Well, the penalty...?

You need to elaborate on this idea of "a penalty is unfair punishment". There are lots of penalty area penal fouls which did not prevent a goal. Handball? Holding? Do you just ignore them or are you suggesting some new category of direct free kick in the area? Defenders get away with all sorts of fouls in the area anyway, so perhaps a penalty, even though there is no danger to the goal, is a way of keeping defenders (more) honest. And goals are a good thing, so I don't mind seeing defending teams occasionally suffer excessive punishment as a result of the sheer Almunia-like stupidity of their defenders.

It's a good point, I've addressed it a bit above but not completely satisfactorily I admit.

But refs do this all the time (as I said above) in every game there are loads of incidents in the area that could be and more often than not would be called a foul outside the box.
I have been watching football for a long time and many so called fouls today would not have even been considered as a possible foul even 20 years ago but I can promise you the decision to award a penalty for the foul on Rooney would have been the same as long as I have watched football

I agree, a lot of the time that's what refs do. I don't think the Laws as they stand really account for the way refs actually judge play, or how fans do for that matter. We judge fouls on what we think was going to happen had they not taken place. If they have had no significant effect (or wouldn't have had the player not dived), we don't regard them as fouls. But that concept is absent from the Laws.

Personally I think this has been one of the more interesting threads in the MU of late, and the funny thing is that some of the people who've been most irritated by it have contributed a lot to it. You're irritated because you're focusing on the Rooney pen., but that's the least interesting part, you see it one way or the other.
 
We judge fouls on what we think was going to happen had they not taken place. If they have had no significant effect (or wouldn't have had the player not dived), we don't regard them as fouls. But that concept is absent from the Laws..
Yeah , but that happens in every field of human endeavour, the LOAF is wholly inadequate without context and custom.
 
The only justification is that Rooney went to ground early to minimise the effects of an inevitable collision. I think he went to ground too early in an attempt to over-egg the manufactured situation.

So after 14 pages we are back to what I said in the matchday thread 2 mins after the game vs Marchings reply?

This threads come a long way hasn't it...
 
Yeah, but that happens in every field of human endeavour, the LOAF is wholly inadequate without context and custom.

100%, but people talk as if that's not required. Every now and then a pundit will say, "Yeah but he'd never have got the ball..." or, "Yeah that could have been a yellow but it's not that sort of match..." and people lambast them for it, but really that is how these decisions are and should be taken.
 
Sorry Surf, I directed you to the wrong slightly pompous post, I meant this one.

I accept that football, like anything else except chess, isn't entirely fair. Some penalties prevent a likely goal, others don't, but the probable outcome is a goal in either case. Some goals are brilliant and unstoppable, others are messy and almost saved and trickle over the line, but they have the same effect on the score. Your concern may be exacerbated by the fact that matches are decided purely by goals, and goals are relatively rare events, which means that something like the law of large numbers doesn't necessarily come to the rescue of the better side and win them the game. So soft penalties can become crucial.

I'm willing to admit that Arsenal were the better side. But I'd also expect rightresult to say that the final score was correct, in which case the gunners only have themselves to blame for giving us the game.
 
Yeah I'm not really talking about this game... I don't particularly feel the gooners were robbed, they should have had a pen but they scored immediately afterwards anyway. They should have had a drawt, but they have themselves to blame as much as the ref, given how shit we played. They played very well in the first half but looked typically psychologically fragile when the chips were down. They are a funny bunch... I blame the manager.

As to the role of luck in football, I agree it's amplified by the fact that it's low-scoring.
 
i don't think it's necessary or appropriate to have a philosophical discussion about uncertainty and the human condition to see - quite clearly - that this was and always will be a penalty. as it should be. almunia certainly thought rooney was in goal scoring position. why else would he dive out like a dumbass? well, besides him being a dumbass...
 
i don't think it's necessary or appropriate to have a philosophical discussion about uncertainty and the human condition to see - quite clearly - that this was and always will be a penalty. as it should be. almunia certainly thought rooney was in goal scoring position. why else would he dive out like a dumbass? well, besides him being a dumbass...

Kinell Kev...

No it's not 'necessary' to have a more general (and more interesting) discussion, that's the way the thread happens to have developed, if you ignore the twelve people who wade in every page to say, "Pointless thread, definite pen", meaning we then have to go back yet again over the same arguments. So....

