PDA

View Full Version : NHC Suarez



lapsedhibee
18-01-2014, 11:01 PM
Diving barsteward. Do refs not watch MOTD? :bitchy:

lEXO
18-01-2014, 11:04 PM
Diving barsteward. Do refs not watch MOTD? :bitchy:

I thought it was a penalty like.

lapsedhibee
18-01-2014, 11:09 PM
I thought it was a penalty like.

:bitchy: These tossers on MOTD are at it again with "there was contact" THEREFORE it was a penalty. If there was contact it was purely because the aforementioned diving barsteward ensured that there was on his way down. Or rather, on his way up then down. Sickening nonsense.

dmc1875
18-01-2014, 11:10 PM
Diving barsteward. Do refs not watch MOTD? :bitchy:

Dive? No

Did he go down easily? Yes

Did Guzan touch the ball? No

Did he impede a goalscoring opportunity? Yes

Was it a penalty? 100%

Pretty Boy
18-01-2014, 11:11 PM
Dive? No

Did he go down easily? Yes

Did Guzan touch the ball? No

Did he impede a goalscoring opportunity? Yes

Was it a penalty? 100%

Pretty much what I saw.

Not a fan of Suarez but he didn't do much wrong tonight imo.

easty
18-01-2014, 11:12 PM
the ref got it right.

lapsedhibee
18-01-2014, 11:13 PM
Dive? No
Yes.

Did he go down easily? Yes
Up first, as he always does.

Did Guzan touch the ball? No
So?

Did he impede a goalscoring opportunity? Yes
No.

Was it a penalty? 100%
No.
.

Hibs Class
18-01-2014, 11:14 PM
Dive? No

Did he go down easily? Yes

Did Guzan touch the ball? No

Did he impede a goalscoring opportunity? Yes

Was it a penalty? 100%

Agree with all these except the fourth one, don't think there was a goalscoring opportunity, and guess that's why it was a pen but no red card for the keeper.

dmc1875
18-01-2014, 11:17 PM
Agree with all these except the fourth one, don't think there was a goalscoring opportunity, and guess that's why it was a pen but no red card for the keeper.

Maybe not for Suarez but the cut back was on for Sturridge I believe and thats why it wasn't a red card.

Leighonel
18-01-2014, 11:19 PM
Don't really like Suarez or Liverpool but that looked a penalty to me.

NadeAteMyLunch!
18-01-2014, 11:20 PM
No contact but a ridiculous decision from Guzan. There was no need to go to ground

McKenzie
18-01-2014, 11:26 PM
Bugs me when keepers go in for that type of challenge. Nine times out of ten it's a pen, just let the defenders do their job and you stick to stopping shots.

SmashinGlass
18-01-2014, 11:27 PM
It was Guzan's failure to pull out of the challenge that made the ref's mind up for me. He had more than ample opportunity to pull his arms away, but kept them extended. It was definitely a pen for me.

wookie70
18-01-2014, 11:37 PM
Stonewaller for me. He may have gone down easily but it was a foul in the box

Tricla
19-01-2014, 01:22 AM
Pen. End of.

FWIW I love Suarez.

Munching apart, he's the best player on the planet.

Judas Iscariot
19-01-2014, 10:40 AM
Pen. End of.

FWIW I love Suarez.

Munching apart, he's the best player on the planet.

He's not even the best player in the BPL

SeanWilson
19-01-2014, 10:49 AM
Diving barsteward. Do refs not watch MOTD? :bitchy:

Ref had no choice from where he watched. They showed you the camera from what he was looking at and it was a stonewaller.

having looked at it from 57 different angles... its probably soft.

lapsedhibee
19-01-2014, 05:42 PM
Pat Nevin providing a lone sane voice in amongst MOTD tossers arguing the modern mantra that 'There was contact therefore he was entitled to go down':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25802012

allezsauzee
19-01-2014, 05:51 PM
I think it was a penalty. Stupidity from Guzan...especially as I had a bet on Villa

lord bunberry
19-01-2014, 05:56 PM
The problem with the "there was contact so it's a penalty" argument is that the players are instigating the contact by hanging their leg out when going past the defender. Surely that's a form of simulation? If a forward goes past the player and there's contact fair enough, but that's not the way it's happening, the worrying thing is that it's seems to be accepted as ok by the pundits and the governing bodies.

allezsauzee
19-01-2014, 06:00 PM
I think if the football authorities starting hitting players and/or clubs in their pockets for diving it would soon stop.

Scònaldò
19-01-2014, 06:47 PM
Guzan didn't touch him, but it's a stonewaller?

