no way gomes can stop himself from making contact. gomes was reckless twice and only paid once (even then bent muffed up the pen and its not like gomes got a red.)
Comments
This.
Sad but true.
I think that pretty much answers the question ! :eek:
Ah, I see.
But I do agree that there does seem to be a tendency to see diving as a foreign import.
Although Harry Redknapp was heard to remark that Sandra doesn't go down as easily these days!
Yes he leaves his leg out to ensure the ref gives it but gomes still commits a foul as he catches him and is nowhere near the ball. 'Clever play' yes, not a dive.
He was on his way to the ground before Gomes was anywhere near him!! As he's English he won't be subjected to endless column inches and radio phone ins as Eduardo was.
However any goalkeeper that comes flying out the way the keepers did in both situations is running the risk of a pen whether he makes contact with the player or not.
Doesn't matter at all, gomes made a lot of contact with bent's legs and got nowhere near the ball = foul. He may have made the most of it etc but its a stonewall penalty different to eduardo simulating contact when there was none.
Rooney did exactly the same thing against arsenal earlier this season, yet nothing was said about that, even being praised for 'clever play'
Bent was going down before Gomez was near him.
He should be given the Eduardo treatment.
Must be watching a different incident, gomes is the one who dives at bents feet! Is bent supposed to jump out of the way and end up in a worse position?
Not saying bent hasnt made the most of it to ensure he gets a pen but you cant argue gomes hasnt commited a foul when he recklessly dives in and makes contact with both of his legs, its laughable to call that cheating.
Exactly, Rooney did exactly the same against Arsenal- but he was praised with having the foresight to see Almunia coming out.
It was a penalty end of! No need for hysteria!
If he had gone round Gomes, as forwards of old used to do, he probably would have scored.
As I watched the incident in real speed, I thought that something looked odd about Bent's fall.
In slow motion, it is quite clear that he starts to drop/collapse his legs BEFORE Gomes hits him.
This is the begining and the end of the issue.
1. It means he was cheating.
2. It was not a penalty.
3. Bent should have been given a yellow card for diving.
As far as posts above where people seem to have completely lost either their eyesight or moral compass or both, it is completely irrelevant whether;
a) Bent was fouled before and did or did not get given a penalty;
Although Bent himself may be seeking some form of compenation for what he didn't get given before, this is no justification for his action, or for the referee to give a penalty for the second incident if that incident doesn't stand up to it on its own merits or because the Referee realises that he made a mistake on the first incident and must therefore, adjudicate a 'make-up' decision on the second one.
b) that Gomez hit his legs, therefore it was a penalty;
What are we saying here? That a player can blatently act on the basis of what might be about to happen ('I went down because I was about to be bought down' - This argument was used by Eduardo). So that if what he thought might happen does happen, then that justifies his act of cheating prior to the actual act?
c) that Rooney did it (v Arsenal) and that this in some way clears the way for the likes of Bent and others becuase Rooney got a penalty and was not villified 'Eduardo style' for it;
Rooney makes many attempts to stay on his feet and not give in to Collapsing Leg Syndrome, but against Arsenal, he dived. He should have been pulled over the coals.
Anyone who has played at even a half decent level knows that if you keep running properly in these situations, you will be far more likely to stay on your feet and get past the keeper/defender (as I have seen Rooney do on many occasions - his desire to keep playing, attacking and get the chance to score outweighing his desire to give in to this nauseating practice of winning a free kick/penalty by collapsing your legs).
And here maybe the knub of it as spotted by Alan Shearer on MOTD when he said that Bent had actually pushed the ball too far. Ergo. in the next split second, Bent made a conscious decision to go down and thereby get hit by Gomez and thereby increase the liklihood of him getting a penalty because he knew that his ability to convert the chance had evaporated.
To be fair to the Referee, these incidents happen so fast, that unless they ran to the side and had a look at a replay, they are going to give a penalty more often than not becasue it looked like it was a penalty in real time and at the time.
But I believe that it was a dive, plain and simple. It was cheating and Bent should be singled out and villified for it whichever team he plays for and wherever he comes from, just like Eduardo was.
Didn't get the ball, thats the key point, late challenge, contact made, penalty, yellow card. Call it cheating if you wish but those are just the rules of football. Bent didn't 'simulate' the contact he just used gomes' recklessness to win a penalty for his team, there was, by the laws of the game, a clear foul. Bents actions, before or after the incident become irrelevant when this happens.
Well yes, correct me if im wrong but there is nothing in the laws of the game to prevent this. Bent hasnt simulated the contact (exaggerated or feigned it completely) but merely 'anticipated' the contact and gone down accordingly. This is not covered by the simulation rule, bent acted within the laws of the game. Once gomes makes contact it ceases to become a dive and then becomes 'clever play'
its not cheating its called bracing yourself, gomes is already flying at him and once he gets the nick on the ball he can see the foul coming as there was no way gomes can stop himself from making contact. gomes was reckless twice and only paid once (even then bent muffed up the pen and its not like gomes got a red.)
Well Bent was diving that early, it was almost before they started filming the game.