Going to Ground, Going to Hell

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Nani Nana, Nov 22, 2009.

  1. Nov 29, 2009
    #41

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    68,581
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    Drawing a foul, without necessarily doing anything constructive with the ball, is part of the game. It happens in every area of the pitch but only provokes condemnation when it happens in the box.
  2. Nov 29, 2009
    #42

    B Cantona Desperate

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    40,118
    Location:
    Hated, Adored, Never Ignored
    Well because if you're not touched, you could draw pretty pictures of the surrounding lanscape, it's not a foul. You're not cheating if you've been fouled, it's up to the defender to practice his art fairly. Part of the attackers armoury has to be to protect themselves, and level the playing field, because there's no doubt defenders can at times get away with murder

    Personally I think there's a chasm of different between drawing a foul, and actually faking a foul. Namely, only one of them is actually a foul!
  3. Nov 29, 2009
    #43

    Scholesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    9,450
    Location:
    'And Solskjær has won it'
    One of the differences I like between Valencia and Ronaldo, is that Valencia always stays on his feet if he can, and has excellent strength. Ronaldo would go down after most challenges.

    Obviously I miss Ronaldos crazy free kicks, and goals.
  4. Nov 29, 2009
    #44

    surf Full Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,120
    Location:
    In the wilderness
    Absolutely. Goals provide entertainment and a few "marginal" penalties will never make up for all the goals prevented by Carragher-type fouls. I don't care that Dean was giving them all day long yesterday since he seemed to be even-handed about it and all 3 penalties looked correct to me.
  5. Nov 29, 2009
    #45

    Plechazunga Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    51,762
    Location:
    Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header
    Well that's exactly the point I'm making.

    Rooney maybe, but who was it last year, Kranjcar maybe, who went through on goal and then fell over when the defender touched his shoulder? That was pathetic, but the principle is the same.

    This is exactly what I'm getting at in the blog. Yes defenders cheat too, and yes that's sometimes what influences strikers to cheat. But neither is worse than the other (except where defenders risk injuring strikers with their fouls). They're both wrong.

    The problem with 'making it clear to the ref' is that it's not a player's job to decide what's a foul. He's totally biased, and often doesn't have a good angle, and is often wrong. He should try to score and if he's stopped, leave it to the ref to decide what stopped him.

    Of course you can't stop players doing it, but the reason they do it so much - as IMO is clear from that Rooney interview - is that cnuts like you legitimise it to the extent that he doesn't even realise it's wrong!

    I agree that 'drawing a foul' is less pernicious, but it's still not right. A footballer should be trying to create a goal directly, not trying to induce infringements in order to get set-pieces. To me 'that's not football' either.

    I'd say the hierarchy of wrongness goes something like this:

    1. Pretending to have been headbutted etc. to get someone sent off
    1. Diving and faking injury
    2. Diving
    3. 'Making the most of a foul' / 'Going down easy'*
    4. Drawing / playing for a foul

    *like your mum
  6. Nov 29, 2009
    #46

    MikeUpNorth Wobbles like a massive pair of tits

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    15,562
    Surely those last two are in the wrong order? It must be worse to be simply playing with the intention of being fouled, compared with making the most of a foul that happens to occur whilst you are trying to play properly?
  7. Nov 29, 2009
    #47

    Alex Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    41,963
    Location:
    ____
    Maybe No3 should be making the most of contact instead making the most of a foul
  8. Nov 29, 2009
    #48

    B Cantona Desperate

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    40,118
    Location:
    Hated, Adored, Never Ignored
    I see it as this. If a defending team can't practise their art properly, and are going in rashly, that's poor football and it's their own fault if it costs them. So if a player takes a step back to draw a lunge from a willing accomplice, or holds onto the ball a second longer to see if they get scythed down... it's drawing a foul, but the poor play is on the part of the defending team, and the attacking team is productively exposing that

    That doesn't compare to diving when there's been no foul or the like
  9. Nov 29, 2009
    #49

    Plechazunga Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    51,762
    Location:
    Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header
    Or maybe better to rephrase it as Alex suggests:

    The point being, as I keep banging on about, that the act of going down makes it very hard to ever know if it was a foul or not. Whereas when you draw the foul, it is at least clear you've been fouled.

    I see what you're saying. I still think the two blame issues are distinct. Both actions are blameworthy: the defender, either technically for poor tackling or morally for a deliberate foul; and the attacker, morally, for cynically playing for set-pieces rather than directly trying to score.

Share This Page