The "penalty" incident

[calscot 0]

I'm not saying he's a cheat, I'm saying he played for it. A cheat would've gone down with no contact, Thomson went down after he kicked Samaras' leg so I'd agree with you saying that he played for it.

 

 

I think we're agreeing now. My point was always that Thomson's fall was technically not a dive and anyone calling him a cheat was stretching things with the video evidence.

 

Looking back on it, I think the only way the ref could really punish Thomson, is for a foul on Samaras - for kicking his ankle.

 

I can't see how tripping over someone is simulation, even if it's your own fault and you were hoping for a foul.

 

IMHO It would have to far more blatant that it was engineered to be punished using the simulation rule. There is just enough of it open to interpretation for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Gazza_8 233]

I think we're agreeing now. My point was always that Thomson's fall was technically not a dive and anyone calling him a cheat was stretching things with the video evidence.

 

Looking back on it, I think the only way the ref could really punish Thomson, is for a foul on Samaras - for kicking his ankle.

 

I can't see how tripping over someone is simulation, even if it's your own fault and you were hoping for a foul.

 

IMHO It would have to far more blatant that it was engineered to be punished using the simulation rule. There is just enough of it open to interpretation for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

But would the ref have seen it like that? At the end of the day it's only his decision that counts. If I'm honest, I don't understand why Thomson wasn't shown a 2nd yellow. The ref never awarded us a FK so did he think it was a dive by Thomson but because he was already on a yellow decided to let it go?

[craig 5,199]

He still tried to con the ref into giving him a free-kick. That is cheating IMO.

 

Look at the forward motion of his left leg - he changes from a natural forward motion to all of a sudden his left leg going forward sideways.

 

Sorry but I think he engineered the free-kick (we Do have the benefit of replays and hindsight though).

 

IMO Samaras was pulling out before Thomson made contact with Samaras. Thomson wasn't running at a natural angle for the motion he had just made - he went looking for the foul, he engineered a foul that wasnt a foul. That is trying to con the ref and it is cheating.

 

Do I care ? Not really as it was spur of the moment and these things do happen.

 

You make a good point Fraser, to an extent. People are chastising Thomson yet at the same time encouraging Brown to do the EXACT same thing.

[CammyF 7,603]

Was talking to a Tim today about this and simply responded by saying 'thats why your paranoid' - left him flumoxed

 

Cammy F

[calscot 0]

But would the ref have seen it like that? At the end of the day it's only his decision that counts. If I'm honest, I don't understand why Thomson wasn't shown a 2nd yellow. The ref never awarded us a FK so did he think it was a dive by Thomson but because he was already on a yellow decided to let it go?

 

It does not follow that if a player falls over and it is not a foul then it must be a dive, no matter how many people mistakenly believe it.

 

You can genuinely fall over without diving and it's still not a foul.

[calscot 0]

He still tried to con the ref into giving him a free-kick. That is cheating IMO.

 

Look at the forward motion of his left leg - he changes from a natural forward motion to all of a sudden his left leg going forward sideways.

 

Sorry but I think he engineered the free-kick (we Do have the benefit of replays and hindsight though).

 

IMO Samaras was pulling out before Thomson made contact with Samaras. Thomson wasn't running at a natural angle for the motion he had just made - he went looking for the foul, he engineered a foul that wasnt a foul. That is trying to con the ref and it is cheating.

 

Do I care ? Not really as it was spur of the moment and these things do happen.

 

You make a good point Fraser, to an extent. People are chastising Thomson yet at the same time encouraging Brown to do the EXACT same thing.

 

Thomson may have cheated but looking at the video evidence, I don't know how anyone can be so certain without being a bit glib.

 

He admits playing for the foul which explains a lot, but he didn't simulate falling over. He may have slightly engineered the trip, but that to me, doesn't come under the definition of simulation and as such, I would be surprised at someone being booked for it.

 

I think he put his foot out a tiny bit to be caught by any challenge and misjudged it - hence why he was also injured.

 

Samaras actually looked to pull out a bit late but he had already slightly impeded Thomson and so contributed to the collision.

 

I really don't thing playing for a foul and overdoing it by smacking your shin against an opponent is covered under simulation and Thomson's was definitely not blatent enough to really say you 100% know his intent was to engineer a trip.

