ESPN appology

plowmar

Apparently ESPN have appologised for one of their commentators calling Suarez a cheat.

WHY?? Suarez deliberately controlled the ball with his hand and then scored. Even if it had been 'accidental' the ball was still controlled for his own use by his hand therefore handball.

Some of these 'men' cannot seem to stand by their own actions. What example are they giving?

Deep breath, back to sleep.

ddraver

Professional Footballer in playing the game to win shock!

alihisgreat

Given his reputation its not unreasonable to assume it was cheating and not just a reflex.

GavH

Unpalatable as it may be, Cheating (or to give it an apparantly more respectable name, 'Simulation') is part of the modern game. That and the fact games can be decided simply by one man failing to raise a flag or blow a whistle (or raising/blowing inappropriately) when it is almost instantly reviewable on the screens inside the ground is why frankly I cannot be bothered with it anymore.

Gazzaputt

plowmar wrote:

Apparently ESPN have appologised for one of their commentators calling Suarez a cheat.

WHY?? Suarez deliberately controlled the ball with his hand and then scored. Even if it had been 'accidental' the ball was still controlled for his own use by his hand therefore handball.

Some of these 'men' cannot seem to stand by their own actions. What example are they giving?

Deep breath, back to sleep.

Didn't seem to actually control the ball with his hand it came up off an opposing player onto it.

Why a cheat? It's up the referee to disallow the goal.

You could see by his reaction when he kicked the ball into the net he thought it wasn't going to be given.

Good piece here by Phil McNulty of the BBC on this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20928652

capt_slog

ddraver wrote:

Professional Footballer in playing the game to win shock!

It will be a shock if we ever have a Monday where there isn't a football manager/supporter/player complaining that a goal shouldn't have been given because of XYZ and "they was robbed".

izza

Off to Old Trafford this weekend. Can't wait to shout "Handball!" every time he gets the ball.

Frank the tank

No appology needed the man cheated.

Being so blatant I dare say he didn't expect to get away with it, but he did.

izza

All you have to do to get the measure of this man is watch

http://youtu.be/58ILbyflta8

and

http://youtu.be/kCGG2_hNB4A

As for cheating - yes the ball bounces up but (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvayRpN-wgs) but the brains of then kissing the wrist (even if its you're standard gesture) that was used to cheat shows that his sporting behaviour/morality is not improving.

Gazzaputt

izza wrote:

All you have to do to get the measure of this man is watch

http://youtu.be/58ILbyflta8

and

http://youtu.be/kCGG2_hNB4A

As for cheating - yes the ball bounces up but (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvayRpN-wgs) but the brains of then kissing the wrist (even if its you're standard gesture) that was used to cheat shows that his sporting behaviour/morality is not improving.

Aye but at least he doesn't shag his sister-in-law

Pross

izza wrote:

All you have to do to get the measure of this man is watch

http://youtu.be/58ILbyflta8

and

http://youtu.be/kCGG2_hNB4A

As for cheating - yes the ball bounces up but (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvayRpN-wgs) but the brains of then kissing the wrist (even if its you're standard gesture) that was used to cheat shows that his sporting behaviour/morality is not improving.

Aye, it's far better at United where no player has ever cheated. As for shouting handball any time Suarez touches the ball that's likely to be counter-productive. I have no doubt that officials sometimes make decisions based on crowd reaction so if they are always shouting something then the officials are less likely to pick up a genuine crowd reaction.

All clubs / players will do what they can if they can get away with it and it applies to all sports as well. Even the Mansfield manager didn't have a major issue with it and said it would be an instinctive reaction for any striker. It's the same in rugby - I've had a time where the ball was loose at an opponents ruck and they are probably going to score if I don't grab it. My head was saying "leave the ball alone" but without any conscious decision I dived over the top and killed it. I somehow avoided the yellow card I should have got and prevented a try (although I did get some well deserved stud marks on my head).

alihisgreat

izza wrote:

All you have to do to get the measure of this man is watch

http://youtu.be/58ILbyflta8

and

http://youtu.be/kCGG2_hNB4A

As for cheating - yes the ball bounces up but (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvayRpN-wgs) but the brains of then kissing the wrist (even if its you're standard gesture) that was used to cheat shows that his sporting behaviour/morality is not improving.

