The Footie Thread

[Orikoru]

https://t.co/Jy9THY5su8

Didn't notice at the time but Ronaldo was going down before zouma even got to him lol

That's an awful tackle. 100% a penalty. There doesn't need to be contact. This is the first time I've seen it as well so I'm judging off that angle alone. He's dived in, got nowhere near the ball and right across the front of the player! Stone wall.

 

[Orikoru]

Yes I watched the clip

Was Ronaldo touched ? Nope

So he chose to go to ground and his legs collapsed under him.

he went down expected contact and expecting to be given a penalty - so it’s not a foul and dive

The other challenge was one where he was touched and there was contact that impeded him and it should have been a penalty

We have seen it from other players in the past and it’s the same conclusion - if a player has gone to ground without being touched then it’s diving

I cannot understand how you can watch a defender go flying in, missing the ball and going right across the forward's path and impeding him - so he has to either jump over him, go down, or take a potentially broken ankle - and you think it's ok if that tackle goes completely unpunished?? I think that's mental. It's not 1980 anymore.

 

[Kellfire]

Yes I watched the clip

Was Ronaldo touched ? Nope

So he chose to go to ground and his legs collapsed under him.

he went down expected contact and expecting to be given a penalty - so it’s not a foul and dive

The other challenge was one where he was touched and there was contact that impeded him and it should have been a penalty

We have seen it from other players in the past and it’s the same conclusion - if a player has gone to ground without being touched then it’s diving

The rules say it’s a foul so what you want isn’t really relevant.

 

[Tashyboy]

I cannot understand how you can watch a defender go flying in, missing the ball and going right across the forward's path and impeding him - so he has to either jump over him, go down, or take a potentially broken ankle - and you think it's ok if that tackle goes completely unpunished?? I think that's mental. It's not 1980 anymore.

Have you actually seen the clip, watch Ronaldos trailing foot, he is dragging his foot across the floor. It is so un natural. He is looking for contact. Or as you say a potential broken ankle. He is looking for contact and looking for a penalty. No penalty for me.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The rules say it’s a foul so what you want isn’t really relevant.

So if it’s a foul who took the penalty ?

 

[Swango1980]

So if it’s a foul who took the penalty ?

That comments assumes the officials get the decisions right 100% of the time

You know that not to be the case, as you only just said:

"The other challenge was one where he was touched and there was contact that impeded him and it should have been a penalty"

 

[Deleted member 15344]

That comments assumes the officials get the decisions right 100% of the time

You know that not to be the case, as you only just said:

"The other challenge was one where he was touched and there was contact that impeded him and it should have been a penalty"

Apologies was responding to his standard flippant response with another ?


I remember when Gerrard went through there was a sliding tackle and he hurdled it and they still gave a penalty

In the video shown and whilst it’s slowed down - Ronaldo is going down before any contact at all - so he has made the conscious choice to dive to the floor in the manner as if he was taken out by the defender. The way he has gone down he is clearly looking for a penalty and it’s the sort of actions that we have all bemoaned when a penalty has been given against us - we had when Mane and Salah go down in the same way without a touch - it’s a dive imo

 

[Swango1980]

Apologies was responding to his standard flippant response with another ?


I remember when Gerrard went through there was a sliding tackle and he hurdled it and they still gave a penalty

In the video shown and whilst it’s slowed down - Ronaldo is going down before any contact at all - so he has made the conscious choice to dive to the floor in the manner as if he was taken out by the defender. The way he has gone down he is clearly looking for a penalty and it’s the sort of actions that we have all bemoaned when a penalty has been given against us - we had when Mane and Salah go down in the same way without a touch - it’s a dive imo

Just looking at the video again, Ronaldo is still in full flight, going for the ball, whilst Zouma is already flying into the challenge. The very first hint that Ronaldo is going down, just after getting to the ball first, Zouma is at full stretch, leg fully across Ronaldo's path. If I was Ronaldo, I would be fully expecting to be wiped out, and taking evasive action. If I didn't, then there is a high chance I'd get cleaned out, maybe even badly injured. There is no thought in my mind that Ronaldo has thought "I'm going to try and con the ref here". It is an instinctive action to avoid a rash challenge. Had Ronaldo been further ahead of Zouma, then he may have been able to avoid the challenge and stay on his feet. But, he was stretching forward to make sure he got there first.

