Hilarious.
Robben's disgraceful dive
- Thread starter Hellboy
- Start date
Hilarious.
Corrected
Hilarious.
He appealed for it?
fecking hell
That's stunning
No skill in that dive at all. Should do better
Christ!!!
Worst dive of all time surely?
Worst dive of all time surely?
Aye, what an amateur.
If Krasic can be banned for this for two games, I struggle to imagine how long a ban that would warrant.
Even the Gilardino dive sin't close to this one.Christ!!!
Worst dive of all time surely?
It was a foul. Robben obviously dived though. Still a foul
Wasn't a foul, because it didn't make him lose his balance. He obviously regained his balance before flopping, so the foul committed didn't put him off balance enough to warrant a foul. Secondly, it would've been an indirect free kick had the tackle made him jump so awkwardly that he lost his balance.
Unbelievable.He kicked the ball away, which he only did because of the rash tackle was forcing him to jump out of the way. Had he stayed where he was he could have had a broken ankle and a penalty.
Terrible dive, but still a foul. That's my interpretation. If I walk in front of my opponents path without getting the ball (obstruction), but he stays on his feet, it is still a foul.
- hmm maybe not.
You can't call every tackle that forces the player to take any sort of evasive action a foul/obstruction. In that case, any standing tackle that forces a player to shimmy sideways awkwardly is a foul.
Robben dodged the tackle, had full control of his body afterwards and would've got to the ball. Had he lost his balance and fell immediately as a result there would've been a case for calling it an obstruction, and thus warranted an indirect free kick.
He would have got the penalty had he fallen down after hurdling the defender - not two steps after. No referee will give a penalty for a challenge that is a foul but doesn't knock over the attacker.
I think you have a point about regaining balance, or rather "keeping balance", because a tap on the heels isn't a freekick.
No. I think his foul stops Robben from reaching the ball. It's a close one, but I maintain its a foul, because Robben looses possession because of it.
I think it's hard to call all challenges that require evasive action fouls. In that case, if a full back stands in front of an attacker who has to push the ball beyond him and try to run around him, but pushes it out for a throw, it should be a foul too because the defender is obstructing the winger's path.
That's pathetic. What is even worse is that he was in the penalty area. If he had continued, then there's a chance that he could have ended up going on to score a goal, yet many players see it as being a natural reaction nowadays to simply go down in any situation where they think they can get away with it, even if it involves losing all form of common sense.
But the fullback isn't required to get out* the way, whereas the defender here reaches the ball second, doesn't get it, hits Robben, and stops Robben from keeping possession.
If I tap someones ankle softly its not a foul, but if I tap someones ankle hard, and they stay upright but lose the ball it surely is, especially if they went down under the same amount of contact.
It seems to me that he regretted not diving after the defender's challenge but decided to do it two seconds later. What a cheat