'twas a dive.

Cheating wee turd.

jdships
19-01-2014, 07:22 PM
Dive? No

Did he go down easily? Yes

Did Guzan touch the ball? No

Did he impede a goalscoring opportunity? Yes

Was it a penalty? 100%



:top marks agree totally !!

jdships
19-01-2014, 07:23 PM
Guzan didn't touch him, but it's a stonewaller?

'twas a dive.

Cheating wee turd.



Have another look ( or two ) THERE WAS A TOUCH :thumbsup:

Scònaldò
19-01-2014, 08:13 PM
Have another look ( or two ) THERE WAS A TOUCH :thumbsup:

But not enough for him to fall down.

If a player goes down when he could have stayed up, it's a dive IMO.

I really don't agree with this 'entitled to go down' nonsense.

Scouse Hibee
19-01-2014, 08:21 PM
It was a penalty,anyone who thinks otherwise hasnae a ***** clue


.

NORTHERNHIBBY
19-01-2014, 08:30 PM
Used to be that it had to be a foul before it was a penalty, but now if there is contact it is a penalty. Everyone knows that. When i was watching the game, as soon as I saw him go wide, it was 100% nailed on that he would fall over. 100%. If I know that, then the 'keeper should know that as well and think accordingly.

Would appear that the old Rangers forward John McDonald, was way, way ahead of him time when he was doing this in the early 80's. He would be worth a fortune now.

jdships
19-01-2014, 08:33 PM
But not enough for him to fall down.

If a player goes down when he could have stayed up, it's a dive IMO.

I really don't agree with this 'entitled to go down' nonsense.


If you have played football at all you will know that if you are running at pace and there is contact with the lower part of your body it is 99% certain you will go down .
I am not defending Suarez overall ( he has history !!) just this instance which I feel the Ref got 100% right .

:rolleyes:

lapsedhibee
19-01-2014, 08:36 PM
Would appear that the old Rangers forward John McDonald, was way, way ahead of him time when he was doing this in the early 80's. He would be worth a fortune now.

:lurksub:

Scònaldò
19-01-2014, 08:55 PM
If you have played football at all you will know that if you are running at pace and there is contact with the lower part of your body it is 99% certain you will go down .
I am not defending Suarez overall ( he has history !!) just this instance which I feel the Ref got 100% right .

:rolleyes:

I've watched it again a few times and I still don't think their was enough contact for him to go down, I still feel he could stayed on his feet but hey ho, opinions and all that :greengrin

lEXO
19-01-2014, 09:03 PM
:bitchy: These tossers on MOTD are at it again with "there was contact" THEREFORE it was a penalty. If there was contact it was purely because the aforementioned diving barsteward ensured that there was on his way down. Or rather, on his way up then down. Sickening nonsense.
It was a penalty. I have no time for Suarez but why should he have to jump out of a collision with a reckless goalie challenge.

lapsedhibee
19-01-2014, 09:55 PM
It was a penalty. I have no time for Suarez but why should he have to jump out of a collision with a reckless goalie challenge.

Wouldn't have mattered what sort of challenge the goalie made - so long as it was within "contact" range of Suarez, he was going up/down. The only way for the goalie in those circumstances to avoid conceding a penalty against such a skilled diver as Suarez would be not to make a challenge at all.

heretoday
20-01-2014, 09:00 AM
I wouldn't give a penalty unless it was absolutely stick-on. They're all at it.

StevieC
20-01-2014, 09:31 AM
If a player goes down when he could have stayed up, it's a dive IMO.

Until referees have the bottle (or official direction) to give penalties for contact, regardless of whether a player goes down, then I think that players are entitled to make the most of any contact. By trying to stay on his feet a player could actually be denying his team of a very good goal scoring opportunity.

lapsedhibee
20-01-2014, 09:59 AM
Until referees have the bottle (or official direction) to give penalties for contact, regardless of whether a player goes down, then I think that players are entitled to make the most of any contact. By trying to stay on his feet a player could actually be denying his team of a very good goal scoring opportunity.

They shouldn't be giving penalties for contact though - they should be giving penalties for FOULS!
But do agree with your point - refs need to get their act together.

easty
20-01-2014, 11:00 AM
It was a penalty. I have no time for Suarez but why should he have to jump out of a collision with a reckless goalie challenge.

Exactly. He shouldn't have to avoid being taken down. It might look easy to get out the way or avoid it when you're seeing it in slow motion, but at full speed it's quite different. The keeper took him down. Suarez didn't buy the penalty by being clever, the keeper gave it away by being reckless and naive.