 

[Orikoru]

Have you actually seen the clip, watch Ronaldos trailing foot, he is dragging his foot across the floor. It is so un natural. He is looking for contact. Or as you say a potential broken ankle. He is looking for contact and looking for a penalty. No penalty for me.

All of which is irrelevant. 'Looking for it' has no place in the rules. You can be looking for a penalty all you like, if somebody then impedes you in the box then you should have one.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

All of which is irrelevant. 'Looking for it' has no place in the rules. You can be looking for a penalty all you like, if somebody then impedes you in the box then you should have one.

It's a tricky one because he goes down before he is impeded. Clearly he has dived because his hitting the deck was independent of Zouma's dodgy tackle, and you can see he's planning to try and win a soft one by dragging his foot along the turf looking for contact.

On the other hand, had he not already fallen over, he would subsequently have been fouled and it would have been a penalty.

I think it's quite reasonable to go with the on pitch decision here, I don't think either call would have been inherently wrong. If I had to come off the fence one side or the other, I'd say Ronaldo dived before Zouma committed a foul and therefore no pen, freekick to WHU and a yellow for CR7.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

It's a tricky one because he goes down before he is impeded. Clearly he has dived because his hitting the deck was independent of Zouma's dodgy tackle, and you can see he's planning to try and win a soft one by dragging his foot along the turf looking for contact.

On the other hand, had he not already fallen over, he would subsequently have been fouled and it would have been a penalty.

I think it's quite reasonable to go with the on pitch decision here, I don't think either call would have been inherently wrong. If I had to come off the fence one side or the other, I'd say Ronaldo dived before Zouma committed a foul and therefore no pen, freekick to WHU and a yellow for CR7.

For me I think you have hit the nail on the head there .. VAR is still used (which fans don't remember) for clear and obvious errors, when the on field official makes a call if it's clear why he made the call and it's 50/50 they won't send them over. They only do when it's something missed like the hand ball

Soucek challenge he ruled soucek fouled him so wasn't overturned

Win some lose some

 

[Tashyboy]

All of which is irrelevant. 'Looking for it' has no place in the rules. You can be looking for a penalty all you like, if somebody then impedes you in the box then you should have one.

Yes but you mention he could get a broken ankle, but he deliberately drags his foot across the floor to get contact so he could possibly break his ankle. Ronaldo made his mind up he was going down before any contact was made. If he had not been going down before contact. It is a nailed on penalty.

 

[Orikoru]

It's a tricky one because he goes down before he is impeded. Clearly he has dived because his hitting the deck was independent of Zouma's dodgy tackle, and you can see he's planning to try and win a soft one by dragging his foot along the turf looking for contact.

On the other hand, had he not already fallen over, he would subsequently have been fouled and it would have been a penalty.

I think it's quite reasonable to go with the on pitch decision here, I don't think either call would have been inherently wrong. If I had to come off the fence one side or the other, I'd say Ronaldo dived before Zouma committed a foul and therefore no pen, freekick to WHU and a yellow for CR7.

I see it this way: Ronaldo is sprinting into the box. He sees that Zouma is going to ground, and given his experience and ability, he knows that he can get to the ball first and that Zouma has no chance of winning it. So ensure he does this, while at the same time going over the poor challenge in a way that doesn't injure himself. A lot of people in this thread who might be stuck in the past (no names) will call it diving, but my opinion is that a mistimed tackle that impedes the player is a foul no matter what. If the tackle was nowhere near the forward and he goes down you can call it a dive, but the fact is he slides right across his path! It's impeding him one way or another, and he certainly was nowhere near winning the ball - so it's a foul.

 

[Orikoru]

Yes but you mention he could get a broken ankle, but he deliberately drags his foot across the floor to get contact so he could possibly break his ankle. Ronaldo made his mind up he was going down before any contact was made. If he had not been going down before contact. It is a nailed on penalty.

Still doesn't matter for me. As soon as Zouma goes flying in on the ground and totally misses the ball he's on shaky ground and deserves to have a penalty given against him. You dive in inside the box, you have to take the ball, it's simple.