Yes Almunia thought he was coming in on goal, but as it happened he spooned his touch, while in the process of falling over, either because he was stretching, or his foot caught in the turf, or he was diving, or he was 'playing for a pen'* - before Almunia hit him.

If you don't think he was diving, you think it's a pen, if you do think he was diving, you don't think it's a pen, a part from a few oddballs who think he was diving but it's a pen anyway...

*diving
 
Kinell Kev...

No it's not 'necessary' to have a more general (and more interesting) discussion, that's the way the thread happens to have developed, if you ignore the twelve people who wade in every page to say, "Pointless thread, definite pen", meaning we then have to go back yet again over the same arguments. So....

Yes Almunia thought he was coming in on goal, but as it happened he spooned his touch, while in the process of falling over, either because he was stretching, or his foot caught in the turf, or he was diving, or he was 'playing for a pen'* - before Almunia hit him.

*diving

yes, but you are treating the spooning of his touch and almunia's inevitable foul as though they are independent events. they are not. rooney spooned his touch because of the foul. that is why the rule book cares not where the ball is when the foul occurs.
 
i don't think it's necessary or appropriate to have a philosophical discussion about uncertainty and the human condition to see - quite clearly - that this was and always will be a penalty. as it should be. almunia certainly thought rooney was in goal scoring position. why else would he dive out like a dumbass? well, besides him being a dumbass...
Jesus Christ you're coming on like some 14-year-old yank who's just gotten into soccer.
 
yes, but you are treating the spooning of his touch and almunia's inevitable foul as though they are independent events. they are not. rooney spooned his touch because of the foul. that is why the rule book cares not where the ball is when the foul occurs.

He didn't, he'd already lost it before he got clattered, look at the replays

The laws don't care where the ball ends up, but lots of fans do... and most of our lot mysteriously felt the same when when Keano chopped Joe Cole down in 2003 with the ball speeding over the goal line...
 
He didn't, he'd already lost it before he got clattered, look at the replays

The laws don't care where the ball ends up, but lots of fans do... and most of our lot mysteriously felt the same when when Keano chopped Cole down with the ball speeding over the goal line...

i know he did, but that doesn't mean that one didn't happen because of the other. threat of immediate injury will cause one to mishandle a touch.
 
i know he did, but that doesn't mean that one didn't happen because of the other. threat of immediate injury will cause one to mishandle a touch.

You think he was scared of getting injured, I reckon he wasn't, neither of us knows, it's certainly not cut and dried, hence discussion... getting very boring now...
 
Alll of these and the running it into the corner can be dealt with under the existing rules if the refs weren't such dickheads.

Exactly...law 12 covers unsportsmanlike conduct and running it to the corner flag is unquestionably unsportsmanlike conduct. I don't understand why refs never give it.
 
You think he was scared of getting injured, I reckon he wasn't, neither of us knows, it's certainly not cut and dried, hence discussion... getting very boring now...

fair enough. since intentions are unknowable, this is why we have rules that try to rely on as many objective standards as possible - fouls within areas designated by chalk, etc.
 
No, it's obstruction



Yes, it's obstruction



If you take on a player? Take out, you mean?

I think you might be too American, in another thread yesterday you were saying it had to be deliberate to be a foul...

I was drunk, but yes I meant take a player out, it's not like it was the Carrick decision v Spurs where Gomes got the ball, Rooney knocked it past him and it was a foul.

As for deliberate and a foul, I said that pretty much all fouls are deliberate
 
You think he was scared of getting injured, I reckon he wasn't, neither of us knows, it's certainly not cut and dried, hence discussion... getting very boring now...

I think he spooned it because he wasn't thinking about controlling it he was thinking about winning a penno because he knew he was going to be clattered.Not fear of injury, just taking advantage of reckless play by Almunia.
 
If you don't think he was diving, you think it's a pen, if you do think he was diving, you don't think it's a pen, a part from a few oddballs who think he was diving but it's a pen anyway...

That's not such a strange position. Any dive he may or may not have made was almost undiscernable in time from him being fouled - there can be no certainty that he dived, whereas there can be certainty that it was a foul, so it's a penalty.

All penalties are judgement calls anyway, and to my mind there is no doubt that based on what the ref could see, he gave a good decision. And that even if he saw it again in slow-mo, he'd give the same decision. All this shite about Rooney diving wouldn't have been discussed if it hadn't have been for Eduardo diving in midweek, the stupid furore about that, and the fact that Arsenal fans were bitter about losing.
 
