Dive/Simulation from Ngog?

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wanderers/wanderersnews/10025838._/?

Malky thinks so....what do you think?



I captured this image from the highlights, for me, after seeing this - it is a clear penalty. Kim seems to land right on top of Ngog foot and was no where near the ball.

We can't argue with this one.

True, but look at his posture - he was already falling over.

To me it looks like he was going to take the ball with left foot and use his right for balance. His ankle is completely turned over - he did make a meal of it to be fair.

Definetely a meal of it, I'm certain that left ankle is bent over at an angle it wouldn't be if you were simply making a stride - that legs goin nowhere but down and Kim has only just arrived.

You are right with your point in a previous thread however, Kim is a sloppy tackler. Maybe the game is fairer in Japan still and you can get away with that because players don't dive. In British football though, you lay a hand on a striker and he'll fall, he may need to learn that.

Nice Quality pic. I bet that took a few attempts to capture

I actually have no problems with this one even if Ngoggles did make a meal of it. It was the lack of penalty for Hudson which annoyed me.

Whether it was or wasn't, they scored a goal that was fine but disallowed earlier on so it was justice in some ways. The absolute disaster was the Hudson foul in the box not given

Arkay v2.0 wrote:I actually have no problems with this one even if Ngoggles did make a meal of it. It was the lack of penalty for Hudson which annoyed me.

we were robbed!

Definitely simulation. Kimbo actually pulls back from the challenge, but there is minor contact. However, Ngog went down as if he had been pole-axed.

From what I remember about the rules, contact alone in the area does not constitute a penalty, only a foul. No way did Kimbo foul Ngog.

Kate1 wrote:Nice Quality pic. I bet that took a few attempts to capture

Thanks Kate - it did take me quite a few attempts. Thanks for noticing

Arkay v2.0 wrote:I actually have no problems with this one even if Ngoggles did make a meal of it. It was the lack of penalty for Hudson which annoyed me.

Exactly this ^^


It's harsh, but it's a pen.

*** G L O V E S *** wrote:

Arkay v2.0 wrote:I actually have no problems with this one even if Ngoggles did make a meal of it. It was the lack of penalty for Hudson which annoyed me.

Exactly this ^^


It's harsh, but it's a pen.

I don't think so. Having looked at the extent of the "contact" several times, there is no way that it was sufficient to constitute a foul, regardless of whether the player chose to fall over.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

*** G L O V E S *** wrote:

Arkay v2.0 wrote:I actually have no problems with this one even if Ngoggles did make a meal of it. It was the lack of penalty for Hudson which annoyed me.

Exactly this ^^


It's harsh, but it's a pen.

I don't think so. Having looked at the extent of the "contact" several times, there is no way that it was sufficient to constitute a foul, regardless of whether the player chose to fall over.

If you look carefully at the picture, Kim is standing on his ankle, lucky not to cause series damage. He also gets no where near the ball. Any other part of the pitch that would be a freekick, so it has to be a pen.

Rhys wrote:

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

*** G L O V E S *** wrote:

Arkay v2.0 wrote:I actually have no problems with this one even if Ngoggles did make a meal of it. It was the lack of penalty for Hudson which annoyed me.

Exactly this ^^


It's harsh, but it's a pen.

I don't think so. Having looked at the extent of the "contact" several times, there is no way that it was sufficient to constitute a foul, regardless of whether the player chose to fall over.

If you look carefully at the picture, Kim is standing on his ankle, lucky not to cause series damage. He also gets no where near the ball. Any other part of the pitch that would be a freekick, so it has to be a pen.

I'm going by what I can see on the match I recorded from Sky. I didn't think he did stand on Ngog's ankle, but the angle of your photo makes it appear that he does.

I've just looked at the highlights on Player as well and stand by what I say. Kim doesn't tread on his ankle..........if he had, I agree, that would have been a foul..........have a look........

What about the Noone incident early in the first half? Noone went down easily but was there contact as light as Kim's?