[Football] Smug Eddie not so smug today...

[TomandJerry]

Bournemouth manager Eddie Howe, speaking to BBC Sport:*"It was a clear penalty. I felt it at the time. I could not believe what the referee did and to see it again makes you feel even worse, it's one of the most stonewall penalties you will see all season.

"We also lose him (Adam Smith) to suspension, so it's a huge blow.*

Everyone wants to see diving taken out of the game but maybe he was looking for it where it hadn't happened. It was much better from us today. Today we were good, Southampton were good too, there was no thought about settling for a point from either side. But we were disappointed, having taken the lead, not to hold on."

Poor Eddie loses a player to a controversial booking

 

[Acker79]

Just said on the weekend football thread, I think Thierry Henry at half time got it right. The player stopped and threw himself to the ground, if he'd kept running, he would have still been fouled and the penalty would likely have been given. Because Smith stopped and threw himself down, the ref was absolutely right to book him.

For me it was as much a penalty as Niasse's - Smith and Niasse were both going to ground, if the defenders could vanish before making contact Niasse/Smith would have still gone to ground. To me, that is diving - choosing to go to ground when you can, with reasonable effort, stay on your feet is a dive. But time and time again we see pundits and "experts" (and biased fans) point to a moment of contact, a single frame of the replay were a stud brushes the hem of a player's shorts, as proof it was a foul, that if the ref didn't give it he should have. (It's also why I'm surprised Niasse was banned).

 

[albion534]

it was a pen

VR cant come quick enough, you blow up for a foul anyway, how long for him to look at it and send the message down

 

[AmexRuislip]

Plucky to be awarded freedom of B'Muff!

The award will also entitle Howe to certain privileges, like having the right to demand his townsfolk call him “The Right-Honourable Edward John Frank Freeman” at all times and being able to drive a flock of geese up the A338 on Market Day if he so chooses

Plucky

 

[Weststander]

Just said on the weekend football thread, I think Thierry Henry at half time got it right. The player stopped and threw himself to the ground, if he'd kept running, he would have still been fouled and the penalty would likely have been given. Because Smith stopped and threw himself down, the ref was absolutely right to book him.

For me it was as much a penalty as Niasse's - Smith and Niasse were both going to ground, if the defenders could vanish before making contact Niasse/Smith would have still gone to ground. To me, that is diving - choosing to go to ground when you can, with reasonable effort, stay on your feet is a dive. But time and time again we see pundits and "experts" (and biased fans) point to a moment of contact, a single frame of the replay were a stud brushes the hem of a player's shorts, as proof it was a foul, that if the ref didn't give it he should have. (It's also why I'm surprised Niasse was banned).

No pen. Charging into the Arsenal player, unnaturally looking for the contact, rather than looking to play football. Caught out, well done ref.

 

[Easy 10]

* Lets just brush that nasty cheating FFP business under the carpet *

 

[Gazwag]

No pen. Charging into the Arsenal player, unnaturally looking for the contact, rather than looking to play football. Caught out, well done ref.

This is one of my pet hates at the moment, there are so many professional penalty seekers in the game, maybe in the eyes of the current rules most of them are penalties but the amount of times a player wins a penalty seems to be getting higher and higher compared to obvious (proper) fouls. Anywhere else on the pitch the player would keep running after minimal contact but as soon as they get to the penalty area they are looking for the miniscule touch so they can end up in a heap for a penalty.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

No pen. Charging into the Arsenal player, unnaturally looking for the contact, rather than looking to play football. Caught out, well done ref.

psst...

The post you've replied to, was from December 2017...

 

[Weststander]

psst...

The post you've replied to, was from December 2017...

Will teach me for never looking at dates.

 

[Easy 10]

This is one of my pet hates at the moment, there are so many professional penalty seekers in the game, maybe in the eyes of the current rules most of them are penalties but the amount of times a player wins a penalty seems to be getting higher and higher compared to obvious (proper) fouls. Anywhere else on the pitch the player would keep running after minimal contact but as soon as they get to the penalty area they are looking for the miniscule touch so they can end up in a heap for a penalty.

I find the phrase "WINNING a penalty" grating as well. "He's won a penalty" - the very terminology implies a player has played for exactly that. He's not just been fouled, he's "won" a penalty. Small wonder players take it as carté-blanche to go down easily in an attempt to 'win' one.

 

[pasty]

I find the phrase "WINNING a penalty" grating as well. "He's won a penalty" - the very terminology implies a player has played for exactly that. He's not just been fouled, he's "won" a penalty. Small wonder players take it as carté-blanche to go down easily in an attempt to 'win' one.

BIG. FAT. THIS.

Right up there with "he was entitled to go down"

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I find the phrase "WINNING a penalty" grating as well. "He's won a penalty" - the very terminology implies a player has played for exactly that. He's not just been fouled, he's "won" a penalty. Small wonder players take it as carté-blanche to go down easily in an attempt to 'win' one.

Indeed.

And by extension, the concept of players CELEBRATING 'winning' one. I ****ing HATE seeing that, and always hope they go on to smash the ****er 20 yards over the bar.