whats all this ridiculous fuss about ngog

Agreed Rafa is a fool what was he talking about.

** PLAYING FOR A TEAM OF **S

Never heard such utter B0LL0X in my life.

rafa asked ngog if there was contact.
ngog said "no"
rafa relayed that conversation to the media.

the issue of contact long since ceased to be of any relevance.

you can post in bold capitals and use bad language as much as you like.

that is the truth of modern football.

we used to laugh at the shenanagins of continetal and south american teams but now the battle is lost. its no longer the game our nation invented. the rules have evolved. that is a penalty.

no its not.. just as steven gerrards attempt at getting a penalty wasnt.. but he still looked at the ref just in case...

my guess is its not SAF

Players like Carvalho and Ronaldo are damaging football." - Steven Gerrard.

"Moreover, it's your own team-mates like Steven Gerrard who don't like you using those tricks." - Fernando Torres.

"If I saw a team-mate doing it, I would definitely have a word." - Steven Gerrard.

"I don't think there's anything worse than a player diving when no one's been anywhere near him. It does ruin the game." - Steven Gerrard.

Look Floz there's nothing there to debate - it's downright **ing, end of story.

Not a guess who really redpunt. The la's name is there like la.

did he have to get out of the way of the challenge by diving head first ???

gerrards comments are laughable.. and if the english media had any ** they would ask him about them when he has done yet another dive..

i see his **ing wasnt mentioned in the papers much today

but maybe it wasnt a penalty. I havent seen the replay. I asked David and he said maybe it wasnt a penalty.

maybe it wasn't ............ but it was and correctly so.

end of thread if you wish or i'm more than happy to continue to try and educate you on how the game has evolved and is evolving.

Thank you for your kind if misplaced offer Floz. I will pass.

:-)

I have to say on a slightly different tangent I have been impressed by Benitez recent interviews he seems to have improved in that area, now just his tactics, transfer policy and team selection to improve, and he can pack then part time waiting job imo

I THINK WE SHOULD ALL JUST IGNORE FLOZ FROM NOW ON.....IF THIS GUY THINKS THATS A PEN THE GUY IS A CLOWN AND SHOULD BE IGNORED

worse than a player diving when no one's been anywhere near him.

i totally agree with steven on this. the way ronaldo used to go over when there was the slightest whiff of a player approaching was a disgrace.

don you honestly believe that carsley was nowhere near him?
that sliding tackle with no chance of winning the ball could have seriously injured the lad if he hadn't taken evasive action from carsley's serious foul play.

Rod put away your

so just out of interest then all you liverpool fans..

what do you think about your beloved captains words and his actual actions...

bazza1875,

that is a very fair point and of course the answer is no he didn't.
i liken it to when one player slaps another in the face. does the victim have to fall to the floor holding his face. no he doesn't. you certainly wouldn't in a pub. why does he do it? to demonstarate to the referee what has just occurred in the most vivid way.
should the gulty party be sent off? absolutely yes.
is it an edifying sight to see the victim hamming it up? no.

but thats what the modern interpretation of the game has done to us all.

done to us all.

more bolloxology.

colleenPeas8,
do you watch a match with the same critical eye as you did in the 70's or 80's or do you think that the continuous evolving of the interpretation of the laws has eaten away at what you perceive as a foul or not a foul.

Do you think roundabouts are for driving around and around and around? At some point it is worthwhile taking an exit.

I think if referees applied the laws of the game we would have a healthier game Flossy..

ok, colleen, you didn't even try to answer the question but i'll take your answer from what you did manage to type.

horse has bolted matey. no chance of turning the clock back.

someone maybe half joking on this thread or another suggested banning the slide tackle. its coming, believe me. what carsley did will eventually be perceived as ALWAYS being a foul contact or no contact.

for me, last night. penalty. its a game of opinions.

THE OFFICIAL LINE: Diving David Ngog should hang his head in shame

By Graham Poll

What an absolute disgrace David Ngog was in committing one of the most blatant dives I have ever seen.

Referee Peter Walton should have a serious look at himself as he really MUST detect such obvious simulation and punish it.

Watching the game on television I immediately called it as a dive - not being clever, just that it was so obvious.

If UEFA's experiment to introduce six referees proves successful then the additional assistant referee would have been perfectly placed to yell into his microphone and tell Walton, 'It's a dive!'

Mind you, Walton should be experienced enough to detect it without external help. Ngog should be ashamed of himself.

The question is - when will football introduce retrospective action to punish such actions?

graham poll !!!!!!!!!!

thank you. thats the longest i've spent laughing since messi scored the second goal in rome.

The laws of the game are so ambiguous with regards what constitutes foul play that incidents such as last night will always create debate.

No contact needs to be made, this is without question, this is so that if, for example, a player goes in knee high with the 'intent' the referee can punish him whether contact is made or not, quite right too.

By the same token referees can also apply some discretion when some contact is made but he decides it is unintentional and insufficient to have caused the player to go to ground.

The problem with these scenarios is that a player can be technically fouled whilst not being touched and another player can be deemed not to have been fouled despite being touched. It's all about interpretation.

In a fast moving game where the referee has a split second to make a decision and has only one angle to view it from then sometimes he will make a decision that will be perceived as wrong.

The best people to assess whether a player intentionally 'won' a penalty are the players involved.

In this case it would seem both of them agree that it probably wasn't a penalty, N'gogs admission of this to rafael benitez is more telling than any amount of ex player pundits or 'gob for hire' ex refs spouting their nonsense.

It happened, the ref gave what he saw and Liverpool giot a draw that they more than deserved, no need for a Ronaldo style lynching by the media. Move on.

all true except that last night wasn't even close to ambiguous territory. It was a dive that worked in fooling the ref into awarding a penalty incorrectly.

