I hope we don't have to test that
Pre Match - Newcastle (H) - 1st Jan 20:00
- Thread starter Brizzle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
This is what did it for me. Look at his goal against Burnley, just last week. Super tight angle, two defenders closing down, Jota skips by, slots it between the keeper's legs, cool as fk, wheels away with baby shark. The man has ice in his veins.
His self-belief is off the charts.
There is no way he chose a penalty over THAT opportunity.
Craig Burly and that scotish bellend... 2 idiots who I wouldnt think are the greatest people to back your point.. There was contact but he dived. Technically it was a pen but if you can't actually be honest about it and admit he threw himself on the ground then there isn't much to say..
Anyway, I'm done going on about it.
Fuck it - it's simple. EVERY penalty awarded against us is as a result of a dive or another incorrect decision, EVERY penalty given to us is stone wall and so are all that are not awarded.
That's just the way it is and to try & add "objective fairness" to a fan's view is to fuck up the universe
That's just the way it is and to try & add "objective fairness" to a fan's view is to fuck up the universe
People should also stop using slow motion replays as the beacon of truth in these situations when judging if the contact results in players losing their balance or diving. Running at full speed and then getting caught so you lose your balance will result in the fall Jota had, simple.
The people moaning about Jota are the same people who also concede that if there is contact in the box, you go down. That's just the way it is.
If Jota had stayed on his feet, but not recovered entirely and put it wide, he'd get no credit for that.
Okay, maybe he made a bit of a meal of it when he went down, but he always does that.
If Jota had stayed on his feet, but not recovered entirely and put it wide, he'd get no credit for that.
Okay, maybe he made a bit of a meal of it when he went down, but he always does that.
Dives like the one Jota had to do have to happen because referees will never give a foul for a keeper making contact in the box without getting the ball. It is a murky area because players now try to dangle their leg into the keeper to force this contact too.
However this one was simple - he was fouled by the keeper so it was a penalty. He did also dive to demonstrate this. Both can be true.
However this one was simple - he was fouled by the keeper so it was a penalty. He did also dive to demonstrate this. Both can be true.
I’ve no doubt we’ll get some shit decisions on the run, just hopefully aren’t the reason we fall short if we do.
The Newcastle keeper claims he just caught him, so no major worries.
.. and that’s my point. It’s just irritating me he chose to go down rather than try to carry on and finish. I also totally understand the point regarding if you’ve been fouled go to ground and the, what if he’d stumbled and then missed.
still irritating
He'd get lots of respect, and zero penalties. Then people would call him dumb for not winning penalties when he's been fouled. Which would lead to a drop in respect for him.
And failed to ether score or win a penalty? And then they go down the other end and equalise? Yeah a lot more respect.
It's damn simple ... Jota loves scoring, if he could have stayed up and tapped it in he would have, he went down because he was fouled and couldn't reach the ball. There was no "stay on your feet and score' option.
It's one of those where if it was against us, we'd all be saying it was soft.
And it was soft.
I agree with others that he probably could have reached the ball. And the touch didn't look heavy enough to go down.
The ruling is, not every touch is a foul. Otherwise there would be hundreds of fouls and penalties per game.
But, there was a touch. Jota did go down. The referee gave the penalty.
In that scenario, VAR cannot overturn the decision, and rightly so.
Next time Jota probably won't get a penalty, because refs will note he goes down easily, so will leave it to VAR to decide.
And it was soft.
I agree with others that he probably could have reached the ball. And the touch didn't look heavy enough to go down.
The ruling is, not every touch is a foul. Otherwise there would be hundreds of fouls and penalties per game.
But, there was a touch. Jota did go down. The referee gave the penalty.
In that scenario, VAR cannot overturn the decision, and rightly so.
Next time Jota probably won't get a penalty, because refs will note he goes down easily, so will leave it to VAR to decide.
Yeah that makes sense
If you're wondering why Joelinton didn't get a yellow card:
Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) contacted the ECHO after the game to explain why Joelinton escaped a caution for his foul on Szoboszlai.
Under Law 12 of the game regarding disciplinary action, it is stated: "If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play.
"However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."
--------
Hmm, so you do not get punished for effectively removing a player who could have joined the attack? That's cool, we should start doing it from now on. If the opposing team starts a counter, just rugby tackle every supporting player, so the one running with the ball is alone against 2-3 defenders.
Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) contacted the ECHO after the game to explain why Joelinton escaped a caution for his foul on Szoboszlai.
Under Law 12 of the game regarding disciplinary action, it is stated: "If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play.
"However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."
--------
Hmm, so you do not get punished for effectively removing a player who could have joined the attack? That's cool, we should start doing it from now on. If the opposing team starts a counter, just rugby tackle every supporting player, so the one running with the ball is alone against 2-3 defenders.
VAR wont get involved as long as the referees explanation is confirmed by the footage. With Jota there was obvious contact, which supported the call, and VAR wont intervene.
I think people are being a bit harsh on Jota and staying on his feet. Try running at that speed and getting clattered like that and you'll have massive trouble to regain your balance and not fall over.
He's a striker, loves to score goals, even gets a bonus per goal, so if he could he would obviously have tried to score.
I think people are being a bit harsh on Jota and staying on his feet. Try running at that speed and getting clattered like that and you'll have massive trouble to regain your balance and not fall over.
He's a striker, loves to score goals, even gets a bonus per goal, so if he could he would obviously have tried to score.
Clear case of making the rule more complicated than it needs to be. If the offense is worthy of a caution/card, it should be regardless.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
