Disappointing Stevie Lad

[Craig_H]

Right, threads merged

Facist!

From now on, we'll call you Du_nk

[JRC]

Actually I don't accept the 'Intent' argument, but Styles was responding in a live TV interview by arguing that you don't have to have contact for it to be a foul - as when you penalise a dangerous challenge for intent. In the case at Sheffield, the defender may not have had the intent to foul him, but Gerrard hurdled a rash challenge where the defender didn't get the ball, and in so doing lost his balance. The challenge caused him to miss his footing, although he clearly tried to hurdle it - he did not dive, nor go down easily. If the defenders leg had been 3 foot in the air and Gerrard had succesfully cleared it with a fosbury flop but no contact, there would be no questioning it. In fact there was an identical non-penalty incident at Anfield the week after, and no-one batted an eyelid when a free kick was given (against us).

Whether he appealed or not is immaterial to the argument at hand - players consistently appeal for decisions in the area, it doesn't mean they have dived. And my point was exactly that - he has been accused of diving in an incident - whether you think it should have been a penalty or not - when it could scarecely be clearer that he tried to stay on his feet.

[Red_Polo]

Facist!

From now on, we'll call you Du_nk

You had your chance

Stevie diving is not a serious problem, it's not that regular really IMO. BUT when he does it, or when any of our players do, it ****ing pisses me off.

[Nicey]

If that was Ronaldo/Drogba we would be crucifying them,really poor player by the skipper.. i thought Kozluk was merely doing what every player does in the box defending a set piece, trying to hold their marker off, he wasn't particular aggressive or anything but Gerrard made sure the ref saw him
and went down very, very easily imo.
Good play on Gerrard's part you can say but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Redlife]

I actually don't see what the big deal is about the penalty on the first day of the season either. The defender swiped across Stevie's run, Stevie G jumped the tackle but lost balance.


If he hadn't jumped and instead let the defender kick him, it would have been a nailed on penalty. 'Intent' is a weird one, but I think a penalty was the right decision.


Today's first penalty is a talking point mostly because the defender's stupidity. There was enough contact to send Stevie down and the defender's an idiot for letting it happen.

[GordonGecko]

To be honest, I thought it should have been a penalty try

[Harv]

Never a penalty.

it is a penalty mate. He impeded his run into the box, he was warned about doing it, yet still did it. Gerrard mearly made the most of the situation.

It was a soft penalty, but it doesnt matter whether it soft or hard.....its still a penalty.

[AFII]

It was a penalty, no question about that. You are not allowed to put your arms around a player. Stevie dived but it's still a penalty.

The problem is that the refs usually doesn't give penalties for an incident like that when they should do it all the time.

The right decision would have been a penalty to us and a yellow card to Stevie for his dive.

[einar]

It was a penalty, no question about that. You are not allowed to put your arms around a player. Stevie dived but it's still a penalty.

The problem is that the refs usually doesn't give penalties for an incident like that when they should do it all the time.

The right decision would have been a penalty to us and a yellow card to Stevie for his dive.

You are right, and part of this really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Steve was not looking for the ball, not trying to get to a position to score, he was just looking for a penalty.

And what he did in this game and has done on other occasions is the main reason I want Carra to be captain.

[Ron_Mexico]

If that was Ronaldo/Drogba we would be crucifying them,really poor player by the skipper.. i thought Kozluk was merely doing what every player does in the box defending a set piece, trying to hold their marker off, he wasn't particular aggressive or anything but Gerrard made sure the ref saw him
and went down very, very easily imo.
Good play on Gerrard's part you can say but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

ive seen you have a go at gerrard for....lets see.....not being a good enough leader, not being a good enough captain......i've lost the rest because reading your posts actually kills brain cells

you just dont like gerrard, its ok to admit it

you ****ing clown :whatever:

that was always a penalty

i love the contrarians on this site, they think theyre so ****ing original. its pathetic

[desertscouser]

My take on it is that it was a very soft penalty but a penalty nevertheless. Gerrard was looking for the penalty, he played for the penalty and ultimately got the penalty.

[DannyMan2006]

The rules of he law says it a penalty, so yes it was a penalty. Thats not to suggest it wasnt a soft pen, and it was probably a "home" decision.

However, Kozluk was very aware the ref was watching and still had his arms around Gerrard. Gerrard also knew the ref was watch ing and so turned in a way to make sure he was hauled down. The ref looking straight at the incident after making both players aware he was looking had no choice but to give it.

Like I said, rules of the game. Had Rob Hulse won a pen this way for Sheff Utd I would be more pissed off with our defender than I would the ref. If you keep your arms off other players there is no decision to make.

It is accepted in football that these fouls happen, but its all about not be being so blatant. Kozluk was blatant. Had it not been given the MOTD team would have said: "Ive seen them given" and "If that foul happens outside the box its a free kick" . Arguably the inconsistency of the refs is to blame, but Im sorry Kozluk - To blatant and too damn stupid on your part.

[desertscouser]

The rules of he law says it a penalty, so yes it was a penalty. Thats not to suggest it wasnt a soft pen, and it was probably a "home" decision.

However, Kozluk was very aware the ref was watching and still had his arms around Gerrard. Gerrard also knew the ref was watch ing and so turned in a way to make sure he was hauled down. The ref looking straight at the incident after making both players aware he was looking had no choice but to give it.

Like I said, rules of the game. Had Rob Hulse won a pen this way for Sheff Utd I would be more pissed off with our defender than I would the ref. If you keep your arms off other players there is no decision to make.

It is accepted in football that these fouls happen, but its all about not be being so blatant. Kozluk was blatant. Had it not been given the MOTD team would have said: "Ive seen them given" and "If that foul happens outside the box its a free kick" . Arguably the inconsistency of the refs is to blame, but Im sorry Kozluk - To blatant and too damn stupid on your part.

[nbryan1764]

I have two points on this:
1) How ****ing stupid was that defender? SG had shown the ref that he had his arms wrapped around him, the ref commented (I guess toldhim to stop) and then the corner was taken and he wrapped himself around him again! If the penalty had not been given for the foul then it should have been for being stupid!

2) On a more serious note, what would SG's alternatives have been? His run was blocked by being held. If he had stayed on his feet then nothing would have been given but he still would not have been able to make his run. If he had pushed the defender away then he would no doubt have had a free kick given against him (especially with that ref he is ****e). SO to me the only alternative is to react as if he had been fouled...which in fact he had been. I am pretty sure of that as nowhere in the rule book does it suggest that a defender can hold a player to stop him running

[JRC]

I think there is a world of difference between acting as though you have been fouled when you haven't, and not trying to play on/stay on your feet when you have been fouled. A player has no obligation to make life easier for defenders by letting them get away with a clear foul. Sometimes the %age decision may well be to carry on, but I don't see how the Blades defender can complain - 'I fouled him, stopped his run, but he should have just accepted it with good grace and got on with it' ?