-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Football
- Thread starter MidnightFlyer
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
Saw on another forum I'm on tonight that Januzaj is the joint-second most booked player in the PL since 2008 for diving. Bale is top with 7 and Torres and Januzaj are on 3. Not bad for a player who's only made 14 appearances.
He's getting booked now when he hasn't actually dived. Yesterday he was fouled and immediately got up but still ended up being booked.
He did dive against West Ham but only after being denied a clear penalty a few moments earlier. After being booked for that dive the West Ham players must have deliberately kicked him a dozen times and then screamed at the referee each time to show him a second yellow but each time he jumped right back up. Repeatedly kicking a player to get him sent off for diving is worse than diving, in my opinion.
I've read several times that he has been fouled more than any other player this season which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest but I've not been able to find a source for that.
Mate seriously Lloris didn't look like he punched the ball outside his area. As for Man U players getting done for diving down the other end of the East Lancs at Anfield we watch Suarez get kicked all over the park week in week out and get nothing for it. It honestly isn't some anti Man U thing.
As established decisions in favour of United are remembered and brought up a decade after they happen while decisions against United are instantly dismissed and not even followed up with replays. We've just heard that an 18 year old who's played just 14 times for United has already been booked more for simulation than Suarez has in almost 100 matches. Yet week in and week out in this thread and elsewhere people complain that United get all the decisions in their favour. I'm doing nothing more than bringing balance to a thread that is otherwise almost overwhelmingly anti-United.
Last edited:
Well I hope that I haven't been anti United or at least where I have it has been in a jokey way and I have explained why. At the end of the day United are a hugely successful and popular team. The down side to this is that an even larger number of people are going to hate them. Now I support Liverpool and whilst our period of success is further back in history we have the same problem. Loads of people are made up if something goes wrong for us and if anything goes right they want some daft reason. The only answer is put up with it or go and support Bury or someone else.
EM2
Established Member
So according to the first of your posts that I've quoted here, his inital contact with the ball was inside the area and he continued it outside.
For a goalkeeper to handle the ball in the area is permitted, I'm sure we agree on that.
Your own admission is that he didn't intend to leave his area. Therefore, if he was still in contact with the ball as he left the area (as you said in the earlier post), he cannot have done so deliberately.
And, as the law states that handling the ball must be deliberate to be a foul, you have perfectly argued why it can't be a foul.
Of course a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball inside his own area.
He may not have intended to leave his area but he did leave his area.
After leaving the area he appeared to punch the ball clear to deny Danny Welbeck a clear goalscoring opportunity
As he punched the ball rather than handling it and bringing it under his control, he only had contact with it for a split second. He didn't start contact with it inside the box and release it outside.
The only way a goalkeeper could punch a ball inside his own box, maintain contact with the ball, accidentally leave the area and then release the ball after is if his gloves are covered in some kind of glue or perhaps a system of magnets?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's easier for the posters of this thread to believe that a goalkeeper ran 20 yards from his line and out of his box without any intention of handling the ball (was he inspecting the grass?), and that his gloves have magical properties, rather than just admit perhaps this time a decision went against Manchester United.
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
If it's as clear-cut as you say, why, in the second picture you posted, is not a single Manchester United player appealing?
Why is there no suggestion of it being outside the area in the Telegraph minute-by-minute? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...nchester-United-v-Tottenham-Hotspur-live.html
Or the Daily Mail? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...r-United-v-Tottenham-live-Premier-League.html
Or The Guardian? http://www.theguardian.com/football...ue-manchester-united-v-tottenham-hotspur-live
Why does a Google search for 'Lloris handball' only bring up results for an incident versus Cardiff?
Why is there no suggestion of it being outside the area in the Telegraph minute-by-minute? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...nchester-United-v-Tottenham-Hotspur-live.html
Or the Daily Mail? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...r-United-v-Tottenham-live-Premier-League.html
Or The Guardian? http://www.theguardian.com/football...ue-manchester-united-v-tottenham-hotspur-live
Why does a Google search for 'Lloris handball' only bring up results for an incident versus Cardiff?
Last edited:
Perhaps their brains weren't functioning properly due to the glue fumes coming off of Lloris' sticky gloves.
or perhaps because there are only three United players in the shot and it takes the human brain more than the fraction of a second that had passed to realise what had happened and react.
The gif of Soldado's handball I posted above is a good example of of that, actually. It clearly shows how long it took Jonny Evans to react to a player handling the ball only a few cm in front of him.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So let me get this straight, you are using the fact that no media outlets picked up on this handball in an attempt to discredit my argument that no media outlets picked up on this handball?
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
No, I'm using the fact that pretty much the entire Internet, except for some bloke called JoeH on a railway forum, didn't pick up on this handball in an attempt to discredit your argument that no media outlets picked up on this handball.
