Genie Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 That'll do donkey, that'll do. See what I did there? Doesn't work in an Irish accent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoaxn Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Different strokes I suppose. I don't remember seeing Rooney moving as though to play the ball. If he did, that's a completely different matter. As I said, it could easily go against the scum. And as Davkaus said, the officials have to make that decision instantly, at distance, without the aid of replays and perhaps a restricted view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 16, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2015 he doesnt have to sure we had a long discussion on this a few years ago when newcastle had a goal disallowed in a game vs man city or chelsea iirc if you are close to the keeper or close to the flight path of the ball and influence his though process then you are interfering with play IMO Not according to the laws of the game, as I read them. “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball He effectively dummied it. If that doesn't count as interfering with play then it bloody should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papillon Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Dive??? Uhm, quick question, what happens if Rooney doesn't anticipate that the keeper is flying into him like that? Oh yeah, broken legs... it's not a **** dive, it's a moronic tackle by the goalkeeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 16, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Dive??? Uhm, quick question, what happens if Rooney doesn't anticipate that the keeper is flying into him like that? Oh yeah, broken legs... it's not a **** dive, it's a moronic tackle by the goalkeeper.Behave mate. Absolute nonsense Both of his feet touch the ground after he hurdles the keeper. Then he falls over. Edited February 16, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 It's a really tricky one. I mean, the LAws of the Game give 14 helpful scenarios and explain why they are or aren't examples of offside. And in those 14 examples, they don't really cover this scenario, so it's for the referee to make a near-instant judgement on which of the scenarios it's most like. and it was unusual for dowd to give utd the benefit the doubt This is the kind of call I'd never be willing to criticise a referee for. We can sit here after seeing replays, with plenty of time to sit back and read through the laws of the game and the more detailed interpretation guidelines, and it can still be quite difficult to really be sure. It's an impossible position for a ref. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Dive??? Uhm, quick question, what happens if Rooney doesn't anticipate that the keeper is flying into him like that? Oh yeah, broken legs... it's not a **** dive, it's a moronic tackle by the goalkeeper. He could almost step over without breaking his run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Why is anyone surprised that man utd are getting the rub of the green and the commentators excuses? They were getting through all along. They were getting through prior to 19:45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Dive??? Uhm, quick question, what happens if Rooney doesn't anticipate that the keeper is flying into him like that? Oh yeah, broken legs... it's not a **** dive, it's a moronic tackle by the goalkeeper. Up is down, left is right, cats shag dogs, that wasn't a dive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 16, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2015 If we start giving penalties for tackles that might be a foul if they had made contact then it would be chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Atrocious dive. Rooney is disgusting. https://vine.co/v/Oxmg5tK5H6l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 16, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2015 Keown excusing it has annoyed me more than the dive itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) he doesnt have to sure we had a long discussion on this a few years ago when newcastle had a goal disallowed in a game vs man city or chelsea iirc if you are close to the keeper or close to the flight path of the ball and influence his though process then you are interfering with play IMO Not according to the laws of the game, as I read them. “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball He effectively dummied it. If that doesn't count as interfering with play then it bloody should do. I think it probably should, honestly, I just can see why it wasn't given. I mean, does moving out of the way of the ball when it's clearly heading towards you count as playing the ball? I wouldn't say so. But with the best part of a dozen pages explaining the rule and how it should be interpreted, there's still no 100% correct answer. There's so much room for interpretation that it makes the job impossible. They try to define "interfering with play", and do so using the equally vague phrase "playing the ball". What the **** does that mean? Touching it? Trying to touch it? Can moving out of the way of the ball count as playing it? **** knows. Edited February 16, 2015 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Atrocious dive. Rooney is disgusting.https://vine.co/v/Oxmg5tK5H6l Didn't even need to break his stride. Awful cheat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2015 A striker is under no obligation to go out of his way to avoid an onrushing player. "He could have avoided him" does not make it a legal tackle. In my view that was a penalty and a stupid keeper regardless of whether contact was made, because if Rooney had continued his run without any corrections then he'd have been cleaned out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 16, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2015 I think if it affects an opponent then whatever he's done should be counted as interfering with play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) A striker is under no obligation to go out of his way to avoid an onrushing player. "He could have avoided him" does not make it a legal tackle. In my view that was a penalty and a stupid keeper regardless of whether contact was made, because if Rooney had continued his run without any corrections then he'd have been cleaned out of it.I 100% disgree He had already cleared the keeper, then chose to fall to the ground without any contact what so ever. Cheating scumbag. Edited February 16, 2015 by Genie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 16, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2015 A striker is under no obligation to go out of his way to avoid an onrushing player. "He could have avoided him" does not make it a legal tackle. In my view that was a penalty and a stupid keeper regardless of whether contact was made, because if Rooney had continued his run without any corrections then he'd have been cleaned out of it. But doesn't this mean that any time a player sidesteps a challenge or jumps over a slide tackle we'll have to give a foul? Where do you draw the line? Its almost "if that had been a foul it would have been a foul" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Silly from the keeper but Rooney is not entitled to throw himself to the floor. It's cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2015 A striker is under no obligation to go out of his way to avoid an onrushing player. "He could have avoided him" does not make it a legal tackle. In my view that was a penalty and a stupid keeper regardless of whether contact was made, because if Rooney had continued his run without any corrections then he'd have been cleaned out of it.But doesn't this mean that any time a player sidesteps a challenge or jumps over a slide tackle we'll have to give a foul? Where do you draw the line? Its almost "if that had been a foul it would have been a foul" I know there's a line, but I think a 35mph head on collision is the other side of wherever you decide to draw that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts