Eduardo faces ban, what about Rooney?
Roar Rookie By Ben W, 31 Aug 2009 Ben W is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Arsenal, eduardo, EPL, football, football diving, Manchester United, Michel Platini, Rooney, Wayne Rooney
Arsenal striker Eduardo faces a two game ban for allegedly diving in the Gunners 3-1 win over Celtic midweek. On Saturday Arsenal travelled to Old Trafford to face Manchester United and once again there was a penalty and a dive, however this time Wayne Rooney was the culprit, but there has not even been a whisper about his dive that led to the penalty.
Now let me set the facts straight, I don’t disagree that it was a penalty, but what Rooney did is what strikers instinctively do every week.
He saw a chance and he made it work for him.
If you watch the footage of the penalty you can clearly see that Rooney is already falling down before any contact is made by Arsenal goalkeeper Manuel Almunia. Rooney was on a tight angle with no one to play the ball too, but he could see Almunia rushing towards him, so he toed the ball away, fell over and let the keeper run into him.
Again I stress this does not mean it wasn’t a penalty, but it is still a dive.
Compared to Eduardo’s dive the scenario is almost identical.
He too was on a tight angle with keeper rushing towards him, so he fell, but this time the keeper made no contact.
Astonishingly Eduardo now has to front up to a UEFA disciplinarily hearing accused of trying to deceive the referee. It is as if Eduardo was the first person to commit such a crime. Since the inception of the penalty area, diving in the box has been rife, what Wayne Rooney has shown is there is a way to do it and still remain the darling of the English media.
It is hard not to agree that the pursuit of Eduardo has become something of a “witch hunt.” His dubious penalty was not even crucial to the result.
The likes of Ronaldo and Steven Gerrard have been there and done it. UEFA boss and football legend Michel Platini agrees that he would have dived had he been in the same position as Eduardo, and yet Eduardo becomes the “scapegoat.”
Interestingly all this furore coincides with the build up England’s crucial World Cup qualifier against Eduardo’s Croatia. As expected the English media will avoid any reference to Wayne Rooney’s dive, but as Eduardo’s hearing approaches we will see further saturation on the indiscretions of the Croatian hitman. The conspiracy theorists may argue that it is all a ploy to try an unsettle him before the Wembley showdown.
Eduardo may well be banned, but will divers become accountable for their actions?
As Rooney showed diving is part of the game and sometimes diving a certain way can win big matches. This weekend alone in all the leagues around the world there will be numerous dives.
It is not a part of the game which we should celebrate, but it is a much more complex issue that won’t be solved by singling out one man.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Arsenal, eduardo, EPL, football, football diving, Manchester United, Michel Platini, Rooney, Wayne Rooney
August 31st 2009 @ 5:51pm
Dave said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
I’m neutral and watching half way round the world in Indonesia, but it was definitely not a penalty. Rooney goes down before the contact with Almunia, so at that point play should have stopped for simulation. Why can’t the football league hand out suspensions or some other form of sanction based on video evidence?
August 31st 2009 @ 6:48pm
Dipstar said | August 31st 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
It would be easy to set up a video review panel that could watch all the games. If a player falls over with no contact or before contact is made then that player could then be the subject of sanctions from the video review panel. A two match suspension for a first offence with the scale increasing for repeat offenders should be enough to get the message across.
Exceptions could be made for players that fall over in order to stop themselves colliding with others or because they’re off balance. Also if a player falls over in the box but is not looking for a penalty or advises the ref that he doesn’t think it was a penalty(As Arshavin did last season) then that should also be taken into account by the video review panel.
Rulings could be subject to appeal with the penalty increasing for an unsuccessful appeal.
The main problem is that it would take a generation to remove simulation from the game as so many youngsters are being brought up with it at junior level as well as idolising players like Christiano Ronaldo.
August 31st 2009 @ 7:19pm
gg said | August 31st 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
Haha Rooney the diving Shrek:)
August 31st 2009 @ 8:16pm
Derryn said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
I watched the game live and even after numerous replays still think it was right to be called a penalty. Silly play for Alumnia to commit to the challenge, he must realise that there is a very high chance of a penalty being awarded coming out like that to a striker running at that pace. Rooney played it quite well and there was definitely contact, I wouldn’t consider it a dive. If you want to see a real dive do a search on youtube for Christiano Ronaldo or Didier Drogba.