In fact, reading through the first fifteen minutes of the match thread on RedCafe, no-one mentions it either.
Last edited:
Utter nonsense.
I missed the start of the game so it was an incident I wasn't even aware of until I saw numerous mentions of it on Twitter.
I then provided evidence here that shows that it's at the very least arguably handball. My argument throughout has been that as is typical with decisions going against United it's been ignored by the media. I said that had it been given the same level of scrutiny that a decision in favour of United would get, we would be able to see for sure if it was outside the box or in.
You first repeatedly tried to twist both the laws of the game and my posts to make me appear wrong.
Even more bizarrely you are now using the fact that no media outlets reported on it to try and refute my claims that the media has ignored it.
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
So now it's arguably handball?
And twisted the laws of the game and your posts? They're all there for anyone to read, and no-one seems to be agreeing with you.
Do the Laws Of The Game state that handball must be deliberate?
Did you say it doesn't matter where contact with the ball starts?
Did you say that you thought that Lloris didn't intend to come out of his area?
Even the leading Manchester United forum seems to have ignored it, along with everybody else.
magnanimous
adjective
1.
generous or forgiving, especially towards a rival or less powerful person.
The approval of others seems to be a constant theme with you. Are you incapable of making your own decisions without caring what other people think?
I said I didn't believe that Lloris intended to leave the box (why would he?), but I have provided irrefutable proof that he did and my belief is that once he had left the box he still made the decision to punch the ball away.
I have no idea why you care so much what other people think, but as it's so important to you here are some opinions:
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
All I have to go on are your two totally inconclusive pictures. Neither, to me, shows a deliberate handling of the ball outside the penalty area. That's my decision, and why I'm arguing against yours.
Not irrefutable, at least the argument that he handled the ball outside the area isn't. At least one other poster has said that they do not think it was 'a stonewaller'. Irrefutable mean 'unable to be refuted'. Your evidence is a long way from that.
Searching Twitter for 'Lloris' also provides dozens of people saying that Webb was right not to award a penalty for the challenge on Young. So would you accept these opinions, if I were to accept the opinions that you have posted?
My issue is that you are (or were) adamant that this was evidence of an anti-Manchester United agenda within the media, whereas, if that were the case, surely any number of people (such as the manager?) would be mentioning it, trying to bring it to widespread attention.
And they're not.
Last edited:
The fact that they are inconclusive is irrelevant. My belief is that he did handle the ball outside the area, but that's not important. My argument has only been that Lloris could have handled the ball outside the area, and had the same level of scrutiny been given to the incident as would have if he was a Manchester United player, we would be know for sure.
Other posters are unsure if he handled the ball outside the box, and I'm not 100% sure either, but it's irrelevant. The irrefutable proof that I have provided is that he left the box, not that he handled the ball outside the box. The fact he left the box also means doesn't matter in the slightest if he intended to do so, because he did. His intent to leave the box means nothing, only what he chose to do once he got there.
No. Your weak argument seemed to be entirely based on me being some lone nutter who imagined the incident in my head, that nobody else though the way did, and that would somehow discredit me. By pasting all these tweets I have shown that plenty of other people are aware of the incident, and even agree with me, but it doesn't matter in the slightest because the approval of others isn't a requirement for me.
The fact that different people have a different opinion to me on a different incident later in the match doesn't change a thing because their opinion on that incident never formed any part of my argument.
On this forum and elsewhere Manchester United fans are constantly subjected to claims of bribery, corruption and cheating against their club, and a conspiracy with the football authorities, and never with even the tiniest slither of evidence.
My posts have simply contrasted the difference in treatment between decisions against and for Manchester United. This is not evidence of a formal conspiracy against the club and wasn't presented as such.
Last edited:
The way I see that Lloris handball incident, based solely on that gif that was posted, as someone who is neutral to both teams involved in the match, is that it's impossible to tell whether or not it was a foul.The clip isn't long enough, not showing Lloris's movements immediately befor, and, more importantly, does not actually showing the moment when contact is made with the ball.e. My own opinion, based on the footage posted above, whicb is all available to me at the momentt, is that his attempt to punch the ball clear was mistimed, if it was outside the box, which I cant telll. Therefore, having just read through law 12, in which all references to handball make reference to intent, I do not think it was intentional, and therefore not a foul. I would,also point out that there is probably a very limited amount of time between Lloris's dive, leaving the box and contact with the ball in which he could have made a decion to change his mind.
Considering that the broadcaster would have had many cameras pointed at the incident, and the extremely high amount of attention given to other incidents in other games and even this one, do you not find it remarkable that no further scrutiny was given either on the live broadcast or on MOTD later in the evening?
