Alan Shearer on Suarez Penalty

[VillaIRE]

 

The key to this argument for me lies with Suarez's left leg:  Once it passes Guzan's right hand, he makes no attempt to use it to land on - that's the natural running movement and would have kept him up.  Suarez, rather, contracts the leg in such a way that he ensures he lands on his shin.  I will admit that from the live camera angle, it appeared to be a penalty.    

[The_Lions_Roar]

That's a great angle, no contact with his left leg but that's the one that he swings around.

[The_Lions_Roar]

Where's that video from, I want to link to it.

[The_Steve]

Suarez's body language is not a natural running stance when going around the keeper. Hence why the only explanation is that he decides to go down before Guzan touches him.

[lmarsha_926]

Dive or not. I do wonder if the pundits/media would have a different view if Suarez did that against England in the World Cup

[theboyangel]

Dive or not. I do wonder if the pundits/media would have a different view if Suarez did that against England in the World Cup

 

True - I also think that there's a current Suarez love-fest going on with all pundits (tbf he's been brilliant scoring wise) and he's suddenly a victim if he dives or gets penalised due to his past indiscretions

 

He didn't 'dive' yesterday but he conned the ref into giving the penalty - his movement and decision to fall on the 'slightest' contact was premeditated (from looking at how he leaves his leg into Guzan) so IMO it's cheating.

Edited January 19, 2014 by theboyangel

[The_Lions_Roar]

Dive or not. I do wonder if the pundits/media would have a different view if Suarez did that against England in the World Cup

True - I also think that there's a current Suarez love-fest going on with all pundits (tbf he's been brilliant scoring wise) and he's suddenly a victim if he dives or gets penalised due to his past indiscretions

He didn't 'dive' yesterday but he conned the ref into giving the penalty - his movement and decision to fall on the 'slightest' contact was premeditated (from looking at how he leaves his leg into Guzan) so IMO it's cheating.

He did dive, if the 'contact' is not enough to knock him over then its a dive.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Well I thought it was a penalty though I've not seen it since. However, I also thought it was a dive. There seems to be some reluctance in the media to admit there is a grey area there and until they and more importantly the footballing body admit to such nothing will change.

That grey area, exaggeration, needs clarifying.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Edit - having now seen it again I believe I am right. There's contact, it's a penalty. It's also a dive. The law at the minute does not specify which rule takes precedence.

[tarjei]

Where's the contact? I don't see it.

[benireduk]

If someone could find a video of Suarez's reaction when the penalty is given, that's the key point. He's almost laughing. Usual reaction of a player who wins a penalty when their side is losing is to get the ball quick and get on with it.

Suarez knew exactly what he was doing, he's conned the ref and conned us out of three points

[Oaks]

Edit - having now seen it again I believe I am right. There's contact, it's a penalty. It's also a dive. The law at the minute does not specify which rule takes precedence.

Contact is irrelevant, was he fouled?

Edited January 19, 2014 by Oaks

[limpid]

Regardless of contact, was it a foul? Did Guzan intend to foul the player? Contact is not an automatic foul. Intent is an automatic foul regardless of whether contact was made.

 

I think it's quite clear that Guzan was covering his goal. There was not an intent to unlawfully impede the player. No foul, no penalty. I understand from where the ref was standing it was a penalty as it appeared that Guzan took out the player. However if that's how the ref saw it I don't understand how Guzan wasn't booked for the professional foul.

 

No consistency and a bunch of former players who don't understand the most basic rules of the game.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Edit - having now seen it again I believe I am right. There's contact, it's a penalty. It's also a dive. The law at the minute does not specify which rule takes precedence.

Contact is irrelevant, was he fouled.

Quite. Doesn't change my overall point.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Regardless of contact, was it a foul? Did Guzan intend to foul the player? Contact is not an automatic foul. Intent is an automatic foul regardless of whether contact was made.

I think it's quite clear that Guzan was covering his goal. There was not an intent to unlawfully impede the player. No foul, no penalty. I understand from where the ref was standing it was a penalty as it appeared that Guzan took out the player. However if that's how the ref saw it I don't understand how Guzan wasn't booked for the professional foul.

No consistency and a bunch of former players who don't understand the most basic rules of the game.

Is it clear Guzan was only covering his goal and not reaching for the ball? It's debateable sure, but not clear enough.

I see contact anyway. I'm aware I might be wrong, but that it is questionable absolves the referee in my opinion. Who frankly, had a rubbish time of it as it is.

[limpid]

He's allowed to reach for the ball as long as he doesn't intend to obstruct the player.

[Oaks]

Regardless of contact, was it a foul? Did Guzan intend to foul the player? Contact is not an automatic foul. Intent is an automatic foul regardless of whether contact was made.

 

I think it's quite clear that Guzan was covering his goal. There was not an intent to unlawfully impede the player. No foul, no penalty. I understand from where the ref was standing it was a penalty as it appeared that Guzan took out the player. However if that's how the ref saw it I don't understand how Guzan wasn't booked for the professional foul.

 

No consistency and a bunch of former players who don't understand the most basic rules of the game.

SPOT ON!!!

[The_Lions_Roar]

If someone could find a video of Suarez's reaction when the penalty is given, that's the key point. He's almost laughing. Usual reaction of a player who wins a penalty when their side is losing is to get the ball quick and get on with it.

Suarez knew exactly what he was doing, he's conned the ref and conned us out of three points

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2541731/Liverpool-2-Aston-Villa-2-match-report-Soft-Suarez-penalty-earns-Reds-come-point.html

Not a video but there's an image further down this page.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

He's allowed to reach for the ball as long as he doesn't intend to obstruct the player.

If he does then, accidentally, obstruct the player then it's a foul and a penalty and not a red card. At least that's the rule that we've been peddled all these years.

He obstructs him, no doubt about it. We had this same debate when that Sunderland player did the same to Weimann and wasn't sent off.

So, if any of you agree that it's both a foul and a dive, what's the rule there? Even if you don't agree it is both in this instance. That's what the mongs in the studio need to start questioning more often IMO.

[The_Steve]

Regardless of contact, was it a foul? Did Guzan intend to foul the player? Contact is not an automatic foul. Intent is an automatic foul regardless of whether contact was made.

 

I think it's quite clear that Guzan was covering his goal. There was not an intent to unlawfully impede the player. No foul, no penalty. I understand from where the ref was standing it was a penalty as it appeared that Guzan took out the player. However if that's how the ref saw it I don't understand how Guzan wasn't booked for the professional foul.

 

No consistency and a bunch of former players who don't understand the most basic rules of the game.

 

No. Suarez instigates any contact. Guzan is doing his best to protect the goal and not impede him.