Contact, when is it enough?

Donnielighto

So that people can state their belief and stop waggling back and forth.

Edit: assuming the defender doesn't get the ball before contact.

Fuhrer

This much


<

---

>

magma69

It depends. If it's a player on the team that I support, it's a penalty but he made a meal of it. If it's a player that isn't on the team that I support, it's a disgraceful dive.

Turtyturd

Are Ashley Young and diving done? would have been a better thread name.:pac:

Ordinary man

Turtyturd wrote: »

Are Ashley Young and diving done? would have been a better thread name.:pac:

It was highlighted most of the season about how easy suarez goes down and defended by liverpool supporters by saying there was minimal contact. Now a united player is caught at it and minimal contact isn't a reasonable excuse. Laughable really.

Personally i hate to see it and wouldn't be sorry to see young, suarez, carroll, bale and all the others caught at it banned for a few games

Paul Tergat

The pace someone is moving at has a big part to play. When in full flight any kind of touch can set you off balance

3hn2givr7mx1sc

It's not something that can be given in such a straight answer. There are a number of variables that could alter your opinion of a challenge or a dive.

Morricone

Paul Tergat wrote: »

The pace someone is moving at has a big part to play. When in full flight any kind of touch can set you off balance

Not really. You often see players, when they knock it front of each other and both sprint at full flight, grappling with each other and neither falling over.

You know yourself from playing 5 a side or 11 that when you're running it takes a decent shoulder or an ankle clip to knock you over.

I really would love to see an international body with subjective powers to retrospectively examine footage from top tier leagues in every nation where applicable, tv coverage, etc.

Get caught once in a season, a 1 game ban, twice a 3 game, thrice 5 games and four times give them 7.

Would cut down immediatly. Would have to happen across the board. Once teams feel they aren't being made an example of, the managers will quickly let their players no that diving or 'exaggerating the contact' will not be tolerated under any circumstance.

joe123

Common sense.

/thread

Paul Tergat

Morricone wrote: »

Not really. You often see players, when they knock it front of each other and both sprint at full flight, grappling with each other and neither falling over.

You know yourself from playing 5 a side or 11 that when you're running it takes a decent shoulder or an ankle clip to knock you over.

Completely disagree. When you are sprinting at full throttle any sort of clip on you affects your balance.

Its a different case if both are grappling as they both have control to an extent.

Morricone

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Completely disagree. When you are sprinting at full throttle any sort of clip on you affects your balance.

Its a different case if both are grappling as they both have control to an extent.

Contact to the knees or ankles can be minimal enough and still knock people over in full flight, granted. Light contact on a foot or to the shin or anything upper body not a hope would any clip knock a person over.

Paul Tergat

Morricone wrote: »

Contact to the knees or ankles can be minimal enough and still knock people over in full flight, granted. Light contact on a foot or to the shin or anything upper body not a hope would any clip knock a person over.

Yeah I get what you are saying but any kind of touch can keep take you off balance. Just because you aren't being knocked over doesn't mean it's not a foul imo.

If the question is about diving then I think you have more of a point. The problem is that players go down to show that they have been fouled. Staying on their feet can work against them.

gnfnrhead

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Completely disagree. When you are sprinting at full throttle any sort of clip on you affects your balance.

Its a different case if both are grappling as they both have control to an extent.

It's nowhere near enough to send you sailing through the air like you've been shot with a cannon. 95% of the time it wont have any effect at all other than costing you a little speed.

Hulk Hands

Are you referring to the controversial handball in today's game? Made plenty of contact with the extended arm, 100% penalty imo

Paul Tergat

gnfnrhead wrote: »

It's nowhere near enough to send you sailing through the air like you've been shot with a cannon. 99% of the time it wont have any effect at all other than costing you a little speed.

See my above post.... if we are talking about diving then yes

It taking away a little of your speed constitutes a foul then surely

gnfnrhead

Paul Tergat wrote: »

See my above post.... if we are talking about diving then yes

It taking away a little of your speed constitutes a foul then surely

Then everything is a foul, no? Any contact at all is going to take away your speed to some degree.