A narrow show from square on the sideline should have been able to show definitively one way or the other.
Robinson
Member
Did you watch MOTD? There were a lot of talking points/incidents to talk about on that particular show (including the Young "penalty", which again, I didn't think was as clear-cut as some would like me to); inevitably they were never going to have time to show everything. Perhaps the fact that it wasn't replayed is indicative of the relatively high probability that it wasn't a foul?
No intent, that is clear and you admit that yourself. Therefore no intent means no offense. Simple.
Regarding the diving free kicks, research the boy who cried wolf, and adapt it to the "boy who cried foul". Suarez and Bale may be a good place to look into this. These players who have been divers in the past have set themselves up badly. Mud Sticks after all.
Regarding the diving free kicks, research the boy who cried wolf, and adapt it to the "boy who cried foul". Suarez and Bale may be a good place to look into this. These players who have been divers in the past have set themselves up badly. Mud Sticks after all.
I did not.
I said I didn't think he intended to leave the penalty area, because of how he stopped like a stone near the edge. This is to counter any claim that he was moving at some great speed so could have punched the ball from within the box but still ended up outside. He moves very little distance forward between the punch and the landing, as shown by his shadow. He appeared to be bringing himself to a stop inside the box and he failed.
I also said that I think that once he had left the area I believe he still chose to punch the ball clear.
The rules make it very clear that the offence is to deliberately handle the ball outside the area, not to deliberately leave the penalty area.
To do so to deny a clear goalscoring opportunity also has the requirement of a red card. Welbeck was otherwise one on one with the keeper with no covering defender.
The offence would appear to have an in-built defence. Surely no goalkeeper would intend to leave their box and handle the ball, considering the likelihood of a red card? Just like no outfield player would intentionally handle the ball to clear it off the goal line, considering the risk of him being sent off? Why would a player like Wayne Rooney intentionally kick other players on occasion considering they would likely be sent off? But players routinely do these things and nobody second guesses if they intended to do it or not.
Do you still maintain that it's legal to handle a ball outside the box if your feet aren't on the ground, or have you abandoned that claim?
Last edited:
balne-wonderer
Member
FA cup round 3 this weekend
A trip to Rochdale for Leeds, I'll be there.
A trip to Rochdale for Leeds, I'll be there.
In the context of a game, introducing the concept of "intent" into the rules simply means "ref's call". All a player has to do is say "I did not intend to...." and it is unlikely that anyone can prove otherwise (Unless a player is unwise enough to write somewhere that he did intend to commit the offence, but no one in their right mind would do that 
). So long as that is in the rules, fans, players and managers should just put up with it. And campaign for the writing of proper, objective rules.
). So long as that is in the rules, fans, players and managers should just put up with it. And campaign for the writing of proper, objective rules.Which was never the point, as much as everyone has tried to make it that.
What was the point then?
That he could have handled the ball outside the box, but because the incident was completely ignored by both the television coverage and the media in general there isn't even a second angle available which could prove it either way.
Also that had the incident been given the same level of scrutiny that it would have if it involved the Manchester United goalkeeper, we would know for sure either way.
Right let me sort this one out for you. There is no conspiracy against Man U in the media or elsewhere. The reason the Lloris handball got no attention is because most people, myself included, genuinely think it wasn't a handball (Just out of interest did Moyes mention it, I can't recall). Are you completely unaware of the number of people who feel things tend to get given in Man U's favour and that there is a conspiracy that way?
For once mate even though I am a Liverpool fan I am not biased against Man U as I wanted the game to be a draw.
So your argument is that the incident is so obviously not a handball that it doesn't even merit a 5 second replay to prove it one way or the other?
This despite it being broadcast by BT Sport who elsewhere on the broadcast chose to relive such riveting moments as members of the crowd yawning and the back of dozens of players heads.
Got it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's no bias against Manchester United from fans or the media, yet decisions that went in the favour of United a decade ago are still repeatedly mentioned, analysed and criticised, while for decisions potentially against United we don't even get to see if they are truly against United because the TV companies don't bother showing them and they are either never mentioned or forgotten about within seconds and anyone trying to bring them up is shouted down?
Last edited:
Robinson
Member
Gosh we've created a bit of a stir, haven't we?
And to think up here we're always told it's Celtic fans who are paranoid...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Meanwhile, Rangers' march towards a 2nd consecutive promotion continues despite a flat 1-1 home draw against Stranraer (first dropped points of the season); following that up with a narrow victory over the newly-rechristened Airdrieonians.
And to think up here we're always told it's Celtic fans who are paranoid...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Meanwhile, Rangers' march towards a 2nd consecutive promotion continues despite a flat 1-1 home draw against Stranraer (first dropped points of the season); following that up with a narrow victory over the newly-rechristened Airdrieonians.