#07
makes new threads with tweets in the OP
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 23,332
Exactly as I called it at the timeThat just confirmed what I saw the first time TBH. The defender stood on Young's foot. In looked like that on a 70 inch HDTV at the weekend, and that is how Gary Neville broke it down on Sky with ultra slow motion.
Definitely a penalty and a spectacular fall to ground by Young.
Its shit video but if you freeze it here the defenders toe comes down on Young's foot and his leg is out impeding his path. That is pretty much the angle the ref had as well.
End of.Lets all get the stills and the videos from different unseen angles, jeez some of you lot sound like Liverpool fans trying to defend the Suarez non handshake. It was a dive, he dived, he looked for contact then threw himself in the air. How could that possibly have been a natural way to fall over? Should have been booked.
This still going on then?Like Gary Nev said: "Was it a penalty? Yes. Was it a dive? Yes.".
Wow a post about Young as a footballer aint seen that in this thread for awhile...Besides all that, he's fitting into the team well isnt he? Useful player to have around the place.
Very much so, Nani is obviously the better player but it means the left wing isn't as defensively solid so it's a bit of a trade off. He's a massive improvement on Park who was used for the same purpose for a long time.Defensively specially is where he's impressed.He's not shy to make an effort and with Evra in such a terrible form, it's a good thing to have
What makes him the first? Im fairly sure over exaggeration is not only a fairly common practice, but that it is widely accepted pretty much everywhere barring Britain.Very much so, Nani is obviously the better player but it means the left wing isn't as defensively solid so it's a bit of a trade off. He's a massive improvement on Park who was used for the same purpose for a long time.
It's just a shame we bought the first ever player to overexaggerate a challenge
Is that a typo?He needs to work more on taking his man on and driving to the byline and then cutting the ball back with his left. Right now he always stops, and brings it onto his right foot and that makes him predictable.
It all stems from the definition of dive. Diving is feigning contact, so going over when there is no contact whatsoever. When there is noticable contact it can only be seen as exaggeration. But many on here seem to have been debating whether the contact was sufficient to go down, which is purely subjective and cannot be proved one way or the other, as Uefa found out to their embarrassment.This still going on then?
The above is obviously true, as most sane people have said all along.
There seems to be a lunatic fringe on either side that think the answer to oen of those questions is "no" though.
If the ref saw contact the dive is irrelevant. He can't give the freekick/penalty and book the attacker apparently.Lets all get the stills and the videos from different unseen angles, jeez some of you lot sound like Liverpool fans trying to defend the Suarez non handshake. It was a dive, he dived, he looked for contact then threw himself in the air. How could that possibly have been a natural way to fall over? Should have been booked.
This has been our pattern regardless of who is out there - Park, Nani, Young, Welbeck and even Giggs.What I worry about is how much we attack down the right when he is in the team. He tends to drift inside a lot, which results in the ball being always given out wide to Valencia, which makes us somewhat predictable. I'm hoping the return of Nani will bring balance back to the team.
It all stems from the definition of dive. Diving is feigning contact, so going over when there is no contact whatsoever. When there is noticable contact it can only be seen as exaggeration. But many on here seem to have been debating whether the contact was sufficient to go down, which is purely subjective and cannot be proved one way or the other, as Uefa found out to their embarrassment.
I have maintained all along, there was contact and he left his trailing leg in to exaggerate the fall, and ensure Halsey made the correct decision. Which imo he did.
If people want more honesty from strikers, then they should expect no less from defenders who foul players and then imply they dived to prevent a penalty. Still cheating the ref, but no-one seems as bothered by the defensive equivalent compared to the attacking version.
Furthermore REfs should start to reward players who stay on their feet more. There is currently very little to gain by staying on their feet, compared to the implications of going down, ie penalty and card of whatever colour for the offender. Until it becomes advantageous to stay on their feet, the vast majority will look to take the most beneficial route for their team.
and to read this:
What's funny about that?
In essence this has actually been the case since we had Beckham. We've been attacking down the right for over a decade. The only time that changed was when Ronaldo decided to switch to the left as when Ronaldo was in the team we'd give it to him. Its not a case of always going Valencia because of Young its a case that the team opts to go down the route they feel is shortest to goal. Valencia gets balls into the box more consistently than anyone else and so he tends to get fed more than anyone else. Not Young's fault really Valencia is arguably the more reliable right sided midfielder in the league. Nani is the better player but I think Young's done himself a lot of justice on the left flank barring his mid season dip. We'd have been a lot worse off without him during Nani's recent injury that's for sure.What I worry about is how much we attack down the right when he is in the team. He tends to drift inside a lot, which results in the ball being always given out wide to Valencia, which makes us somewhat predictable. I'm hoping the return of Nani will bring balance back to the team.
In your opinion, and I still don't see the source of your amusement. Mark Halsey saw contact and gave the penalty, based on what he saw and what i saw on the initial viewing i think he was correct to give a penalty. How many ref's would not have given that considering the view he had?Contact in box =/= penalty. Yes there was contact, but it was not enough to bring Young down. Hence it should have never been a penalty. But we're not going to see eye to eye on this.
Everyone should watch that !
It's a matter of opinion isn't it? Read post 2862 and watch Gary's analysis and read his article. Why are you so obsessed with this topic. Enough have been said already.Contact in box =/= penalty. Yes there was contact, but it was not enough to bring Young down. Hence it should have never been a penalty. But we're not going to see eye to eye on this.
No one but the blinkered Man Utd fan thinks it's anything other than a dive.We don't have to see eye to eye, but just because you have a different view, doesn't mean mine warrants mockery. What makes your interpretation so superior or definitive, that anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves derision?
Why do you know everybody Pete, and been busy asking them for their opinions? Having gathered all this data, is that the general concensus?No one but the blinkered Man Utd fan thinks it's anything other than a dive.
Well, it's also a penalty, like Neville said. Get over it and move on!The defender clearly retracts his leg and tries to plant his foot on the floor. Young clearly moves his left leg towards the defender to make sure of contact. Even if you can't agree on that, there's no way the leap into the air was caused by any contact, it was unnatural and ridiculous: A dive.
If this exact incident had occured involving Suarez, Gerrard, Torres or Tevez, would people be taking stills and analysing at detail, the moment of collision, the movement of limbs etc. Or would these same people simply say "cheating cnut"?
He dived. Just like there is at least one dive in almost every game of football I have ever watched; some of which result in nothing, some in a freekick, a penalty or red cards. The reason this discussion has dragged on so much, and become viewed as an actual issue, is solely due to people for some strange reason, feeling the need to blindly defend it to the hilt as though they're defending him against accusations of mass genocide. It was a dive, let's get over it and move on.
I didn't say it wasn't a penalty. I don't personally think it was, but nevertheless, I'm not getting into that pointless debate with you. I'll move on now though, cheers.Well, it's also a penalty, like Neville said. Get over it and move on!
That could be said to more than him in fairness.Get over it and move on!
My apologies, that post just tickled me. I didn't mean to laughIn your opinion, and I still don't see the source of your amusement. Mark Halsey saw contact and gave the penalty, based on what he saw and what i saw on the initial viewing i think he was correct to give a penalty. How many ref's would not have given that considering the view he had?
Did you have the view you obviously have now on your initial viewing of the incident, or has hindsight and numerous slowmo's from a variety of angles given you a different perspective?
We don't have to see eye to eye, but just because you have a different view, doesn't mean mine warrants mockery. What makes your interpretation so superior or definitive, that anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves derision?
No the reason it has dragged on is nobody can prove one way or the other whether the contact was enough for Young to go down or not. Uefa tried to tackle this with the Eduardo incident, which was such a laughably blatant dive, Uefa felt they had to act, and they still couldn't prove how much contact justified going down.He dived. Just like there is at least one dive in almost every game of football I have ever watched; some of which result in nothing, some in a freekick, a penalty or red cards. The reason this discussion has dragged on so much, and become viewed as an actual issue, is solely due to people for some strange reason, feeling the need to blindly defend it to the hilt as though they're defending him against accusations of mass genocide. It was a dive, let's get over it and move on.
Couldn't a penalty be awarded for the trip on Young's right leg (which IMO was a foul) and then a yellow be brandished to Young for the kicking motion with his left leg, which was clearly an attempt at further deceiving the ref?The defender clearly retracts his leg and tries to plant his foot on the floor. Young clearly moves his left leg towards the defender to make sure of contact. Even if you can't agree on that, there's no way the leap into the air was caused by any contact, it was unnatural and ridiculous: A dive.
If this exact incident had occured involving Suarez, Gerrard, Torres or Tevez, would people be taking stills and analysing at detail, the moment of collision, the movement of limbs etc. Or would these same people simply say "cheating cnut"?
He dived. Just like there is at least one dive in almost every game of football I have ever watched; some of which result in nothing, some in a freekick, a penalty or red cards. The reason this discussion has dragged on so much, and become viewed as an actual issue, is solely due to people for some strange reason, feeling the need to blindly defend it to the hilt as though they're defending him against accusations of mass genocide. It was a dive, let's get over it and move on.
Is that in the rules, or where have you read that? Surely he could do that if he feels that there are two separate incidents there, ie one incident where the defender trips up his right foot and one where Young throws his left leg out.If the ref saw contact the dive is irrelevant. He can't give the freekick/penalty and book the attacker apparently.
In my opinion, if the attacker makes any effort to create contact, especially when the defender is making an equal effort to avoid contact, then it is the attacker who has hindered his own progress. In such a case, I think it's ridiculously harsh to award a penalty, but I guess it's all down to interpretation of the rules and how strict you choose to be. I don't really have much of an issue with people saying it was a penalty, even if I do disagree, and I was certainly happy to see us score.Couldn't a penalty be awarded for the trip on Young's right leg (which IMO was a foul) and then a yellow be brandished to Young for the kicking motion with his left leg, which was clearly an attempt at further deceiving the ref?
Like Neville said, if a defender leaves his leg out there then it's an invitation for the defender to run onto it. He left a leg out quite a bit from his body and I don't agree with the notion that he made an effort to avoid contact (before he realised that he'd put his leg out there and then tried to correct his mistake, at which point it was too late). It's like handballs, if you have your arms spread out in a star jump fashion you can't say that the ball struck you and you had no time to react, therefore making it unintentional and not a foul. That's maybe what it says in the rules, but it's not how it is (and should be) interpreted these days.In my opinion, if the attacker makes any effort to create contact, especially when the defender is making an equal effort to avoid contact, then it is the attacker who has hindered his own progress. In such a case, I think it's ridiculously harsh to award a penalty, but I guess it's all down to interpretation of the rules and how strict you choose to be. I don't really have much of an issue with people saying it was a penalty, even if I do disagree, and I was certainly happy to see us score.
I remember an incident earlier in the season, against Chelsea, where Welbeck won us a penalty, after the defender tried to pull his leg back and plant his foot, but Welbeck moved his leg to create contact. Most people here accepted that it was a dive, and most likely not a deserved penalty.
I just don't understand the fervent defending of Young in this incident. It's not like anybody is looking to vilify him, or like he's being slaughtered by every media outlet in the country. People are just saying he dived. Then others are returning with videos they have carefully inspected, and freeze frames of exact moments, to fight off such accusations. Is it really necessary to go to such lengths? Does that not make it appear more of an important issue than even his critics were suggesting?
Anyway, apologies if I've contributed to reviving the discussion, and I'll make my way out now.