"He's Entitled to Go Down"

[TheMentalHibees]

Does this turn of phrase irritate anybody else? It's steadily becoming a defence for players that hit the deck after minimal contact. I wish more commentators/pundits would come out and just call a spade a spade rather than hide behind terminology such as this.

[SurferRosa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does this turn of phrase irritate anybody else? It's steadily becoming a defence for players that hit the deck after minimal contact. I wish more commentators/pundits would come out and just call a spade a spade rather than hide behind terminology such as this.

...They are essentially condoning cheating as far as i`m concerned.

[Thecat23]

If i was playing say in the Scottish Cup Final and it's 0-0 in the last min, and I stepped into the box and the opposition defender were to clip me i'd go down like a sack of spuds. Not condoning diving but do see why players have gone down. The one's who chuck themselves with no contact are the real cheats.

[Pretty Boy]

On the flip side it seems a lot of referees don't give penalties unless the player goes down theatrically.

Watched more than a few games were there has been clear contact between players and because the player has stayed on his feet the ref has turned away.

[Bobby's Cinema]

Had to laugh at Fergie saying Torres got a second booking because he 'chose to go down'. How many times could you say that of United

[jonty]

It does annoy, but it depends on just how they've gone down.

Minimal contact, at full tilt, they fall, roll and get up. Yes (if the ball is missed in the tackle) they should get a free kick.

Minimal contact, at full tilt, they fall, roll and act like they've been shot/broken legs?. No - seeking an unfair advantage. Booking for simulation.

If they would just man up and be a bit more honest then they wouldnt be labeled as cheats and divers.

[matty_f]

I think if you look at rugby players (as an example) and see how easy it is for them to run full tilt even when someone makes minimal contact, then it blows that the theory that any minimal contact would send them tumbling. Naturally, a lot depends on the type of contact (see Bale's fall after Maloney knocked one of his legs out it's stride on fairly minimal contact) but in the case of Torres, I think he definitely dived in that he chose to throw himself to the ground when he could easily have stayed on his feet and carried on.

Pretty Boy's point about ref's being culpable for not giving fouls when players do try to stay on their feet is a good one, though. There have been loads of times where a more honest player hasn't got the penalty that they deserved when they would have got one if they'd thrown themselves down.

[inglisavhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does this turn of phrase irritate anybody else? It's steadily becoming a defence for players that hit the deck after minimal contact. I wish more commentators/pundits would come out and just call a spade a spade rather than hide behind terminology such as this.

Gary Neville explained it pretty well.If you are running at an opponent and you see a tackle coming, your instinct is to avoid the contact. Doesn't mean you are diving to gain an advantage. The ref should only book players who he is sure are trying to con the ref. Difficult area for refs as we all hate divers. Eric Stevenson was Hibs best ever at getting penalties, he always made sure the ref thought there was contact but he didn't dive!

[hibsmad]

The problem in my eyes is that referees almost never give a penalty unless the player goes down.

If a player is fouled in the box and he knows that the foul has affected his chances of getting in a good shot on goal, but that the only chance he will have of getting the penalty he deserves is if he goes down, then I wouldn't blame him for going down.

Sometimes players dive when there is no contact and the player making the challenge has even pulled out of it - see Mikolounus (or however it's spelt) for Lithuania against Scotland. In these cases I think it is acceptable for players to be shown a straight red.

Then there is the situation with Torres yesterday. Was there contact? Yes. Could he have stayed on his feet? In my opinion yes. I think he did deserve a card though as in my opinion he went down hoping to get Evans sent off and he knew Ferdinand was close enough to probably stop him getting in on goal.

In summary I think that it is a grey area that is greyer than a big greyey thing!

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Had to laugh at Fergie saying Torres got a second booking because he 'chose to go down'. How many times could you say that of United

To be fair to Shralek, he's criticised Young for diving in the past and the fact that he spoke out about Torres is a good sign. His publicly stated views will carry a lot more weight than than those of Tony Pulis, for example, who's also spoken out. Could be a bandwagon starting to roll, and not before time. Entitled to go down, there was contact, blablabla, be good if aw that was expunged.

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The problem in my eyes is that referees almost never give a penalty unless the player goes down.

If a player is fouled in the box and he knows that the foul has affected his chances of getting in a good shot on goal, but that the only chance he will have of getting the penalty he deserves is if he goes down, then I wouldn't blame him for going down.

Sometimes players dive when there is no contact and the player making the challenge has even pulled out of it - see Mikolounus (or however it's spelt) for Lithuania against Scotland. In these cases I think it is acceptable for players to be shown a straight red.

Then there is the situation with Torres yesterday. Was there contact? Yes. Could he have stayed on his feet? In my opinion yes. I think he did deserve a card though as in my opinion he went down hoping to get Evans sent off and he knew Ferdinand was close enough to probably stop him getting in on goal.

Agree with the bit in bold. Even in other parts of the pitch, some refs think they are playing advantage by not giving fouls unless players go down. In some situations, staying on your feet after an illegal challenge while off-balance, stretching etc. results in you ending up in a less favourable position than had you not been fouled but refs don't give a free-kick even if you then lose the ball. It's infuriating as a player and leads to developing an instinct of going down when there's contact.