Arsenal were the better side however and it was cruel for them to lose to two soft goals. I agree that a penalty kick is too high a price to pay for any incident that realistically wouldn’t have lead to a goal. As a football player, far too many games are decided by minor incidents like accidental hand balls just inside the penalty area or clumsy tackles. An indirect free kick would suffice for minor incidents.
August 31st 2009 @ 10:18pm
Ben said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
non-issue. looked a penalty to me, rooney won the ball, almunia didnt. almunia made contact with rooney, rooney couldnt get the ball as a result. rooney exaggerated the contact so the referee would notice, but thats part and parcel of football these days…. and all this is coming from a massive anti-manutd fan, who stood up celebrating van persie’s last minute equaliser only to see the flag go up!
September 1st 2009 @ 10:56am
DiCanio said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
There is holes in your argument here though
Rooney was not stopped from getting the ball, he basically kicked it out and fell over aluminia
Later on in the game Rooney did this ridiculous head first slide across the ground in front of I think Diaby to block him from getting the ball. It went unpunished yet was no different logically from Aluminia’s attempt
I think you see these penalities given alot but its a misunderstanding of the game rules. Rooney has already kicked the ball out then falls over Alumina who had picked a position ahead of Rooney. What right does Rooney have to that space that Alumina doesn’t?
As the ball player he has a right, and Alumina could have been pealised for obstruction which is an INDIRECT FREE KICK not a PENALTY, however Rooney forefited his rights as a ball player when he booted it out.
September 1st 2009 @ 1:12am
Colin N said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:12am | Report comment
The difference is Rooney was fouled, Eduardo wasn’t. Therefore it wasn’t a dive. Eboue dived and deservedly got a booking. Arsenal should have had a penalty, but they scored in the same move anyway.
However, did anyone see that Aiden Mcgeady was sent off (second yellow) for diving in Celtic’s game against Hibernian? It’s the irony of all ironies. Chris Killen should have also been given a yellow for another dive later in the game, but wasn’t punished.
September 1st 2009 @ 11:09am
DiCanio said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Colin N says ‘Arsenal should have had a penalty, but they scored in the same move anyway’
so your definition of fairness is that its ok to be biased against one side as long as that one side is skilled enough to still score goals?
September 1st 2009 @ 12:10pm
Dipstar said | September 1st 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
The reasoning of ‘Arsenal should have had a penalty, but they scored in the same move anyway’ would only apply if Arshavin was fouled in the box in the act of laying the ball off to another player who was clearly in a better goal scoring position and then scored. You could then argue that advantage had been paid, at which point the referee could have awarded the goal then issued any cards he felt necessary to the tackling player(or not).
In the Arshavin/Fletcher case there was clearly no advantage to the attacking team.
September 1st 2009 @ 3:16pm
FIsher Price said | September 1st 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Of course, you’re assuming the challenge (and outrageous non-awarding of a penalty) did not impact on Man U players’ confidence in going in for similar challenges later in the match.
And perhaps too, Fletcher should have been sent off.
September 1st 2009 @ 3:21pm
Dipstar said | September 1st 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Great point Fisher Price. The players are going to test the referee’s limits in each and every match. By not punishing players for overstepping the bounds the referee is essentially giving the green light to further infringements.
September 2nd 2009 @ 4:46am
Colin N said | September 2nd 2009 @ 4:46am | Report comment
And you’re assumming that they would have scored the penalty and gone on to win the match?
September 2nd 2009 @ 4:45am
Colin N said | September 2nd 2009 @ 4:45am | Report comment
“so your definition of fairness is that its ok to be biased against one side as long as that one side is skilled enough to still score goals?”
Oh dear, you don’t see the point do you? Yes, it was a penalty, but Arsenal scored from the move, so it didn’t significantly impact on the match. Had they not scored, then they could have felt agrieved.
For all we know, they could have missed the penalty, although we shouldn’t assume such things.
September 2nd 2009 @ 9:09pm
FIsher Price said | September 2nd 2009 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
Fletcher still being on the field had an impact.