Paul Tergat

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Then everything is a foul, no? Any contact at all is going to take away your speed to some degree.

When you dont take the ball then you are just impeding your opponent?

Jesus Wept

joe123 wrote: »

Common sense.

/thread

Surprisingly uncommon.

Turtwig

When Matthew McConaughey's priestly accent becomes unbearable?

Guy:Incognito

When you CANT stay up, not when you wont.

losthorizon

If you get the ball first contact doesn't matter surely? End of story! Otherwise diving player should be send off. So, the poll is kind of redundant.

DoctorGonzo08

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Yeah I get what you are saying but any kind of touch can keep take you off balance. Just because you aren't being knocked over doesn't mean it's not a foul imo.

If the question is about diving then I think you have more of a point. The problem is that players go down to show that they have been fouled. Staying on their feet can work against them.

It is this kind of justification that encourages diving. By that logic, you have to go down even more theatrically to highlight how bad the challenge was. Then the striker gets to pick and choose the oppurtunity. Take Drogba for instance, he can power off two defenders to get the ball, then a shoulder rub will knock him down like he's had his legs cut off. This happens regardless of if its inside or outside the box. Young's example against Villa shows him skipping past a challenge with contact outside the box before making contact with clarke to which it looked like he stepped on a landmine.

Guy:Incognito

Get rid of penalties and you'll soon see how much contact it actually takes to bring a player down.

Dimithy

losthorizon wrote: »

If you get the ball first contact doesn't matter surely? End of story! Otherwise diving player should be send off. So, the poll is kind of redundant.

Getting the ball first doesn't mean it's not a foul. Where the ball goes after that does, plus of course how you went about touching the ball.

Samich

As I said before, why can't the referee book them if it's a dive? If not then it's a peno, quite simple really.

Samich

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

When you CANT stay up, not when you wont.

Players who stay on their feet often don't score, going down gets a reward.

PhlegmyMoses

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Get rid of penalties and you'll soon see how much contact it actually takes to bring a player down.

In many ways it seems harsh that a player just inside the corner of the box gets a better scoring angle in the form of a penalty if he trips over a player's leg when he pushes the ball past. It encourages diving.

The logical suggestion would be direct frees in the box based on the ref's interpretation of the incident. This, however, creates more problems than it solves.

Nobody really trusts refs to be given any more authority to make important judgement calls.

It would also be hard to create a standard template. The direct free would allow a defence to regroup where previously they were disjointed and on the back foot.

Shanotheslayer

Impossible question to answer to be honest. Momentum could mean a tiny bit of contact can make the player fall. If for example :

Ronaldo running at full pace against a defender. Defender contacts Ronaldo with minimum contact, well then he could go down and momentum causes him to roll once or so.

It's the play acting after that I hate.

shankespony

Maybe a ref system like rugby when so much is at stake. If player is caught diving yellow card and 10mins off pitch that would soon stamp it out

DoctorGonzo08

I really don't see the problem here. If you have to justify the foul with (contact + pace)/wind speed x sun glare then it really isn't a foul imo. If the player is fouled he won't have to add theatrics are play the replay 20 times to prove there was the slightest of touches.

Football is not a non-contact sport. Trying to justify 'contact' as 'foul' is just ridiculous. The real reason this is being discussed is that fans are trying to claim their teams cheating is honourable.

Paul Tergat

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

It is this kind of justification that encourages diving.

I completely agree

The point is though if you arent doing it and everyone else is then yeah you are very noble well done but you are being dicked over at the same time.

It needs changing

Blatter

Samich wrote: »

As I said before, why can't the referee book them if it's a dive? If not then it's a peno, quite simple really.

No it's not. The referee is supposed to be 100% sure of a foul before he gives a penalty. What if he's 80% sure it's a penalty? Should he book the player that went down then?

Saying that the ref has to either book a player or give a penalty in certain situations is one of the most non sensical, retarded cliches in football that is trotted out every week by lazy commentators.