So after 14 pages we are back to what I said in the matchday thread 2 mins after the game vs Marchings reply?

This threads come a long way hasn't it...

Afro, you've got to look at it as a 'development' of your original idea

Look how has spurred others onwards to enhance the main thrust of the original point :D
 
If you don't think he was diving, you think it's a pen, if you do think he was diving, you don't think it's a pen, a part from a few oddballs who think he was diving but it's a pen anyway...
*diving

Okay okay I'll admit I'm an 'oddball' :D

I think he dived and I think it was a penalty but that's based on the pure speed of it . I cant see the ref having any realistic chance of giving anything else unless his lino steps in with a really confident call on anything else

This lino position in all of this is something that never seems to help these matters. Its much easier to be up with the play and you're only really looking for offsides and incidents in the box. How in fksnames they cant seem to ever really see whats happening in these incidents is ridiculous imo

Ive done a bit of officiating many many years ago at a low level and found reffing to be challenging in respect of seeing everything although easy in dealing with the players but linoing - fck that was much easier - its actually quite hard to miss anything that's happening in your 'region' - offsides being the only calls where you really have to have all your wits about you
 
That's not such a strange position. Any dive he may or may not have made was almost undiscernable in time from him being fouled - there can be no certainty that he dived, whereas there can be certainty that it was a foul, so it's a penalty.

All penalties are judgement calls anyway, and to my mind there is no doubt that based on what the ref could see, he gave a good decision. And that even if he saw it again in slow-mo, he'd give the same decision. All this shite about Rooney diving wouldn't have been discussed if it hadn't have been for Eduardo diving in midweek, the stupid furore about that, and the fact that Arsenal fans were bitter about losing.

Spot on sincher
 
As for deliberate and a foul, I said that pretty much all fouls are deliberate

Which isn't true though, a large proportion of fouls are late tackles where the defender is playing the ball in good faith.

I think he spooned it because he wasn't thinking about controlling it he was thinking about winning a penno because he knew he was going to be clattered.Not fear of injury, just taking advantage of reckless play by Almunia.

Yes I think that's the most likely scenario, in which case the laws say pen, but if I was ref I might have let it go cos I consider it dishonourable play.

That's not such a strange position. Any dive he may or may not have made was almost undiscernable in time from him being fouled - there can be no certainty that he dived, whereas there can be certainty that it was a foul, so it's a penalty.

All penalties are judgement calls anyway, and to my mind there is no doubt that based on what the ref could see, he gave a good decision. And that even if he saw it again in slow-mo, he'd give the same decision. All this shite about Rooney diving wouldn't have been discussed if it hadn't have been for Eduardo diving in midweek, the stupid furore about that, and the fact that Arsenal fans were bitter about losing.

Yeah there's no question it would have looked like a pen in real time, but saying that only one decision was ever going to be made isn't the same as saying it was the right decision - your 'so it's a penalty' is a bit of sleight of hand. With the slo-mos etc., it's a harder call.

I agree reffing is about judgement, but while the laws are framed the way they are their decisions are always going to be up for scrutiny.

Personally I didn't even see the Eduardo incident till after the United match, and at the time I thought it was a pen and was delighted, so I don't think it's all about the furore, it's an interesting test case for a marginal area of the game.

Okay okay I'll admit I'm an 'oddball' :D

I think he dived and I think it was a penalty but that's based on the pure speed of it . I cant see the ref having any realistic chance of giving anything else unless his lino steps in with a really confident call on anything else

Again, I agree it was fair enough that the ref gave a pen, I wouldn't blame him in the least. The question is whether technically, according to the laws and with a god's-eye view, it should have been a pen.

Jo said:
This lino position in all of this is something that never seems to help these matters. Its much easier to be up with the play and you're only really looking for offsides and incidents in the box. How in fksnames they cant seem to ever really see whats happening in these incidents is ridiculous imo

Ive done a bit of officiating many many years ago at a low level and found reffing to be challenging in respect of seeing everything although easy in dealing with the players but linoing - fck that was much easier - its actually quite hard to miss anything that's happening in your 'region' - offsides being the only calls where you really have to have all your wits about you

But then as Grinner points out, adjudicating offsides consistently is essentially impossible, so it's not surprising that at the top level, where the stakes are so high, that's what they're concentrating on. No-one blames them much for missing a foul, they blame the ref, whereas everyone blames them for wrong offside calls. The upshot I reckon is that as they run along the touchline, much of the time they're drawing an imaginary line across the pitch where the last man is, while simultaneously trying to watch the play to see if a through-ball's being played. Makes keeping an eye out for general misdemeanours pretty hard.
 
