PSG v Barca R

PSG v Barca R

Post by mehd » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:35:11



Quote:
> He started this season with a lot of minutes, but has fallen somehow lately.... with some booing at certain points included.

> http://www.marca.com/2013/03/07/futbol/equipos/barcelona/1362673139.html

> In his own words "Fans expect more from me than from other players", in response to some chanting from the stands after a few less than stellar performances.

I think fans expect Xavi II and he isn't. He learned to play at EPL
tempo so I doubt he'll ever have the discipline to play with the
patience demanded by Barcelona's system.

--
http://soccer-europe.com
http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
http://www.dailymotion.com/HDCalcio
https://twitter.com/calcioeurope

 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Diaboli » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 21:24:50



Quote:
> Diabolik a formul ce jeudi :

>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a consequence
>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

> It mays...
> If a player simulates a knock and then takes a knock after, do you think
> there's no foul ?

If it's a result of the original simulation, I don't think it's a foul.

 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Clémen » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 21:25:03

"Diabolik"  escreveu:

Quote:

>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But Sanchez
>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a consequence of
> the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

When you say "and contact is a consequence of the fall", you're already
implying that there was no foul, and that the [potentially] fouling player
was run over or something.

I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a careless
or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries to trip an
opponent, among other things.

Even if a player is going for a dive, he can still be tripped. These things
are not mutually exclusive. On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused
exclusively by diving or losing balance without any influence from others,
then the player was not tripped, by definition.

A penalty was called against Sirigu because he went for a careless challenge
and tripped Sanchez as a result. Yeah, it didn't looked like Sanchez was too
interested in staying on his feet, but he was tripped.

Abra o,

Luiz Mello

 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Diaboli » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 22:41:10


Quote:
> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But Sanchez
>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a consequence
>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.

Quote:
> When you say "and contact is a consequence of the fall", you're already
> implying that there was no foul, and that the [potentially] fouling player
> was run over or something.

I'm saying there was a trip, but if the player wasn't deliberately falling
before the trip, there could not have been a foul.

There's a difference between exagerating a fall, and falling before there's
contact, and that's what Sanchez did.

Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.

Quote:
> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries to
> trip an opponent, among other things.

That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a foul if
Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?

Quote:
> Even if a player is going for a dive, he can still be tripped. These
> things are not mutually exclusive.

They're not, but sometimes the contact is a result of the fall ahead of the
contact, like in Totti's case.

Quote:
> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving or
> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was not
> tripped, by definition.

But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped him. If
the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to ground
anyway.

Quote:
> A penalty was called against Sirigu because he went for a careless
> challenge and tripped Sanchez as a result. Yeah, it didn't looked like
> Sanchez was too interested in staying on his feet, but he was tripped.

He was tripped, but the debate is about before he was tripped.
 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Clémen » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:17:06

"Diabolik"  escreveu:

Quote:

>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But Sanchez
>>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

>>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a consequence
>>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

>> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

> Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.

What I meant was, if the question already implies that there wasn't a foul,
then there's only one possible answer to it.

(...)

Quote:
> Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
> noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.

That Totti's fall was more noticeably a dive, that it happened more
distinctly earlier than the contact, and the kind of contact that was made
against him, all these things make it a very different situation. Both
concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the referee to
make the right call.

Quote:
>> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

>> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
>> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries to
>> trip an opponent, among other things.

> That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a foul if
> Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?

Of course! It would be a foul even if Sanchez had jumped over his arms to
stay on the play. The rules say "trips or attempts to trip".

(...)

Quote:
>> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving or
>> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was not
>> tripped, by definition.

> But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped him.
> If the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to ground
> anyway.

If the keeper hadn't touched him, and Sanchez still fell, he would have
looked like an ass and got an yellow for simulation. As it happened, he was
clearly fouled by Sirigu, who didn't make the smartest play of his career.

Abra?o,

Luiz Mello

 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by ixion martin - GdB » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:10:45

anders t a utilis son clavier pour crire :

Quote:
> Notice the difference between ANYone and EVERYone.

I notice...
But then...

--
Ixion
Vu comment Lille galre pour sortir un club danois
et vu comme PSG et Montpellier assurent, ?a sent
encore l'clate totale en Ligue des Champions cette anne

 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Diaboli » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:37:39


Quote:
> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But
>>>>> Sanchez
>>>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

>>>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a consequence
>>>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

>>> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

>> Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.

> What I meant was, if the question already implies that there wasn't a
> foul, then there's only one possible answer to it.

> (...)
>> Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
>> noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.

> That Totti's fall was more noticeably a dive, that it happened more
> distinctly earlier than the contact,

Yes, but it was the same situation.

Quote:
> and the kind of contact that was made
> against him, all these things make it a very different situation.

I think it's much the same, the player dives before contact, doesn't matter
if it happens sooner or later, or if it's more noticeable.

Quote:
> Both concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the referee
> to make the right call.

Yes, Sanchez situation was harder to evaluate, but the abilty of the ref to
make the right call is a diferent matter.

Quote:
>>> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

>>> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
>>> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries to
>>> trip an opponent, among other things.

>> That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a foul
>> if
>> Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?

> Of course! It would be a foul even if Sanchez had jumped over his arms to
> stay on the play. The rules say "trips or attempts to trip".

The rules also say don't deceive (dive).

Quote:
> (...)
>>> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving or
>>> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was
>>> not
>>> tripped, by definition.

>> But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped him.
>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to ground
>> anyway.

> If the keeper hadn't touched him, and Sanchez still fell, he would have
> looked like an ass and got an yellow for simulation.
> As it happened, he was clearly fouled by Sirigu, who didn't make the
> smartest play of his career.

It's asking a bit much from a keeper to evaluate in realtime if a player is
diving, and let him go.

Sanchez still should have received a yellow card for diving, because that
was the intent. And I think in these situations, it's no penalty because of
the initial intent of the player to deceive and dive. I think the play
should be stopped there, regardless of what happens later (trip). That's
IMO, regardless of the rules.

How else are you going to stamp out diving, if a player knows he can dive
and still get a penalty if he makes contact?

 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Abubak » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:37:10



Quote:
> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But  
>>>>> Sanchez
>>>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

>>>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a  
>>>> consequence
>>>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

>>> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

>> Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.

> What I meant was, if the question already implies that there wasn't a  
> foul, then there's only one possible answer to it.

> (...)
>> Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
>> noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.

> That Totti's fall was more noticeably a dive, that it happened more  
> distinctly earlier than the contact, and the kind of contact that was  
> made
> against him, all these things make it a very different situation. Both  
> concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the referee to  
> make the right call.

>>> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

>>> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
>>> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries  
>>> to
>>> trip an opponent, among other things.

>> That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a foul  
>> if
>> Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?

> Of course! It would be a foul even if Sanchez had jumped over his arms  
> to stay on the play. The rules say "trips or attempts to trip".

> (...)
>>> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving  
>>> or
>>> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was  
>>> not
>>> tripped, by definition.

>> But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped  
>> him.
>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to ground
>> anyway.

> If the keeper hadn't touched him, and Sanchez still fell, he would have  
> looked like an ass and got an yellow for simulation. As it happened, he  
> was clearly fouled by Sirigu, who didn't make the smartest play of his  
> career.

I used to have such patience but now I know tic tac is boring and  
ineffective, Totti should have got a penalty like Sanchez and when  
Barcelona win next week, it's because PSG is not yet ready, all the  
officials hate Ibrahimovic and Messi is the difference.
 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Diaboli » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:06:21




Quote:
> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But
>>>>> Sanchez
>>>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

>>>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a
>>>> consequence
>>>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

>>> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

>> Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.

> What I meant was, if the question already implies that there wasn't a
> foul, then there's only one possible answer to it.

> (...)
>> Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
>> noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.

> That Totti's fall was more noticeably a dive, that it happened more
> distinctly earlier than the contact, and the kind of contact that was
> made
> against him, all these things make it a very different situation. Both
> concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the referee to
> make the right call.

>>> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

>>> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
>>> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries
>>> to
>>> trip an opponent, among other things.

>> That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a foul
>> if
>> Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?

> Of course! It would be a foul even if Sanchez had jumped over his arms  to
> stay on the play. The rules say "trips or attempts to trip".

> (...)
>>> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving
>>> or
>>> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was
>>> not
>>> tripped, by definition.

>> But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped
>> him.
>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to ground
>> anyway.

> If the keeper hadn't touched him, and Sanchez still fell, he would have
> looked like an ass and got an yellow for simulation. As it happened, he
> was clearly fouled by Sirigu, who didn't make the smartest play of his
> career.
> I used to have such patience but now I know tic tac is boring and
> ineffective, Totti should have got a penalty like Sanchez and when
> Barcelona win next week, it's because PSG is not yet ready, all the
> officials hate Ibrahimovic and Messi is the difference.

I'm over trying to debate with an intelligent backwater imbecile, go back to
your cave. No-one's asking you to read my posts.
 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Abubak » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:26:19

Quote:





>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But  
>>>>>> Sanchez
>>>>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

>>>>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a  
>>>>> consequence
>>>>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

>>>> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

>>> Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.

