Classless Gary Neville and the Ignoble Knight

[The Fighting Cock]

“Maybe I’m just being cynical,” said Gary Neville, in his post-match analysis on Sky Sports. Aside from the unparalleled ecstasy of seeing Spurs snatch a more than deserved equaliser in the last minute of added time, this comment by Neville is what struck me most about yesterday’s proceedings. Neville was referring to the clear one-on-one chance Clint Dempsey had been given against the United goalkeeper. Neville claimed that, in Dempsey’s boots, he’d have gone down when challenged by Evra, securing [...]

Continue reading...

 

[RSpurs]

Can't disagree with a word of that. Neville helps to reinforce the belief that Manure will always stoop to underhand methods to gain advantage. Blood brothers of Arse.

 

[pompower]

I'm firmly in the Bill Nicholson camp here, but it's hard to argue that Neville isn't right too even if I don't agree with him. If Dempsey had gone down, that's a penalty and a potential send off - which would've helped us massively in regards to our chances of winning. Does that mean Dempsey should've gone down? No way. And I applaud him for not doing so. But Neville does have a point and he's a class pundit who obviously knows the game well. Made poor Jamie look like a bit of an idiot most of the time.

 

[jimmyriggle]

Against any other side I might say yeah go down. But against united even the clearest of penalties are often not given so I think he made the right choice to stay up and try to get the goal. Just needed a bit more composure

 

[AryelAbrahami]

At least Neville is consistent, he buys into the theory that if a defender puts his foot out and does not touch the ball then the attacker can take advantage and go down.

If there was contact then I think Dempsey goes down but there isn't so he did the right thing by taking the shot.

 

[Pie and Mash]

In this day and age Neville is right but that kind of thing makes me sick to my stomach and makes me consider giving up on football, its fucking cheating

 

[Admin]

How can you decide in that space of time though? You're through on goal. Like you're going to weigh up the pro's and con's of staying on your feet in a split second. Your natural instinct should be to bury it. If your natural instinct is to dive, well, then you're a cunt.

 

[Thelonious]

If the referee deems it a foul then he should give a penalty if Dempsey misses, similar principle as any other part of the field?

There must be a referee on this forum who can explain the "advantage" rule properly?

 

[Burko]

Depends on interpretation I suppose. Does the ref believe the chance itself is the advantage? If so, by Dempsey having the shot he has played advantage regardless of whether he scores or not.

Conversely, the ref could also deem that the shot was affected by the foul by causing Dempsey to be off balance and giving the pen after the resultant shot/save...

 

[Kalyl]

If the referee deems it a foul then he should give a penalty if Dempsey misses, similar principle as any other part of the field?

There must be a referee on this forum who can explain the "advantage" rule properly?

The advantage was that he got a free shot on goal, so in that respect we got the advantage

 

[Thelonious]

The advantage was that he got a free shot on goal, so in that respect we got the advantage

with no advantage gained, could he have awarded the penalty (if he sees the foul), in other parts of the field, if the advantage hasn't been gained then the ref pulls it back.

As I said, I'm no referee, just asking generally.

 

[Kalyl]

with no advantage gained, could he have awarded the penalty (if he sees the foul), in other parts of the field, if the advantage hasn't been gained then the ref pulls it back.

As I said, I'm no referee, just asking generally.

that's the thing, in another part of the pitch there's no advantage to be gained, getting a shot on goal is taking advantage, therefore the advantage the ref gives has been taken, regardless of scoring or not

 

[Carlito Brigante]

So what you're saying is Fergies a nonce? *only read the last paragraph*

 

[tricky]

that's the thing, in another part of the pitch there's no advantage to be gained, getting a shot on goal is taking advantage, therefore the advantage the ref gives has been taken, regardless of scoring or not

But you could argue that the foul affects the ability to take a clean strike (a situational debate I know), in many sports 'advantage' is given much more time (both in terms of letting play run to see if anything clear occurs and with coming back to original incidents after 4-5 seconds or so of play).

Anyway will never change for football, so the original point is valid:

Gary Neville is classless, but then we knew that already didn't we?

 

[Aussie Joe]

Against any other side I might say yeah go down. But against united even the clearest of penalties are often not given so I think he made the right choice to stay up and try to get the goal. Just needed a bit more composure

100% agree!

In a game against ManU, a clear cut penalty won't always be given. Hell, after what's happened to Bale this season, Deuce might have got a yellow card for diving. Credit to him for staying on his feet and getting the shot away.

 

[Flannerz]

If a player has been clipped and is knocked off balance, should he go down? The ref might play the advantage but the defender really has the advantage due to fouling the attacker and knocking him off balance

 

[tricky]

How can you decide in that space of time though? You're through on goal. Like you're going to weigh up the pro's and con's of staying on your feet in a split second. Your natural instinct should be to bury it. If your natural instinct is to dive, well, then you're suarez.

fixed for you Admin