What I'm saying is that 'technically', according to the laws of the game, it was a penalty because it was a clear foul off the ball and far less clear, in fact only a guess, after detailed study of slow-mo replays that the player attempted any simulation. I'm also saying that the issue of simulation in this case wouldn't even be part of the discussion if it weren't for the previous events. In short, I don't think this was very debatable, either in the event or afterwards.
 
Which isn't true though, a large proportion of fouls are late tackles where the defender is playing the ball in good faith.



Yes I think that's the most likely scenario, in which case the laws say pen, but if I was ref I might have let it go cos I consider it dishonourable play.



Yeah there's no question it would have looked like a pen in real time, but saying that only one decision was ever going to be made isn't the same as saying it was the right decision - your 'so it's a penalty' is a bit of sleight of hand. With the slo-mos etc., it's a harder call.

I agree reffing is about judgement, but while the laws are framed the way they are their decisions are always going to be up for scrutiny.

Personally I didn't even see the Eduardo incident till after the United match, and at the time I thought it was a pen and was delighted, so I don't think it's all about the furore, it's an interesting test case for a marginal area of the game.



Again, I agree it was fair enough that the ref gave a pen, I wouldn't blame him in the least. The question is whether technically, according to the laws and with a god's-eye view, it should have been a pen.



But then as Grinner points out, adjudicating offsides consistently is essentially impossible, so it's not surprising that at the top level, where the stakes are so high, that's what they're concentrating on. No-one blames them much for missing a foul, they blame the ref, whereas everyone blames them for wrong offside calls. The upshot I reckon is that as they run along the touchline, much of the time they're drawing an imaginary line across the pitch where the last man is, while simultaneously trying to watch the play to see if a through-ball's being played. Makes keeping an eye out for general misdemeanours pretty hard.

Which is still a deliberate action, like many of Lampard's deflected goals

Do you not think that Almunia thought when he dove for the ball that if he didnt get there before Rooney he'd be giving up a peno
 
What I'm saying is that 'technically', according to the laws of the game, it was a penalty because it was a clear foul off the ball and far less clear, in fact only a guess, after detailed study of slow-mo replays that the player attempted any simulation. I'm also saying that the issue of simulation in this case wouldn't even be part of the discussion if it weren't for the previous events. In short, I don't think this was very debatable, either in the event or afterwards.

Well that's like saying if you're convicted of bestiality because in court the evidence for it is more persuasive than the evidence against, that means you did in fact bone the llama in question. Even if you didn't, and even if evidence that later comes to light suggests you were just good friends.
 
Well that's like saying if you're convicted of bestiality because in court the evidence for it is more persuasive than the evidence against, that means you did in fact bone the llama in question. Even if you didn't, and even if evidence that later comes to light suggests you were just good friends.

Semantics
 
Which is still a deliberate action, like many of Lampard's deflected goals

That's not what deliberate means in the context of fouls, it means done with intent to foul, not intent to do something else. Footballers are always in the process of trying to do something, not counting Liam Miller.

Alex said:
Do you not think that Almunia thought when he dove for the ball that if he didnt get there before Rooney he'd be giving up a peno

No, because I don't think Almunia's challenge was a deliberate foul, he played the ball.

Notice that the laws distinguish between 'kicks or intends to kick', 'trips or intends to trip', intent isn't necessary for a foul to be given, though it is sufficient.
 
That's not what deliberate means in the context of fouls, it means done with intent to foul, not intent to do something else. Footballers are always in the process of trying to do something, not counting Liam Miller.



No, because I don't think Almunia's challenge was a deliberate foul, he played the ball.

Notice that the laws distinguish between 'kicks or intends to kick', 'trips or intends to trip', intent isn't necessary for a foul to be given, though it is sufficient.

So Fletcher's challenge wasnt a peno because he was going for the ball
 
That's not what deliberate means in the context of fouls, it means done with intent to foul, not intent to do something else. Footballers are always in the process of trying to do something, not counting Liam Miller.



No, because I don't think Almunia's challenge was a deliberate foul, he played the ball.

Notice that the laws distinguish between 'kicks or intends to kick', 'trips or intends to trip', intent isn't necessary for a foul to be given, though it is sufficient.



:lol:
 
He deliberately went for the ball, and missed it thus peno, just like Almunia