>> What I meant was, if the question already implies that there wasn't a  
>> foul, then there's only one possible answer to it.

>> (...)
>>> Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
>>> noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.

>> That Totti's fall was more noticeably a dive, that it happened more  
>> distinctly earlier than the contact, and the kind of contact that was  
>> made
>> against him, all these things make it a very different situation. Both  
>> concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the referee  
>> to make the right call.

>>>> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

>>>> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
>>>> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries  
>>>> to
>>>> trip an opponent, among other things.

>>> That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a  
>>> foul if
>>> Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?

>> Of course! It would be a foul even if Sanchez had jumped over his arms  
>> to stay on the play. The rules say "trips or attempts to trip".

>> (...)
>>>> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving  
>>>> or
>>>> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was  
>>>> not
>>>> tripped, by definition.

>>> But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped  
>>> him.
>>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to  
>>> ground
>>> anyway.

>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, and Sanchez still fell, he would have  
>> looked like an ass and got an yellow for simulation. As it happened, he  
>> was clearly fouled by Sirigu, who didn't make the smartest play of his  
>> career.

>> I used to have such patience but now I know tic tac is boring and  
>> ineffective, Totti should have got a penalty like Sanchez and when  
>> Barcelona win next week, it's because PSG is not yet ready, all the  
>> officials hate Ibrahimovic and Messi is the difference.

> I'm over trying to debate with an intelligent backwater imbecile, go  
> back to your cave. No-one's asking you to read my posts.

Why don't you tell us about the classlessness of Australian women again,  
Guido?
 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Diaboli » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:04:00


Quote:





>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>> "Diabolik"  escreveu:

>>>>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But
>>>>>> Sanchez
>>>>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.

>>>>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a
>>>>> consequence
>>>>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?

>>>> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))

>>> Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.

>> What I meant was, if the question already implies that there wasn't a
>> foul, then there's only one possible answer to it.

>> (...)
>>> Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
>>> noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.

>> That Totti's fall was more noticeably a dive, that it happened more
>> distinctly earlier than the contact, and the kind of contact that was
>> made
>> against him, all these things make it a very different situation. Both
>> concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the referee  to
>> make the right call.

>>>> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.

>>>> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
>>>> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries
>>>> to
>>>> trip an opponent, among other things.

>>> That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a  foul
>>> if
>>> Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?

>> Of course! It would be a foul even if Sanchez had jumped over his arms
>> to stay on the play. The rules say "trips or attempts to trip".

>> (...)
>>>> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving
>>>> or
>>>> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was
>>>> not
>>>> tripped, by definition.

>>> But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped
>>> him.
>>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to
>>> ground
>>> anyway.

>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, and Sanchez still fell, he would have
>> looked like an ass and got an yellow for simulation. As it happened, he
>> was clearly fouled by Sirigu, who didn't make the smartest play of his
>> career.

>> I used to have such patience but now I know tic tac is boring and
>> ineffective, Totti should have got a penalty like Sanchez and when
>> Barcelona win next week, it's because PSG is not yet ready, all the
>> officials hate Ibrahimovic and Messi is the difference.

> I'm over trying to debate with an intelligent backwater imbecile, go  back
> to your cave. No-one's asking you to read my posts.
> Why don't you tell us about the classlessness of Australian women again,
> Guido?

Since you know a lot about them, why don't you tell us, Muhammad?
 
 
 

PSG v Barca R

Post by Clémen » Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:25:32

"Diabolik"  escreveu:

Quote:

>> Both concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the
>> referee to make the right call.

> Yes, Sanchez situation was harder to evaluate, but the abilty of the ref
> to make the right call is a diferent matter.

I haven't expressed myself well, sorry. What I meant is that a) the
differences between the two situations allow for different interpretations,
and b) the differences between the two situations make one harder to
evaluate than the other.

I.e., if a situation is harder to evaluate, it negatively affects the
referee's ability to call it correctly in that context - I was not
referencing the referee's quality.

(...)

Quote:
> Sanchez still should have received a yellow card for diving, because that
> was the intent. And I think in these situations, it's no penalty because
> of the initial intent of the player to deceive and dive. I think the play
> should be stopped there, regardless of what happens later (trip). That's
> IMO, regardless of the rules.

OK.

Quote:
> How else are you going to stamp out diving, if a player knows he can dive
> and still get a penalty if he makes contact?

Stamping out diving involves both punishing offenders, but also taking away
the incentive to dive - by calling existing fouls even if the players elects
and manages to stay on his feet. That way, keeping up with the play would be
always advantageous.

Probably easier said than implemented, I think.

Abra o,

Luiz Mello