You forgot his handball to clear the ball off the line vs. Ghana in the 2010 world cup.. denied them a winning goal and Uruguay then went on to win on penalties

fast as fupp

im more concerned about his tendency to dive in with a studs up challenge on opponents followed by him falling to the ground clutching his own ankle (usually accompanied by a girly scream) than his more blatant cheating.

hes undoubtedly a skillful player but as a character he is utterly vile.

cornerblock

fast as fupp wrote:

hes undoubtedly a skillful player but as a character he is utterly vile.

Spot on.

magibob

Surez is a cheat, in a game full of cheats.

We've all watched in disgust I'm sure, when Rooney kicks the ball into touch, drops onto the goalkeeper's arm, scores the penalty, then slides into the corner kissing the badge.

It's perfectly fine for the commentator to call him a cheat, as long as he calls every other cheat a cheat.

If he doesn't, (and he doesn't,) then he shouldn't pick on one player.

Andy

cornerblock

On this occasion an apology might be needed. If anyone needs reminding of how stupid some footballers are, here's proof.

spen666

Gazzaputt wrote:

Why a cheat? It's up the referee to disallow the goal. ....

The perfect example of what is wrong in society these days

Paulie W

Suarez is an idiot. He may also be a cheat but this was not an example of cheating in any meaningful sense of the word. He didn't appear to use his hand to control the ball in any way or to direct it into the goal, it struck his hand giving him an advantage which he had not tried to gain and he took that advantage. For him to have done otherwise would have been outside the normal behaviour of a professional sportsman.

MisterMuncher

As handball cheats go, he's no Thierry Henry.

wiffachip

Ball hit hand, no intent, no offence, no cheating

Tom Butcher

I thought it was intentional - possibly just instinctive but it wasn't a case of ball to hand and he t hen goes on to palm it down onto his foot which was definitely not just instinctive. Whether it was cheating - well if it's a reaction I suppose you could argue not (though I doubt you'd be right) but it was definitely a handball and should have been a freekick - he stuck his hand up and palmed it down.

In any case he's one of the biggest cheats in the game so if he's being called one unfairly on this occasion it's only because he's earned himself that reputation.

laurentian

wiffachip wrote:

Ball hit hand, no intent, no offence, no cheating

A bit off topic here and I am no expert on the Laws of the Game of Association Football but is the "ball to hand" defence correct? Regardless of what I hear many pundits and commentators say, I'm not sure whether "ball to hand" or "hand to ball" makes a difference - isn't it just a foul if ball and hand are in contact? Does anybody know or can anybody point me to the relevant law?

GiantMike

Why oh why do people pay to watch football?

fast as fupp

people generally dont pay to watch 'football'

they pay to watch the team theyve grown up supporting.

theres a difference.

CiB

laurentian wrote:

A bit off topic here and I am no expert on the Laws of the Game of Association Football but is the "ball to hand" defence correct? Regardless of what I hear many pundits and commentators say, I'm not sure whether "ball to hand" or "hand to ball" makes a difference - isn't it just a foul if ball and hand are in contact? Does anybody know or can anybody point me to the relevant law?

I'm an expert here (self-appointed clearly, I run the line for one of my kids' U11 matches sometimes). At our level you go by what you think is right. If the ball is kicked at the hand and there's no time to move it away, or if the player tries to move but doesn't physically have time for the eyes to see what's happening and for the brain to react and send the nerves the message to move the arm out of the way, it ain't a foul. Same the other way - if it looks as though the player made some effort to make contact or equally made no effort to avoid it, it is a foul. And then there's the grey area in between where you go by gut instinct.

