The "penalty" incident

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

I completely agree Johnny ! The majority of players WOULD ghave done the same thing - but that shouldn't stop anyone from calling them a cheat/con if that is what they are doing. It won't stop me even if he plays for the team I support and even if he is a player that I have great respect for in the way he handles himself both on and off the pitch (most of the time on.... one aborration aside...)

 

I also agree that the media are looking to bring attention to Thomson more than it should - McManus should have seen red (yellor for his horrendous challenge on JCD and another yellow for multiple fouls throughout the game). Boruc was up to his usual antics, Naylor could have seen red - he was constantly fouling in the 2nd half, constantly showing dissent and the red mist had descended. There were others too - but Thomson's incident will sell newspapers unfortunately - PLUS he had such a good game that it is always good news to turn the good guy bad - again, unfortunately.

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

You are right, it absolutely is open to interpretation - yours and mine differ which is why we are having this debate - and why I enjoy this site so much, because we can all debate in an open, respectful manner.

 

I agree that the movements are subtle enough to suggest that there is "reasonable doubt" - had they not been then it would be clear cut.

 

I just happen to have the opinion that the subtlety of his movement meant he tried to engineer that foul, making it a clear attempt to gain unfair advantage - you disagree and, if I am being honest, I can see why and I can see both sides.

 

 

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.

 

Again, I agree - each of this instances are attempts to con the ref. I am not too bothered about debating whether he should have received another yellow or not - his first yellow was harsh so to be sent off would have been harsh, especially when we saw the likes of Mcanus effectively commit assault on JCD

 

I am more interested in the debate on whether he dived/simulated/engineered a foul or not.

 

 

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.

 

Sadly the manners in football have become worse - it is win at all costs regardless of who is impacted in the process (I read a book on the way back to Bermuda abotu football quotes and stories - and there was a story about a keeper decades ago who managed to throw the ball into his own net - his own players had turned away to wait for his goal kick only to turn and see the ball nestling in their own net - the response of his team-mates ? They all rolled about laughing at him - that was in a PROFESSIONAL game - how many would have the humour to do that these days ?

 

Again, I agree he was subtle enough not to be booked - but that doesn't mean he didn't engineer that foul - it means he was cunning enough to make it at least plausible - to be fair, it is similar to a forward going down under minimal contact in the box (and part of the reason this might be getting more coverage is also because his buddy Scott Brown could have went down for a penalty but didn't - the whole "compare and contrast" storyline).

 

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.

 

I agree and disagree - it was subtle enough in the heat of the moment and without the aid of slowmo to be not proven. However, my opinion with the benefit of hindsight and slowmo is that he maneouvred himself to engineer that foul - a possible plausible defence could be that he moved as he expected a crunching tackle and didn't want to suffer an "Eduardo" - but personally I don't believe that.

 

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.

 

You make a fair point - but at the time that his leg changed direction in my opinion he already had corrected his running lane - the change in direction looked abnormal to me.

 

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.

 

You could be right, he could have been trying to avoid the crunching tackle - but I believe that would have caused him to attempt to move RIGHT as Samaras was coming from his left, doesn't make sense to move towards the force that is trying to hit you (having said that, looking at Diaby's tackle the other day I can't make sense of where he was trying to tackle.....)

 

I agree there is too much made of it but it is so contentious that it makes for good debate and, as said above, it sells newspapers. I don't think you can compare it to Miko because Miko's was flagrant and, as you say, Thomson's was more sutble. Henry's goal was cheating without doubt - do we know of ANY player that would own up to that though ?

[juffery 0]

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 had thought that too, although haven't really seen any replays since saturday.

 

At the end of the day, we never gained an advantage so where's the harm. I happen to think Dougal got it spot on - it wasn't an outright dive but it wasn't a foul.

[Whosthedado 1,680]

I had thought that too, although haven't really seen any replays since saturday.

 

At the end of the day, we never gained an advantage so where's the harm. I happen to think Dougal got it spot on - it wasn't an outright dive but it wasn't a foul.

 

Pretty much of the same opinion Juffrey. Also even I f Thomson had been sent off I think we would have held on anyway :fish:

[craig 5,199]

Pretty much of the same opinion Juffrey. Also even I f Thomson had been sent off I think we would have held on anyway :fish:

 

Agreed, they were never going to score against us on Saturday - they could have played for a week and not scored.

[Super_Ally 0]

Agreed, they were never going to score against us on Saturday - they could have played for a week and not scored.

 

Don't remember the exact timing of the incident but it was late on correct? So even if they had 20 minutes with the extra man, bearing in mind they haven't scored in over 360 minutes against us, would you back them to score?:devil:

[craig 5,199]

Don't remember the exact timing of the incident but it was late on correct? So even if they had 20 minutes with the extra man, bearing in mind they haven't scored in over 360 minutes against us, would you back them to score?:devil:

 

I would have taken your Pompey winnings and bet on them to NOT score, even against 10 men !

[calscot 0]

Craig, I think our opinions are not far away but I'm not sure if you realised that I do think he engineered it. My point is that his movement is so small so as to not only cast doubt whether he did it at all - as it could feasibly have been for legitimate reasons, but that if he was guilty, it's such a minor crime in the scheme of a football match, not to be given a harsh punishment.

 

It's like arguing over whether a handball incident was deliberate, how guilty you are can depend on the size of the movement of the arm. If you only move it slightly and there is a chance it could have been a normal movement then it's not as big a crime as deliberately fully extending a hand to save a goal.

[Super_Ally 0]

I would have taken your Pompey winnings and bet on them to NOT score, even against 10 men !

 

Odds would be rank. :devil:

[craig 5,199]

Craig, I think our opinions are not far away but I'm not sure if you realised that I do think he engineered it. My point is that his movement is so small so as to not only cast doubt whether he did it at all - as it could feasibly have been for legitimate reasons, but that if he was guilty, it's such a minor crime in the scheme of a football match, not to be given a harsh punishment.

 

It's like arguing over whether a handball incident was deliberate, how guilty you are can depend on the size of the movement of the arm. If you only move it slightly and there is a chance it could have been a normal movement then it's not as big a crime as deliberately fully extending a hand to save a goal.

 

Yeah I think you are right, we are pretty close in our argument anyway.

 

In reading what Kevin Thomson himself says about it, it makes a lot of sense - but he still engineered it - he was also spot on that a striker does the exact same thing everyday.

 

I just think that he changed his running to initiate the contact - but that does happen frequently and it was close enough that it has doubt.

 

I think there were other incidents during the game that warrant more coverage than this - but when you have an opponent who believes in conspiracies contrived against them then they will use it as best they can to highlight the "conspiracy" and deflect from their own ineptitude !