 

A lot of movements look weird in slow motion and people seem somehow to claim to be experts in what a body should look like, frame by frame during the complex motions of a football match.

 

I personally think it has to be more blatant before you call someone a cheat. Like a player going down, claiming a penalty when the video shows they weren't touched.

 

Whatever happened to benefit of the doubt?

[craig 5,199]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree calscot.

 

To me, engineering a foul is akin to cheating and whilst not technically simulation, should be a booking as it is an attempt to obtain an unfair advantage. I don't know how you "slightly engineer" either - he either did or he didnt and, in my opinion, he engineered it - therefore it was an attempt to con the ref.

 

By "putting his foot out a tiny but" still means he engineered it - no matter how slight he tried to obtain unfair advantage.

 

I disagree that Samaras has impeded Thomson as well - Thomson's natural movement would have taken him past Samaras without contact had Thomson not changed his running lane.

 

I agree that it isn't simulation but trying to gain unfair advantage is a bookable offence, is it not ?

 

In the same way that you are suggesting those of us who think Thomson cheated are callilng themselves "armchair experts" so too could the same be levelled at those suggesting that he didnt cheat, simulate and only "slightly engineered" the foul.

 

Upon initially seeing the incident live I would have swore blind that it was a free kick. Upon reply I am certain that Thomson tried to gain unfair advantage.

 

As for benefit of the doubt I would normally give it to him (I am a big admirer of Kevin Thomson, the way he plays and the way he acts as an individual) - however, in this instance the clincher for me was the fact that whilst KT's left foot was in the air he changed the forward motion of it, taking him from a natural running lane into an unnatural one - and the unnatural one just so happened to coincide with Samaras's leg.

[Gribz 745]

As i said in another thread it will depend on the rules of the game.

 

We all know diving is a bookable offence but is there a rule stating a player going down under a touch isnt diving?? Unlikely, I know but that would define if it was a dive or not.

[johnnyk 158]

He still tried to con the ref into giving him a free-kick. That is cheating IMO.

 

 

i'd say the majority of players would have done the same thing, and if you look at every game i'm sure you would see at least one attempt to win/con a free kick every game. it's been part of the game probably since it started and it will be here forever!!

 

there always seems to be something else in the headlines rather than the result in old firm games. hardly a thing has been mentioned about mcmanus and his tackle on JCD and borats antics which were far worse IMO..

this thommo thing has been blown way over the top.

[calscot 0]

Craig, I'm not saying I'm some kind of expert that can prove he didn't cheat; what I'm saying is that what happened is open to interpretation and the movements involved are subtle enough to mean that I can't see how he can been seen as guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

To me, if "trying to con a ref" is a bookable offence, then not many games would have many players on the pitch at the end. Claiming for a throw/corner/freekick etc would surely result in a booking every second time or so...

 

Taking a free kick or throw from 10 yards on, would be a booking. Going down with a genuine leg injury and holding your head would have to be booked.

 

Almost every tussle could result in a booking.

 

Football is not a sport of impeccable manners and fair play, and Thomson was subtle enough not to be extreme enough to be booked, just like 21 other players on the pitch.

 

And in fact he did get booked for being 100% genuine with the referee by trying to show him the divot where a foul must have happened.

 

Anyway, my armchair expert jibe is aimed at people who say, "I know for a fact it was a dive", when that takes huge subjectivity and presumption.

 

All I'm saying is that if it was a crime it was subtle enough not to be provable.

 

In explanation for the leg movement, have you for instance, taken into account that he was swerving to his right - away from Samaras, which, if you watch any athlete, causes the body to lean to the right and the legs kick out to the left?

 

I think part of it can be attributed to that, although it's slightly exaggerated.

 

I still think he was expecting to be fouled, Samaras started to go towards him which would result in a foul, pulled out an instant before, and in Thomson's surprise, he moved his leg.

 

In the end players fall down all the time for various reasons, you can't just book everyone that wasn't fouled.

 

There is far too much made of this one incident when you compare it to something like the one's involving Miko or Messi, or even the hand ball, "goal" by Henry - now that was really conning the ref.