RE: Lol That's not what I said. I said the defender didn't realise he was coming, the ball was in a dangerous area so he should have gone for it. I didn't say that was a reason not to give it. The reason not to give it was that it was never a penalty!
Of course he should have gone for the ball yes And he did. However, he was beaten to the ball and caught the player hence it's a penalty. It doesn't have to be a deliberate foul for it to be a penalty.
So, does Gerrard jump up in the air and scream like a girl if its in the centre circle? The answer is no, btw.</p> Its like the old argument of 'looking' for a penalty. Knock the ball past the defender and stick your leg out so he has no choice other than to wipe you out. </p>
No that doesnt count This isnt an objective - football evens itself out thread This is the I hate scousers and will select my facts to support that stance thread
I think he was looking for it But in my opinion he didn't run into the defender, he just knew that if he got to the ball first the defender would probably knock him over. good play in my book. I don't condone cheating at all, and if I thought he'd dived I'd say so, can't stand it. It's all about opinions at the end of the day.
Tha what? Where have I mentioned that I hate scousers? Or doddy, VegasTyke or Journo Tyke for that matter?
Go on then... say it is a foul...</p> In the laws of the game... Gerrard got there first, the Madrid player ran into Gerrard, Gerrard threw himself onto the floor.</p> Right... next. Obstruction. You've mentioned about it being a foul anywhere else on the pitch, and therefore its a penalty. So, when defenders are 'shielding' the ball out of play down the line for a goalkick, and the attacking player is trying to get to the ball..... why isn't that a foul?</p> I think i have a conclusion... its all ballacks! </p>