 

[Swango1980]

For me I think you have hit the nail on the head there .. VAR is still used (which fans don't remember) for clear and obvious errors, when the on field official makes a call if it's clear why he made the call and it's 50/50 they won't send them over. They only do when it's something missed like the hand ball

Soucek challenge he ruled soucek fouled him so wasn't overturned

Win some lose some

Firstly, that bold statement is a joke. Not by you, I agree with what you say. But, VAR is used on many many occasions when the decision is even more balanced than the "tackles" on Ronaldo

In the match we discuss, I think everyone on here at least seems to agree the 1st challenge on Ronaldo was a foul. Ref didn't give it, VAR didn't even bother to ask the ref to have a look at it again. The second challenge (Zouma) is a clear foul in my eyes, but some seem to disagree because Ronaldo had started to fall before contact was made. However, if that is the case, you are asking attackers to stay on their feet and ignore the fact that, if they do, they may get their leg snapped in 2 (at least they'd get a penalty, every cloud). How can you have a situation where defenders can fly into a challenge and get away with it so long at the attacker jumps out of the way (and loses the ball, thus ending the attack)? If Ronaldo had tried to stay on his feet, where would his foot have been in the image below? Who knows, but it could have been on the end of a bright orange boot.



The truth is, has VAR made the game any clearer. I've no doubt that many VAR refs would have has the on field ref review both incidents above, some don't. In many respects, I feel the on field referee is less likely to make a big decision, because they feel it is better to let the game flow, and VAR can sort it out. However, if VAR doesn't, you have a situation where many more nasty challenges will go unpunished. I still truly believe that VAR should be binned, or literally only used when either the on field ref asks to see an incident again (as his view was blocked), or there is an off the ball incident, or offside (as long as they've fixed the diabolical use of offside from last season and the length of a toenail)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Thank heavens there is Carabou Cup football tonight so that we can move the conversation back to proper football chat ?

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Firstly, that bold statement is a joke. Not by you, I agree with what you say. But, VAR is used on many many occasions when the decision is even more balanced than the "tackles" on Ronaldo

In the match we discuss, I think everyone on here at least seems to agree the 1st challenge on Ronaldo was a foul. Ref didn't give it, VAR didn't even bother to ask the ref to have a look at it again. The second challenge (Zouma) is a clear foul in my eyes, but some seem to disagree because Ronaldo had started to fall before contact was made. However, if that is the case, you are asking attackers to stay on their feet and ignore the fact that, if they do, they may get their leg snapped in 2 (at least they'd get a penalty, every cloud). How can you have a situation where defenders can fly into a challenge and get away with it so long at the attacker jumps out of the way (and loses the ball, thus ending the attack)? If Ronaldo had tried to stay on his feet, where would his foot have been in the image below? Who knows, but it could have been on the end of a bright orange boot.

View attachment 38588

The truth is, has VAR made the game any clearer. I've no doubt that many VAR refs would have has the on field ref review both incidents above, some don't. In many respects, I feel the on field referee is less likely to make a big decision, because they feel it is better to let the game flow, and VAR can sort it out. However, if VAR doesn't, you have a situation where many more nasty challenges will go unpunished. I still truly believe that VAR should be binned, or literally only used when either the on field ref asks to see an incident again (as his view was blocked), or there is an off the ball incident, or offside (as long as they've fixed the diabolical use of offside from last season and the length of a toenail)

In the picture on the left he moved his body towards the defender to force contact, I hope these kind of pens are kicked out the game we have seen vardy win them for years ..see a foot wrap his round it .. pen

Second one @Orikoru (tagging as was going to reply this to yourself) zouma would have won the ball if Ronaldo didn't nip it away (but he was never under control of the ball he nipped it away then went down) then he has completely fabricated the entire situation to try and win a pen

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/cristiano-ronaldo-penalty-west-ham-b1923468.html

Now former ref Dermot Gallagher agrees the second wasn't a pen however he says the first was, I agree the first should be by the way they have been creeping in for years

Personally I want the first one stamped out the game but it should have been a pen

Second not a chance

However can we all agree in both pics his "fall" is so exaggerated that it prob doesn't help him.. just fall naturally

 

[Billysboots]

In other news, I see Hungary have been ordered to play a further two games behind closed doors and fined £150k following the abhorrent racist abuse of England players.

Wow, that’ll teach ‘em. Not.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

In other news, I see Hungary have been ordered to play a further two games behind closed doors and fined £150k following the abhorrent racist abuse of England players.

Wow, that’ll teach ‘em. Not.

I have a feeling one of those games is suspended as well ?. They are likely stupid enough to do it again though it sadly it will kick in at some point. Grim

 

[Billysboots]

I have a feeling one of those games is suspended as well ?. They are likely stupid enough to do it again though it sadly it will kick in at some point. Grim

They haven’t learned previously. Kick ‘em out, I say.