Jump to content

Queens v Dunfermline


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

. Dapo is rapid and direct, there's no doubt in my mind he would have been driving in on goal from there.

He had the chance to drive in on goal, and he dived, you even say that yourself. 

So how can you have no doubt? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disappointed in Mebude if he did "dive"  there if I'm honest,  he should have stayed on his feet until he was in the penalty box then dived. Of course no Dunfermline player has ever gone down very easy at the slightest challenge looking to gain an advantage. 

 

Joe Cardle (cough) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fae_the_'briggs said:

Of course no Dunfermline player has ever gone down very easy at the slightest challenge looking to gain an advantage. 

Joe Cardle (cough) 

What? Who has even given the slightest hint of saying such a thing? 

Nobody. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

Disappointed in Mebude if he did "dive"  there if I'm honest,  he should have stayed on his feet until he was in the penalty box then dived. Of course no Dunfermline player has ever gone down very easy at the slightest challenge looking to gain an advantage. 

 

Joe Cardle (cough) 

Josh Falkingham was good for it back in the day. 

What's your point caller? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Absolutely not arsed about it in the context of the game, as you say it made zero difference. Makes it all the more bizarre that the tories are so determined to find any reason why it wasn't a dive. 

 

My worry is that with Murray being out yesterday/not being risked on the surface, we've got a game coming up on Friday I'd like to win. 

No one is saying it wasn't a dive, but you know that already. Just like you know that Paul Burns was a top quality player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

If Murray wasn't played because of the surface (odd given he played at Palmerston last season) then he surely won't play on Friday night for the same reason.

He probably wasn't nursing an injury when he played at Palmerston last season. 

3 minutes ago, die hard doonhamer said:

No one is saying it wasn't a dive, 

Cool, then we can all agree that the referee made the wrong call, case closed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grant228 said:

He probably wasn't nursing an injury when he played at Palmerston last season. 

Cool, then we can all agree that the referee made the wrong call, case closed. 

Pretty sure in the second game down there he was just back from injury.

Anyway, will be interesting to see how our defence lines up on Friday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. Contact does not mean it's a foul. 
Correct. I'm actually arguing this point. Sadly that's not the case in football now though.
He had the chance to drive in on goal, and he dived, you even say that yourself. 
So how can you have no doubt? 
Are you intentionally not getting what I'm saying or am I really not writing it correctly?

I'll try and make it as simple as I can (and that isn't supposed to be patronising even though it sounds that way). There are two types of diving in the sport:-

1) A dive where there is absolutely no contact whatsoever and the guy just hits the deck eg. The Salah Special.

2) A player goes down when he could quite easily have stayed on his feet but chooses to hit the deck. Universally known as "he felt contact so he's entitled to go down".

Both are dives IMO but the matter of the fact is that 9 times out of 10 Example 2) is given as a free kick by referees.

I'm arguing Eg. 2 is what happened on Saturday. You're arguing Eg. 1 is what happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

. Are you intentionally not getting what I'm saying or am I really not writing it correctly?
.

Don't really see how you can have no doubt in your mind that your man was absolutely going to drive into the box, and then say he dived, that doesn't add up. 

 

In any case it's instance number one, you're argument seems based on that the Queens player feels a tug then goes down. I'd genuinely love for someone to explain how if his arms been pulled he falls down in such a manner, if you're running away from someone and they pull your arm your upper body would go back, your arm would get jerked, there'd be some evidence. 

What wouldn't happen is that your legs would seizie together and you'd fall forward, it's a nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Flash
2 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Don't really see how you can have no doubt in your mind that your man was absolutely going to drive into the box, and then say he dived, that doesn't add up. 

In any case it's instance number one, you're argument seems based on that the Queens player feels a tug then goes down. I'd genuinely love for someone to explain how if his arms been pulled he falls down in such a manner, if you're running away from someone and they pull your arm your upper body would go back, your arm would get jerked, there'd be some evidence. 

What wouldn't happen is that your legs would seizie together and you'd fall forward, it's a nonsense. 

Not saying it happened in this instance but if somebody pulls your arm or shirt to hold you back you might be able to keep going but when they let go, you fall forward. 
In most cases, when a player feels a pull, they fall forward because that is a lot easier than falling backwards. And players everywhere fall over in order to highlight the fact they have been fouled. If they don’t fall over, quite often the ref won’t give a free-kick. It is only considered a dive these days if there was no foul rather than if the foul itself wasn’t enough to cause the fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Don't really see how you can have no doubt in your mind that your man was absolutely going to drive into the box, and then say he dived, that doesn't add up. 
 
In any case it's instance number one, you're argument seems based on that the Queens player feels a tug then goes down. I'd genuinely love for someone to explain how if his arms been pulled he falls down in such a manner, if you're running away from someone and they pull your arm your upper body would go back, your arm would get jerked, there'd be some evidence. 
What wouldn't happen is that your legs would seizie together and you'd fall forward, it's a nonsense. 


You're either not reading what I'm saying or you're choosing not to bother.

The discussion about driving into the box came about when parsforlife said the initial foul wasn't preventing a promising attack anyway. It absolutely was. If he wasn't held back he could have got a run into a dangerous position. That he fell down is neither here nor there. A referee would have to deem whether a dangerous attack was being prevented or not, he can't very well then think "aye but the attacker might dive anyway".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

It's helping me get through my day. Post something nice and I'll consider balancing it out. 

I want a definite assurance if I post something nice,  it's not something I do lightly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...