Is Neville the best pundit on sky?

A A

Akira

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Aug 2010
Messages
5,890
Neville: on diving.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNx5ok60U6A[/youtube]

I have to share this, despite it's Ratboy and in case anyone who misses it. As much as I hate to admit it, Ratboy sees the bigger picture.

Retrospective ban WILL lead to anarchy football.

And I totally agree with the line, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Diving is a cynical and gray area of football, really.
 
Re: Neville: on diving.

The thing is they are already using video evidence to ban people for off the ball stuff. So in my view I see no reason why they shouldnt be able to ban players for cheating taking dives like that to win or get players booked isnt on.

I would love to see the fa do something about it. I think there should be bans handed out. Do it once in a season a 1 game ban. Do it twice and 2 game ban if they keep doing it keep adding on games for each offence. It might bring back football to were it belongs minus all the cheating.
 
Re: Neville: on diving.

Got as far as the Samba incident before I had to stop watching his selective angles and listening to his agenda driven bullshit, you can't hide it Gary, liars and cheats are bred at the swamp.
 
Re: Neville: on diving.

If a player dives and wins a penalty (ie Cheating) and the penalty is converted and the team wins, then a retrospective analysis of the footage shows he dived and it should not of been a penalty, and the player gets a ban, how does that ban help the team he cheated against and lost them the match?

I'm not saying I know what the answer is here. Logically, the correct decision on a dive needs to be intepreted at the moment. Whether that is via instant replays officated by a 4th referee or by more referees around the pitch im not sure, but all this retrospective bans etc is just inconsistant nonsense.

Where Neville was selective on the Young incident was he asked "Was there contact?" YES, "Did he dive?" YES. He didn't bother to clarify that it was Young that initiated the contact, then dived. There is a big difference there and that is where the thin margin of "True cheating and gaining a penalty when the opposition did no wrong" and that of "Making a meal of it" under a bona fide contact from an opposition lies.
 
Re: Neville: on diving.

lloydie said:
Got as far as the Samba incident before I had to stop watching his selective angles and listening to his agenda driven bullshit...
Click to expand...

Exactly the same here mate, the "LETS SHOW THIS FRAME BY FRAME" analysis did my head too much to watch or listen any more. Young's is probably the only one ...(of the three I managed to sit through what with all the drivel he was spouting)... which at full speed still looks like an obvious dive, all the others probably looked like good decisions at normal speed and that's why he chose to slow them all down in order for him to make them look like dives.

The bit that really grinds my gears is the...
CONTACT - yes
(misses to point out the fact that contact does not equate to a foul)
DIVE - yes
(misses to point out that a dive is almost as close as you can get to the definition of cheating)
CHEAT - don't want to comment (hmmmm, wonder why that is)

To even group the four that I saw together to prove a point is rediculous. Four totally different situations, three of them are fouls...
1 - obstruction by the defender
2 - sliding tackle by the defender which makes contact
3 - shirt pulling by the defender
...where the attacker makes the most of the situation and goes down (ie - WINNING A PENALTY), and one of them is a dive where the attacker engineered the contact and hit the deck (ie - CHEATING).

I can see why the appeals panel for red cards is so flawed now. Total bollox. I hate him even more now as he's now a fully paid up member of the propaganda machine that is sky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.