It wasn't really, Ramos had his hands on Ribery and he exagerrated the contact. I don't think it's the same thing as a player going to a ground when there is absolutely no contact (a true dive) or a player diving to manufacture contact himself. It's not really a foul but at the same time Ribery probably feels that if a defender pulls him back then he has a right to look for the free kick/penalty. It's silly defending.
Real Madrid are a bunch of scum bags.
Webb refereed that game pretty well I thought, ignored a lot of the diving around and playacting. Just wish he'd start waving the red cards around to those cunts, he's a bit lenient.
I'm hoping for a Bayern/Barca final.
He did alright but he wastes so much time. Every little offence he wants the player over and then demands every other player be 10 yards away which takes ages and then surveys the surrounding area for any mischief before allowing the free-kick to be taken. I don't even understand why he needs to say that much to them.Originally Posted by UK Blue
My favourite ref of the year is the one who did Chelsea/Benfica's second leg. Gave fouls and immediately let the game go again. Any player who was constantly backchatting him he booked and it soon stopped. In fact it resulted in Benfica's player getting a red and it's unlikely that Benfica will fuck around with him next time he refs their game. You could tell that the Chelsea players had clocked on because none of them were giving him any grief.
That's just semantics. If the contact is exagerrated then it's simulation and deserves a booking. Any decent referee should measure how much Ribery's progress has been impeded without the need for any exagerration from the player. In fact Mark Clattenburg has previously given penalties for shirt tugs in the area from set pieces where no one went to ground and he was one of the extra officials last night.
I disagree, people forget that when players are running at top speed and trying to keep control of a ball, it's not that hard to knock them off balance. Some players will hit the deck immediately with contact, sometimes it is a foul, sometimes it's not. That's all the ref should have to decide there.
I agree completely with what you're saying but if a player is exaggerating contact then they should be punished because it's cheating. The crucial part is that it's the referee's interpretation and if a player is attempting to deceive the ref then it just makes it more difficult for the correct decision to be reached which is why players who simulate or exagerrate contact need to be punished.
Of course, that brings up the argument of whether an official can award a penalty and book a player for diving in the same instance. I say, yes, they can.
I don't see how exaggerating contact is cheating. Manufacturing contact is cheating. Simulating contact is cheating. Exaggerating contact is making sure that defenders don't get away with cheating.
I think this whole diving debate is sending football the wrong way because it's focusing the argument on whether or not there is contact. Football is a contact sport. Contact does not equal a foul and never has done and, in fact, contact isn't required for a foul to be committed. Tripping or attempting to trip an opponent is what fouls are generally awarded for and it's the question of whether that has happened which is what referees should decide and where the media debate should be focused.
If a defender trips a forward but not enough to send him to the floor then it's still a foul. If the forward throws himself to the floor to force a referee into a decision then that seems fair enough to me.
TV evidence should be used after the game to allow the referee to take retrospective action against players who he deems to have cheated or attempted to cheat him. That way a harsh stance is taken against cheats but defenders know that pulled shirts or actual trips on forwards will likely lead to penalties being conceeded
Last edited by Beefy; April 18th, 2012 at 5:29 AM.
I find this bit uncomfortable. It's a murky line between that and diving. It is the referees job to decide if there is a foul and not that of the player to convince the referee of it.
No player should attempt to influence the referees decision be it through going down easily, yelling in his face or whatever. The referees should have the vision and backbone to give a foul even if a player doesn't go to ground or tumble over. Like I said earlier there is precedent of referees doing that.
I'm with you completely that contact doesn't equal a foul but if it becomes okay for a player to exagerrate contact then it makes things very difficult. It descends to the point where any contact whatsoever is greeted with a tumble to the floor because they want to make sure they get their foul and it becomes impossible to deem whether or not he would have been impeded in the first place or whether it was all of the attackers own volition. That's why it should be stamped out at source because it just makes the job harder and harder for referees.
Take this situation for example:
Barton was touched on the face by Gervinho, there was contact and he exagerrates it to get Gervinho sent off, in my opinion, unlawfully. You can argue violent conduct by Gervinho but do you really think that Barton going down like that is an aspect of the game which we should accept just because it gets the offender sent off and ultimately the correct decision?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks