Bernardo penalty debate - no case to answer.

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.

He didn't roll at all.
 
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.
 
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.

Apologies, he did, I didn't notice that, just had another look there.
 
I am amazed people think he exaggerates by diving!!!! His ankle is trapped under keepers knee his forward momentum is stopped briefly ,his other foot is mid stride so when his trapped ankle is released his forward momentum would propel him forward in a 'dive' whilst his mid air striding foot is landing on the ground !!! No dive blatant penalty there should be no debate at all
 
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.
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.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.