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.
Yeah, whenever someone kneels and puts their weight on my ankle, rolling it at the wrong angle, I act like a real man (copyright courtesy of Tony Gale) try desperately to stay on my feet and say, "my goodness that smarts".
 
Yeah, whenever someone kneels and puts their weight on my ankle, rolling it at the wrong angle, I act like a real man (copyright courtesy of Tony Gale) try desperately to stay on my feet and say, "my goodness that smarts".

Good reply & v true. How do all these know alls get to “feel” the pain of impact fouls in order to determine how gently the victim should fall. Anyway, we’ve learnt from experience that if you’re too honest & try & stay in your feet you get f*** all. If you fall gently like Sterling & Kun - you still get f*** all. We’ve been denied many stonewall pens over the last few seasons simply for not being theatrical.
 
That's what I recollect, which is why I questioned the roll, how do you roll if you land flat like that ?
It's a form of expression of pain. Like punching turfs.
When you get your ankle clipped and your body is in motion your trajectory follows the direction .
 
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.
This all day long, I was just about to write similar myseelf when I noticed your post SilverFox2.
 
Yeah, whenever someone kneels and puts their weight on my ankle, rolling it at the wrong angle, I act like a real man (copyright courtesy of Tony Gale) try desperately to stay on my feet and say, "my goodness that smarts".

Yes. It clearly rolled his ankle the wrong way. Nearly everyone's immediate instinctive and non controllable reaction would be to shout 'aaaragh' (or a close approximation). Maybe the full length was unnecessary...but then again we've been turned down stonewallers when the player has tried to be more honest (Walker on Sterling). I'm glad Silva did it and would encourage him to do so again.
 
Yeah, whenever someone kneels and puts their weight on my ankle, rolling it at the wrong angle, I act like a real man (copyright courtesy of Tony Gale) try desperately to stay on my feet and say, "my goodness that smarts".
Exactly. During a match if u so much as sprain your ankle,slightly, the instinct is to hop/leap whatever,to take the weight off the injured ankle.and it hurts.a lot.a shooting pain which you know about ...if,as Silva did,u have your ankle hit by an onrushing keeper,causing you to roll your ankle under the weight of the blow..that shooting pain is about 10 times worse ,and no way can you stand on your injured foot.it would be impossible
Any ex player,jnc shaun Dyche ,who has properly looked at that incident amd suggested over reaction,is imo not telling the truth,and simply looking to continue the media spin against City.
 

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.