On you other point, am I the only person who thinks Torres was fouled?!? A touch like that at pace puts you right of your stride which is why he went down. As an aside, the tackle from Evans was a lunge which caught Torres at shin height - at the very least he should also have been booked.

[Brizo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think if you look at rugby players (as an example) and see how easy it is for them to run full tilt even when someone makes minimal contact, then it blows that the theory that any minimal contact would send them tumbling. Naturally, a lot depends on the type of contact (see Bale's fall after Maloney knocked one of his legs out it's stride on fairly minimal contact) but in the case of Torres, I think he definitely dived in that he chose to throw himself to the ground when he could easily have stayed on his feet and carried on.

Pretty Boy's point about ref's being culpable for not giving fouls when players do try to stay on their feet is a good one, though. There have been loads of times where a more honest player hasn't got the penalty that they deserved when they would have got one if they'd thrown themselves down.

Totally agree your point regarding rugby. The excuse mongers including Gary Neville (whos brother made a total fool of himself for the toffees) really want to have a look at the speed of rugby and the level of contact it takes before a rugby player goes down. Been lucky enough to see some EPL games in the flesh and when you see the physique of some of these players and the ease with which they crumple to the floor its laughable.

btw no anti Man U agenda only mentioned Neville for fact he was so vehement in defending players going down at the slightest contact and then saw his own brother go down like hed been hit by a sniper.

Fair play to Moyes for tubing Phil Neville for that. You will never get Wenger, Fergie or whoever is this seasons Chelsea manager doing it. Or Brendan Rogers who I previously thought highly of but who seems to be joining that band with his defence of Suarezs infantile and potentially crowd trouble inducing antics.

[Jim44]

Talking about 'turns of phrases', the term 'professional foul' really gets on my goat. How often do you hear the likes of Davy Provan coming out with "That was a really clever foul by the defender." when all he's done is hack the player down to avoid him scoring or creating a scoring opportunity.

[Fae the capital]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does this turn of phrase irritate anybody else? It's steadily becoming a defence for players that hit the deck after minimal contact. I wish more commentators/pundits would come out and just call a spade a spade rather than hide behind terminology such as this.

It's a disgrace, just cos you touch someone doesn't give them the right to go down. It's pathetic seeing highly paid grown men do this. It's cheating and a total embarrassment!

[hibsmad]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agree with the bit in bold. Even in other parts of the pitch, some refs think they are playing advantage by not giving fouls unless players go down. In some situations, staying on your feet after an illegal challenge while off-balance, stretching etc. results in you ending up in a less favourable position than had you not been fouled but refs don't give a free-kick even if you then lose the ball. It's infuriating as a player and leads to developing an instinct of going down when there's contact.

On you other point, am I the only person who thinks Torres was fouled?!? A touch like that at pace puts you right of your stride which is why he went down. As an aside, the tackle from Evans was a lunge which caught Torres at shin height - at the very least he should also have been booked.

I totally agree that sometimes when there is minimal contact that players go down due to the pace they are running at. When I played football growing up I played on the wing as pace was the one thing I really had going for me (not much else mind you) and there was one or two occasions I remember being clipped and doing about three rolls because I couldn't stop. I think that with Torres though, his stride doesn't change and he wasn't travelling all that fast. On the slow motion replays I thought it definitely looked like he could have stayed on his feet. He therefore in my opinion went down to try and get Evans red carded.

Evans did catch him though and therefore it was a foul - hence my grey area comment.

[Speedy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The problem in my eyes is that referees almost never give a penalty unless the player goes down.

If a player is fouled in the box and he knows that the foul has affected his chances of getting in a good shot on goal, but that the only chance he will have of getting the penalty he deserves is if he goes down, then I wouldn't blame him for going down.
Sometimes players dive when there is no contact and the player making the challenge has even pulled out of it - see Mikolounus (or however it's spelt) for Lithuania against Scotland. In these cases I think it is acceptable for players to be shown a straight red.

Then there is the situation with Torres yesterday. Was there contact? Yes. Could he have stayed on his feet? In my opinion yes. I think he did deserve a card though as in my opinion he went down hoping to get Evans sent off and he knew Ferdinand was close enough to probably stop him getting in on goal.

In summary I think that it is a grey area that is greyer than a big greyey thing!

100% this.

It's simple really, if refs gave fouls without the player collapsing to the ground then fewer players would collapse to the ground.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does this turn of phrase irritate anybody else? It's steadily becoming a defence for players that hit the deck after minimal contact. I wish more commentators/pundits would come out and just call a spade a spade rather than hide behind terminology such as this.

It annoys me greatly. This one as well...

"It's soft, but there was contact."

Well of course theres going to be contact! How else is a defender supposed to try and win the ball, without making any sort of contact what so ever?!?!

[Phil D. Rolls]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

...They are essentially condoning cheating as far as i`m concerned.

As far as I'm concerned......this says it all, it's nothing but cheating.

[GreenArmy1875]

I agree throwing yourself to the ground with no contact is diving, You can also jump out of a challenge with no contact and it still being a foul if its a dangerous tackle. Players have to protect themselves aswell