John Fleck vs Diving Cheat Kayal

[craig 5,199]

Was there intent shown by Fleck?

 

Tough one to call.

 

Sorry but that is nonsense Gav. Tough to call whether Fleck had intent ? who you trying to kid ?

 

Fleck went looking for the ball, he wasnt even trying to put a tackle in on Kayal, just block the ball. Look at his angle of entry from ANY of those camera angles and it tells you that he was looking to block the ball and was not looking at the player at all.

 

For "intent" he would have, at the very least, needed to be on an angle which would put him on collision course with Kayal.

 

That said, I agree with pete - the ref didnt have the best view so easy to see why he gave a yellow. More annoying for me was the reaction from Kayal who obviously knew there was no contact but remonstrated with Fleck. COCK of the highest order.

[Frankie 8,186]

Kayal is a diving cheat - hopefully his card will be marked by other referees after this.

[Gazza_8 233]

Sorry but that is nonsense Gav. Tough to call whether Fleck had intent ? who you trying to kid ?

 

Fleck went looking for the ball, he wasnt even trying to put a tackle in on Kayal, just block the ball. Look at his angle of entry from ANY of those camera angles and it tells you that he was looking to block the ball and was not looking at the player at all.

 

For "intent" he would have, at the very least, needed to be on an angle which would put him on collision course with Kayal.

 

That said, I agree with pete - the ref didnt have the best view so easy to see why he gave a yellow. More annoying for me was the reaction from Kayal who obviously knew there was no contact but remonstrated with Fleck. COCK of the highest order.

 

Mate, you've contradicted yourself there.

 

First you said "look at his angle of entry from ANY of those camera angles" then you went onto say "the ref didnt have the best view so easy to see why he gave a yellow."

 

From the camera angle shown in the clip, I can see why the referee booked Fleck.

 

I stand by what I said.

[ian1964 10,457]

It was well highlighted when Naismith was sent off for diving!!!!!.

[Gazza_8 233]

It was well highlighted when Naismith was sent off for diving!!!!!.

 

Which just backs up my point earlier in the thread - both teams have players willing to dive during a match.

 

We should get our own house in order before having a go at their players.

[ian1964 10,457]

Which just backs up my point earlier in the thread - both teams have players willing to dive during a match.

 

We should get our own house in order before having a go at their players.

 

The fact is diving is part of the modern game,all teams have players who dive,the only way to try and get it stopped is by highlighting these offences,as was done with Naismith when the papers were leading with headlines of '' Naismith Cheat '', you can't highlight one without highlighting every incident.

 

If I remember correctly WS did come out and say Naismith dived.

Edited March 4, 2011 by ian1964

[craig 5,199]

Mate, you've contradicted yourself there.

 

First you said "look at his angle of entry from ANY of those camera angles" then you went onto say "the ref didnt have the best view so easy to see why he gave a yellow."

 

From the camera angle shown in the clip, I can see why the referee booked Fleck.

 

I stand by what I said.

 

It wasnt a contradiction at all. The ref didnt have the benefit of ANY of those camera angles. Further, you werent saying "do you think the ref felt he had intent" - you were asking the question as to whether, on viewing the footage, he had any intent. He didnt.

 

"From the camera angle shown in the clip, I can see why the ref booked Fleck" is a far different question that "did he have intent". There is absolutely no way you could suggest he had intent. From every single one of the angles shown Fleck was not "tackling" Kayal. Without attempting to put a challenge in on the PLAYER (Fleck was looking to block the ball, not tackle the player) there could in no possible way be intent. But you can still see why the ref would book him - because he was conned.

 

I still fail to see how ANYONE could see that there may have been intent in that tackle. How can someone have intent when they arent even tackling the player.

[craig 5,199]

The fact is diving is part of the modern game,all teams have players who dive,the only way to try and get it stopped is by highlighting these offences,as was done with Naismith when the papers were leading with headlines of '' Naismith Cheat '', you can't highlight one without highlighting every incident.

 

If I remember correctly WS did come out and say Naismith dived.

 

Think it was McCoist. But it wont be highlighted unless it results in a penalty or red card for one of the players - that is just the nature of it.

[calscot 0]

I'm sure Naismith says he didn't dive. He said there was contact, but I think he admitted that he didn't do his damnedest to stay on his feet and it may not have looked good. There is also the fact that players can easily fall over without a foul taking place, that doesn't mean they should be booked - unless they claim for a penalty. I don't even recall Naismith claiming for one in this instance, even though, if there was contact he was entitled to.

 

Referees have to decide what is bookable and what isn't. It's not clear cut.

[Gazza_8 233]

I'm sure Naismith says he didn't dive. He said there was contact, but I think he admitted that he didn't do his damnedest to stay on his feet and it may not have looked good. There is also the fact that players can easily fall over without a foul taking place, that doesn't mean they should be booked - unless they claim for a penalty. I don't even recall Naismith claiming for one in this instance, even though, if there was contact he was entitled to.

 

Referees have to decide what is bookable and what isn't. It's not clear cut.

 

A Celtic player made contact with Naismith but he continued running. Another Celtic player came over to cover, didn't even make a challenge and Naismith went down.