I think I covered that in the second to last paragraph.

i seen it in real time looked a pen danny murphy had a cheek would never** of his pals owen and gerrard for diving and they are possibly asides from drogba the 2 biggest offenders in the league

Graham Poll...what a di ck. The one thing refs have going for them is that reasonable people realise that they only get one look and they only get one angle....if that leads to an incorrect decision judged on other angles, so be it. Poll had another angle and has to tell the world that he could see straight away that it was a dive and that the ref needs to wise up. I bet the current refs love these old timers taking the coin and spouting off.

Looking at it again, it seems to me it was simulation AND a foul as the sliding challenge missed the ball completely and obstructed the offesnive player.

When there is a foul in the box AND simulation, is a penalty meant to be awarded?

It depends what happened first imo. If Ngog is already going down before he is impeded (certainly arguable whether he was impeded at all imo) thenit's not a pen. If he's impeded first it is a pen. A clear example of this was at the weekend when**went to ground against spurs. The contact happened after**was already throwing himself to the ground. Therefore it shouldn't have been a pen.

good example asparagus, though I'd have used rooney against arsenal at old trafford :)

Would have been contact if he hadn't of jumped. I think he he genuinely tried to avoid the challenge at 1st and then seen he was running into a brick wall and went over. He should have been more clever and left a leg in there.

Exactly, everyone can see that if he'd left a leg down and not jumped over, there would have been contact and hardly anyone would have contested the penalty. My question is, does the simulation mean a penalty shouldn't be awarded?

Anyway good home point.

;-)

ngog, is he black, sounds like a black name that

iffy^

Looking at it again, it seems to me it was simulation AND a foul as the sliding challenge missed the ball completely and obstructed the offesnive player


Would have been a foul if Ngog was actually on the ground with one of his legs, as he was completely airborne when the challenge went under him it isn't a pen or a foul. You can't give fouls for what might have happened, Ngog could have left his leg drag, made contact and been given a pen but being an idiot and French chose histrionic jumping instead.

Maverick, I can't quite remember the Rooney incident!!

You can't give fouls for what might have happened

Are you sure about that? The OP's very first statement claims the opposite.

why hasnt sir alex or united in general been blamed for this dive by ngog?
lets hope the media rectifies this tomorrow.

Last night has to be one of the lowest points in your recent history.

all ngog has done is gone to ground - he did not give the penalty

melymoss 10 Nov 17:41
why hasnt sir alex or united in general been blamed for this dive by ngog?
lets hope the media rectifies this tomorrow.


what a ** you are :^0

keliwah 10 Nov 16:00


Looking at it again, it seems to me it was simulation AND a foul as the sliding challenge missed the ball completely and obstructed the offesnive player.

When there is a foul in the box AND simulation, is a penalty meant to be awarded


now we are getting somewhere. people are starting to talk some sense on this forum.....

thank you Mr Lizard.
:)

enjbenjy 10 Nov 16:19


Would have been contact if he hadn't of jumped. I think he he genuinely tried to avoid the challenge at 1st and then seen he was running into a brick wall and went over. He should have been more clever and left a leg in there.




keliwah 10 Nov 16:31


Exactly, everyone can see that if he'd left a leg down and not jumped over, there would have been contact and hardly anyone would have contested the penalty. My question is, does the simulation mean a penalty shouldn't be awarded?



to all the mugs who have been screaming ** and dive, this is the sort of debate that proves that nothing is as simple as it seems to you..........

and would the ref have give a penalty if a birmingham player went down like that in front of the kop

a booking for diving perhaps

Lazynative 10 Nov 17:15
Looking at it again, it seems to me it was simulation AND a foul as the sliding challenge missed the ball completely and obstructed the offesnive player


Would have been a foul if Ngog was actually on the ground with one of his legs, as he was completely airborne when the challenge went under him it isn't a pen or a foul. You can't give fouls for what might have happened, Ngog could have left his leg drag, made contact and been given a pen but being an idiot and French chose histrionic jumping instead.

you can give fouls for what might have happened. gerrard against sheff utd the other year.

anyone who thinks that was a penalty ought to have a serious look at themselves, if you take the argument of the "apologists" it would mean that anytime a defender went for a ball and failed to play it the attacker is quite within his rights to fly through the air of his own volition [because that's what ngog did] and expect a direct freee kick/pen.

i agree that "the horse has bolted" to an extent, we now have the situation where an attacker can actually initiate contact and the great and good of the game deem that a pen[as per rooney against arsenal] the football world has robert pires and his ilk to thank for this.
i was a bit sickened when uefa retreated from their sanctioning of eduardo, in the face of a" mountain of evidence"from arsenal where they managed to convince the authorities that the merest touch justified the player diving[totally against their laws by the way], so it carries on.

anyway.

he wasn't touched.

he dived.

and the fact that nobody will do anything about a player appearing to earn his team a point via an act of **ing , gives the **s unlimited licence.

crap challenge... only thing N'gog did wrong was to not leave a trailing leg behind ala Darren**

Ngog could have left his leg drag, made contact and been given a pen but being an idiot and French chose histrionic jumping instead

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that sums it up for me.

either way it's not a pen as far as i'm concerned, but it seems that this was accepted as a" legitimate **" some time ago.

only accepted as a legitimate cheap by those who **. The laws of the game are clear. It wasn't a penalty. It was simulatation aimed at secuting an unfair advantage. The ** should've been booked.

I have no team alligiance here, just a love of the game. Shame on Liverpool and all those so called 'fans' who support **ing.

****