D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
I hate it when people do that :)You exaggerate the exaggeration.
I hate it when people do that :)You exaggerate the exaggeration.
Even as a Blue I hated the way he went down and rolled three or for times like he was in that downhill cheese race.
There’s no fucking need for it.
In my opinion, it was a penalty AND he dived. The theatrics could have made it a non-penalty. Just go down, simply go down to the floor when you’ve been fouled. Don’t add an extra flick of your body from feet to head like you’ve been shot out of a cannon and roll round three times. Just go down and stay there.
This sort of shit is just one of many things that makes football less good than it should be and I don’t want City players doing it at all.
Its almost like the poster hasn't seen the incident.He didn't roll at all.
He rolled twice holding his ankle where Pope fell on it, hardly milking it.Its almost like the poster hasn't seen the incident.
He didn't roll at all.
He did actually roll over two or three times after he hit the deck, but it's separate from the original incident and i don't think he's pretending it's down to the force of the foul. It kind of looks more like he's reacting to the discomfort he's in from the fact he's rolled his ankle when it was trapped under Pope's knee.
I never noticed him roll, so I'll take your word for it.He rolled twice holding his ankle where Pope fell on it, hardly milking it.
It's interesting that twice this season we have had decisions made in our favour, absolutely correctly according to the laws of the game which have sparked such debate across the media. It appears that there's nothing quite like City getting a decision to make the media suddenly aware that they don't actually like (or even know) the rules of the game.If there had not been an initial foul caused by the contact then the deceit clause would have been relevant.
However if he had managed to do a massive swan dive after the foul coupled with a Franny Lee slide into the back of the net there would still be no offence committed because as I understand it the reference is purely for deceit not for exaggeration.
Most of the media accept that a foul was committed so their point of view regarding the FA rule is frankly irrelevant.
I've watched it back a few times, lands on his face the rolls twice clutching his ankle, didn't think he exaggerated it at all, probably why you didn't notice it, my first thoughts were the same as yours.I never noticed him roll, so I'll take your word for it.