September 3rd 2009 @ 12:23am
Colin N said | September 3rd 2009 @ 12:23am | Report comment
He shouldn’t have been sent off. Yellow card yes, red card, definitely not. Is that the best response you can come up with?
September 1st 2009 @ 8:13pm
sam.gilbert said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
rooney certainly allowed the foul to happen, but to say he dived is not true. almunia judged the situation incorrectly and advanced toward rooney. it makes me wonder, what would rooney have to do in that situationfor it to not be a dive? simply keep running full pelt? what5 difference would this have made to the penalty?
freud, your comment:
“Anyway, do away with that rule, allow referees to award penalties both inside and outside the box when they think a genuine shot on goal has been missed due to a foul and also to award just free kicks inside the box for fouls that have not genuinely stopped an attacking move (eg. Rooney who had nowhere to go).”
this is a great idea in theory, but is flawed in that it would be almost impossible to police.. to award penalties for fouls that prevent shots; could that be the same if it is a hopeful shot from outside the box? and how would the ref decide if it would have been on goal or a ‘genuine shot on goal’ if the foul prevented it?
September 2nd 2009 @ 9:12pm
FIsher Price said | September 2nd 2009 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Rooney wasn’t looking to do anything but dive and win a penalty. Which, granted, he did. Thing is, in this campaign against simulation are we not trying to stamp out players’ intent to dive? For that’s what Rooney had.
If Rooney or Fletcher played the way they do for any other club, they’d be suspended every other week. The refs are weak and scared of Sir Alex; rather they’re scared of the FA’s bias towards Sir Alex.
September 2nd 2009 @ 12:00pm
Ryan Steele said | September 2nd 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
It looks to me as if there are a lot of Arsenal fans just venting their anger at the situation.
As per the Laws of the Game, it is only simulation when there is no contact that would directly affect the player (much like Eduardo’s situation). As we have all discussed, Almunia certainly did make contact with Rooney (and from what I remember of the situation, didn’t attempt to pull his arms away from Rooney), and as there was no contact with the ball, it was indeed a foul.
Rooney was actually quite smart in his play, drawing the foul from Almunia, by stretching forward to make contact, and getting the ball away from his reach.
That last part is the only part of the scenario that is debatable; while the ball had not gone out of play at the time of contact, it was clear that Rooney would not have been able to retain control before it crossed the line, had the foul not occured. That, however, could be debated until our fingers fall off from typing so much, so there’s not much point in bothering.
The decision on Eduardo had nothing to do with the English (as it was Celtic and the Scottish FA who protested to UEFA), and racism had nothing to do with either of these situations.
Arsenal fans, feel free to not be happy about the loss, but there are plenty of other things to discuss than diving (particularly when Arsenal have been called on it twice in two games, with Arsene’s reactions [or lack thereof] making me question his tactics).
September 2nd 2009 @ 1:32pm
Dipstar said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Ryan what are your thoughts on Arshavin being brought down in the box?
One could argue that if Rooney was smart in his play then Arshavin was equally as smart by selling the dummy to Fletcher and having him commit to the sliding challenge…
September 3rd 2009 @ 11:23am
Ryan Steele said | September 3rd 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
I’ll be honest; I don’t recall it happening (I perhaps wasn’t paying attention to the game, at that particular moment), and haven’t seen footage of it since.
September 4th 2009 @ 4:57pm
DiCanio said | September 4th 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Perhaps if your counter answer is you werent ‘paying attention’ then maybe your not really in a position to be remarking about anything that happened in thegame
Leave it to people who were.
September 2nd 2009 @ 9:14pm
FIsher Price said | September 2nd 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
“Racism had nothing to do with either of these situations.”
Are you having a laugh?
September 3rd 2009 @ 11:27am
Ryan Steele said | September 3rd 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Not at all.
If it were racism, would Eduardo have received the penalty, in the first place? The referees’ decisions were to give both players a penalty. The criticism of Eduardo has come from outside the game, from other people.
On top of that, they weren’t the same referee.
September 3rd 2009 @ 11:33am
Viscount Crouchback said | September 3rd 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Indeed, Ryan.
Moreover, this ghastly form of cheating entered the game through the practices of sly Latin players. It is therefore perfectly appropriate that they bear the brunt of the criticism.