Official Premier League 2009/10 thread

[Blue Rosler]

And didn't ... Evans just kinda boot someone in the side and only get a Yellow? SAF just comes across more as a ridiculously bad loser, and the way Arsenal/Chelsea are playing, there's a chance that they could finish third. I just feel a bit with SAF that football moved on to a new stage, but he never did.

[Hobo]

Ouch end to the first half for us. Not seen anything beyond the last 10 mins of it but Jerome's goal was a stunner (kinda have a feeling Mascherano was a bit switched off after giving away a free kick seconds earlier) also Riera went off injured

[ONO]

Oh dear.

[hugobomb]

OH YES!

Go Blues go!

[alldaws1]

Tsk tsk, N'gog.

Don't blame the referee for giving it from that angle. Perfect example of where video replay would be useful.

[stokeriño]

Well, a point is better than nothing I suppose...

[Hobo]

I have noticed that Birmingham's squad is composed of players I had forgotten about: Maik Taylor, Vignal, Bowyer, Carsely and Stephen Carr who even SI forgot about when they were making FM2010

[R.W.]

You know the worst thing about N'Gog's dive?

The smirk on his face afterwards.

[britneyspearsisgod]

The thing about the N'Gog dive is that if he hadn't had dove, Carsley would have caught him and given away a penalty anyway, so in either situation a penalty was the only option the referee could give. He got the yellow for diving, but Carsley had committed a foul with his late challenge. Thus, the penalty was justified, regardless of what anybody may like to say. Unfortunately, this is the way it is.

Still, Liverpool are having problems here. Riera out now? I mean, Stevie G is back, sure... but to stumble against lower opposition (despite Birmingham's performance, because they were quite determined and committed) like this unfortunately shows in some ways they seemed to have regressed backwards this season.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Liverpool's next match is against Manchester City

Two under performing teams that haven't been able to scrape wins playing each other

This could be what both teams need to kick start their Christmas push upwards.

[R.W.]

The thing about the N'Gog dive is that if he hadn't had dove, Carsley would have caught him and given away a penalty anyway, so in either situation a penalty was the only option the referee could give. He got the yellow for diving, but Carsley had committed a foul with his late challenge. Thus, the penalty was justified, regardless of what anybody may like to say. Unfortunately, this is the way it is.

No, the only situation in which giving a penalty was justified was if Carlsey had actually touched him. He didn't, so it's not a foul, so it's not a penalty. There's no rule saying give penalties or free kicks based on what might have happened, otherwise every sliding tackle or block that a defender makes but the attacker avoids should be treated in the same fashion.

Now, if N'Gog had been cute about it and ran into Carsley's leg and gone over, then fine. It's not what I like to see (I don't see why players can't hurdle challenges if they have time enough to dive over them), but at least there would have been contact and by the letter of the law, it would have been a foul & a penalty

I know every supporter wants to justify the actions of their team, but there's no getting round the fact N'Gog blatantly cheated last night. The problem is it's so inherent, and everyone makes excuses for it, and no-one gets punished for it, so it will keep happening.

But if I was Carsley, I would have punched the smirk right off his face

[therockbox]

Now, if N'Gog had been cute about it and ran into Carsley's leg and gone over, then fine. It's not what I like to see (I don't see why players can't hurdle challenges if they have time enough to dive over them), but at least there would have been contact and by the letter of the law, it would have been a foul & a penalt

I don't see how you can draw any differences between the two. They're both cheating, so I don't see how you can justify one and make it seem somehow more palatable than the other. It was a dive, clearly, although I can see why players dive in those situations - in having to hurdle Carsley's desperate lunge (he was nowhere near the ball, which is worth remembering) N'Gog put himself at a disadvantage, his stride was broken making it extremely difficult to shoot or cut the ball back across goal, especially so close to the line.

[Whisper]

Every time SAF does something stupid we all joke about the idea of a Grandfather clause being in effect (where he can get away with it because he's been there since the times when he could)

But more importantly, why is Manchester United's cheif executive David Gill on the FAs board of directors as a national game representative?

Surely that would be more important than the idea that it's just SAF... or has that been already discussed enough round these parts?

You mean the same board that the Chief Executives of Bolton, Ipswich and Norwich are all on? And if I'm not very much mistaken, the same board on which David Dein (a former Arsenal director) sat on for about 20 years.

[stokeriño]

don't see how you can draw any differences between the two. They're both cheating, so I don't see how you can justify one and make it seem somehow more palatable than the other.

The difference is the same as that between a soldier who might let himself get shot in order to be sent home, and another who shoots himself. Both are incredibly stupid, but since no one can ever be certain that the former case didn't legitimately get shot, as does happen, then that has to be accepted as fine. With the latter, the intentions can be demonstrated within reasonable doubt, and is therefore a court martial offence.

But putting such silly similies aside... Basically, although my AS Law is decidedly rusty, I believe it has a lot to do with having to accept innocence unless guilt can be proven. If a striker is tripped when he probably could have got out of the way, that is a subjective call as to whether it constitued a 'dive' based on your own preconceptions on how he quickly he should be able to react etc. Since contact is made, then the doubt is generally accepted as reasonable. However, falling without contact and without cause to lose balance at that moment is pretty much sufficient to determine the guilt of a dive without reasonable doubt. To say that "Both = cheating and so both = equal" is presuming the guilt of the former based on incomplete evidence, and is therefore a prejudiced judgement.

[Zaz]

Now, if N'Gog had been cute about it and ran into Carsley's leg and gone over, then fine. It's not what I like to see (I don't see why players can't hurdle challenges if they have time enough to dive over them), but at least there would have been contact and by the letter of the law, it would have been a foul & a penalt

I don't see how you can draw any differences between the two. They're both cheating, so I don't see how you can justify one and make it seem somehow more palatable than the other. It was a dive, clearly, although I can see why players dive in those situations - in having to hurdle Carsley's desperate lunge (he was nowhere near the ball, which is worth remembering) N'Gog put himself at a disadvantage, his stride was broken making it extremely difficult to shoot or cut the ball back across goal, especially so close to the line.

He seems to touch the ball with the outside of his foot (though it's difficult to tell with that angle). Not really nowhere near it though.

No idea how the ref fell for that tbh, you could hardly make a dive anymore obvious.

[stokeriño]

Incidentally, I apologise for the rambling and incoherent nature of my last post. As I've already said once this morning: my brain is clearly not on form.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

It wasn't even a good dive.

I rate it a 3.4/10.

[stokeriño]

Surely the arm flailing bumps it up to at least 4/10 on style?

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Anyone got a nice clip of the smirk at all? I need a good angering video to take my mind of the non-goal clip against United.

[Hobo]

When you see it from that angle, there is no contact. When you see it from the angle it was shown on TV and presumably the referees angle it looked like a foul. To be honest, while I admit there was no contact made to me it looks like N'Gog is actually trying to avoid contact with Carsley (who doesn't get the ball). Carsley's tackle itself was mistimed and either N'Gog goes down and its a penalty or he throws himself down and it is labelled a dive. If it was a well timed tackle the ball would've been moved most likely out for a corner.

It doesn't look like a flat out dive. It looks like contact wasn't made but Carsely's challenge didn't get the ball either. We were lucky to get it, I said that myself at the time. From a straight on angle it looks like a foul and from the replay a mistimed tackle that either N'Gog throws himself to the ground to make the most of or he tries to avoid Carsely's tackle falls down and is awarded a penalty.

And I note the irony that my current username is an homage to N'Gog