Do you agree with this?

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Crayo, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. A Spanish analyst for the Classico has just said this about a late Barcelona penalty appeal:

    "There is no contact, but Sergio Ramos intends to hit him. So on paper, it is a penalty"

    Basically, the Barcelona player dived, Sergio Ramos did apparently "try" to kick him over and because of that it is a penalty. If that doesn't sum up La Liga I don't know what does. Do you agree with that ideology?
  2. No, I don't. It's the same as thinking of killing someone, but he dies and you're punished for it. Unless physical contact is made it shouldn't be a penalty, while he did intend to make contact he didn't, so he should not be penalized.
  3. Should I be on a murder charge if I intend to shoot you but I left my gun at home? It's an exaggerated example admittedly but without the action how can you punish the act? The player isn't effected by intent, if so how long is it until people are booked for dirty looks?
  4. ^This.

    I think it won't be penalty if he doesn't go for him, also the Barcelona players have a lot of theater classes behind them, not all of them show their actor skills but other do that every second of their life, example Dani Alves :pipebomb:
  5. Of course I don't, that was not a penalty. Finally, a referee who doesn't give those bastards what they want when they want. :please:
  6. No I don't, but I see where he is coming from, I mean if in a football match, a player tried to full on punch another player, but misses, should he still be punished for it, I believe they should as he tried to do it, and you see fouls and even bookings being given when there wasn't any contact simply because if there was contact, it could have been a very dangerous challenge. So no, in this case I don't agree as the challenge wouldn't have been dangerous if it had connected, but if it could have caused damage and they don't connect, then I think a punishment should be handed out.