Liverpool v Man City. Sun April 13th KO 13:37 SS1, Important Mod Warning in OP.

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Well what a game . That was pure spectacle to watch . A few points from the game .
1). It was obvious the ref didn't want to make a big call in that game . Clattenburg really did a Howard Webb type of job on it . He just let the game play out and hoped he didn't have to make any big decisions . I really believe if he could have shown Henderson a yellow for that challenge he would have .
2). For all the money city have it's seems they stil lack a little bit of team spirit . Kompany at the 30 min mark was pure sulk mode .
3). It really should have finished up a draw but so should the first game at the etihad been that way so I guess it evened it's self out .

Not sure I could agree on that. Most teams who have gone 2 down at Anfield this season have crumbled. Even look at Everton, who most would probably laud for having a great team spirit.

City clawed back into the game, dominated away from home in a way no other team has done to Liverpool this season, and ultimately, were unlucky to leave with their hands empty.

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

Im off the opinion, that if any contact doesnt cause a player to fall then its a dive. Very old school opinion, but Im not bothered. But, and this really annoys me, the pundits are constantly going on that a player is entitled to go down if there is contact. By that logic, Suarez was entitled to go down after all the challenges. In his defence, I dont think there was any playacting when Kompany shoved him over, but all the rest were laughable.

In an ideal world you would rather players stay on their feet, and the officials decide whether its a foul or not. Never going to happen though.

And re Dzeko, it wasnt a dive, but hes entitled to a pen as Sakho slid in and got nowhere near the ball (just like Vidic at OT v Sturridge)..for me thats obstruction and a pen.

Liverpool fan by the way

Unfortunately a ref is rarely/never going to give a penalty if a player is impeded but stays on his feet. It would be considered 'soft', the referee may consider the player wants to play advantage - it's not in the refs interests to make a decision here and draw the spotlight on himself.

The player has to give the ref a decision to make and quite often the only way to do that is by going down/not making a genuine effort to stay up (i.e. telling the ref 'LOOK I'VE BEEN FOULED!!). If not defenders will continue tug, jostle, push, chip away with little kicks - nothing overboard but still illegal moves and infringements - with the knowledge that no penalty will be given.

People may not like the above and may view it very cynically, and 'unmanly' but it's the truth.

Is it cynical from the attackers (what Suarez and Dzeko did)? Yes, perhaps. But I understand their predicament. The alternative is to let defenders away with impedeing them. What do you want them to do? They feel they have been impeded and the best and arguably only way to appeal this is to let themselves go to ground.

The decision referees/those who make the rules need to make is - what level of infringement from a defender constitutes a foul and a penalty? We see tugging from every corner (an infringement) - general cosensus seems to be that's fair game.

The way to stop players going down easy would be for referees to start penalising these type of infringements from defenders more. The consensus at the moment is that the player must lose control of the ball (i.e. fall over) for it to be an infringement. It's no wonder then that attackers go to ground easy - I see it almost as a form of appeal (like putting your hand up for an offside or handball).

The alternative to this is to allow defenders to get away with all sorts of manhandling imo.

I have noticed a general shift in pundits/commentators opinion in favour of attackers.

For example both the Dzeko and the Suarez incidents on Match of the Day were called as penalties. Sturridge against United was called as a penalty, as was Suarez against Villa.

Despite my general views about diving (i.e. it's not as bad as many suggest, and I can understand the attackers view that he feels he has been impeded and wants to force a decision onto the ref) I'm not sure if any of the above are stonewallers, and in fact I though many if not all probably weren't penalties.

Anyway, abit of an off-topic ramble, but I do think the whole issue of diving/going down easy is interesting, and I have noticed a shift in the way it's being viewed.

The old-schollers will hate it and they will view it in black and white terms of cheating - end of story. If you can stay on your feet but you don't it's a dive and you are a cheat.

I think that's a far too simplistic view. I fully subscribe to Neville's point of view regarding diving and I think it was great that he was brave and honest enough to tell us all the truth.

I've come to realise this and I don't have any great problem with what Dzeko and Suarez did - they felt they were impeded (they were), they knew they would have no chance of being recompensed if they stayed up and were in a difficult position as a result of the infringement, so they appealed for the ref to make a decision (i.e. went down).

This is the reality of the game now.

re the bridge in Cabra ,disgraceful behaviour from what I am positive is a couple of drunk local scumbags

But the faux rage and insinuation that this is a pandaemic among Liverpool fans is pandaering to the masses

Here it is...
Demichelis catches Suarez's left foot with his right foot.
As Suarez was running, his left foot was about to touch down, but the tackle took it away from him, therefore he went down.

It's is kinda hard to see it especially in real time, but it doesn't look a dive to me.

mayordenis wrote: »

He was tripped though, so you're wrong, but sure whatever, believe what you want.

Yeah, but the couple of rolls after and the grabbing of the leg probably didn't help his cause!

Slight contact. Dramatic reaction. Suarez runs the risk of getting carded when he goes OTT with it and that's what happened, I guess.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm firmly of the opinion an incident can be a dive and a foul at the same time.

Absolutely! You can stick that on as a TLDR to my very long rambling post!