Reality is no-one cares that much but it's something to argue over afterwards. Mansfield were never going to win the FA Cup; they might have been done out of a payday with a replay or even a victory but it doesn't change much. It does give everyone a chance to have a pop at Saurez as if he's the only cheat in the game, when the reality is that virtually every player is a cheat, from some of the U11s that I have the joy of flagging offside even when they're not if I spot a bit of diving & theatrical nonsense, all the way up to senior professionals. Why pick on Saurez for it?

alihisgreat

CiB wrote:

laurentian wrote:

A bit off topic here and I am no expert on the Laws of the Game of Association Football but is the "ball to hand" defence correct? Regardless of what I hear many pundits and commentators say, I'm not sure whether "ball to hand" or "hand to ball" makes a difference - isn't it just a foul if ball and hand are in contact? Does anybody know or can anybody point me to the relevant law?

I'm an expert here (self-appointed clearly, I run the line for one of my kids' U11 matches sometimes). At our level you go by what you think is right. If the ball is kicked at the hand and there's no time to move it away, or if the player tries to move but doesn't physically have time for the eyes to see what's happening and for the brain to react and send the nerves the message to move the arm out of the way, it ain't a foul. Same the other way - if it looks as though the player made some effort to make contact or equally made no effort to avoid it, it is a foul. And then there's the grey area in between where you go by gut instinct.

Reality is no-one cares that much but it's something to argue over afterwards. Mansfield were never going to win the FA Cup; they might have been done out of a payday with a replay or even a victory but it doesn't change much. It does give everyone a chance to have a pop at Saurez as if he's the only cheat in the game, when the reality is that virtually every player is a cheat, from some of the U11s that I have the joy of flagging offside even when they're not if I spot a bit of diving & theatrical nonsense, all the way up to senior professionals. Why pick on Saurez for it?

Well a cheat like yourself is always going to defend cheating

fast as fupp

there are cheats-then theres suarez

http://footballburp.com/magazine/top-10 ... rez-dives/

http://cadfael.tv/image/src/1353196880867.gif

http://www.evertonarentwe.com/Mirallas.gif

http://i.minus.com/iHvvo5bLLinZE.gif

loathsome!

domhnall_dearg

laurentian wrote:

wiffachip wrote:

Ball hit hand, no intent, no offence, no cheating

A bit off topic here and I am no expert on the Laws of the Game of Association Football but is the "ball to hand" defence correct? Regardless of what I hear many pundits and commentators say, I'm not sure whether "ball to hand" or "hand to ball" makes a difference - isn't it just a foul if ball and hand are in contact? Does anybody know or can anybody point me to the relevant law?

From Laws of the Game on the FIFA website:

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)

Pross

fast as fupp wrote:

there are cheats-then theres suarez

http://footballburp.com/magazine/top-10 ... rez-dives/

http://cadfael.tv/image/src/1353196880867.gif

http://www.evertonarentwe.com/Mirallas.gif

http://i.minus.com/iHvvo5bLLinZE.gif

loathsome!

He's bad but there are plenty as bad and some worse but I'll make allowance for your hatred of LFC

Gazzaputt

GiantMike wrote:

Why oh why do people pay to watch football?

Same reason people watch any sport for personal enjoyment i expect.

laurentian

Domhnall Dearg wrote:

laurentian wrote:

wiffachip wrote:

Ball hit hand, no intent, no offence, no cheating

A bit off topic here and I am no expert on the Laws of the Game of Association Football but is the "ball to hand" defence correct? Regardless of what I hear many pundits and commentators say, I'm not sure whether "ball to hand" or "hand to ball" makes a difference - isn't it just a foul if ball and hand are in contact? Does anybody know or can anybody point me to the relevant law?

From Laws of the Game on the FIFA website:

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)

That answers my question - thanks. I was under the impression that intent didn't come into it.