Cassidy
No longer at risk of being mistaken for a Scouser
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2013
- Messages
- 32,059
So what you are arguing is that the rule should be that as long as it is possible for a player to stay on his feet, it should not be a foul, regardless of whether that's a disadvantage to the player or not?
It's a strange interpretation of the game as it has some curious implication, namely that it means that the player on the receiving end of a potential foul is essentially responsible for whether or not it is a foul. For instance, Rooney is a bit slower, less agile or whatever, and is unable to get out of the way of the challenge. At that point it becomes a foul and a penalty, and being slower / less agile becomes an advantage.
Surely whether or not something is a foul HAS to be decided by what the potential offender does, and not by how the player on the receiving end of the foul reacts? Otherwise you'll always be encouraging diving, as is very much the case today. I'll throw in this comment by Alan Biggs which perfectly summarizes the reality of the situation as I see it:
Note: This has been one of my pet peeves about modern football for a while, ever since I played myself, so it's not really just an attempt to defend Rooney. It find it inexplicable that this point is always left out of the public diving debate, when it is so clearly an inconsistency in the way that the rules are interpreted and enforced which encourages diving.
I didn't say it wasn't a foul btw, it is, but he dived. The problem is that if he didn't go to ground he wouldn't have got the penalty (I don't agree with that) but I would have preferred for him to try and play on and not dive.