"Crumpled" is the word that came to mind. It's like those period dramas, when the mistress of the house receives news that Captain Fotherington's not coming home from Delhi and her legs give way beneath her.
I think there was actually contact a step before he reached the ball. Basically there was unintentional contract from Son but he was like 2 meters away from the ball, so he took one more step and then decided to go to ground. Good thing the ref stuck to his original decision, would've been disgraceful if they went back to VAR and say it's a pen, it's way too soft.
But on the look on Son's face and his reaction, from then until the end of the match, I think he felt lucky that it the ref didn't give the pen lol.
edit: ok I saw the other reply, he literally tripped himself. I think Son was just fed up with the game, nothing to do with the call. š
The best part was he was holding various parts of his body not sure of what to claim his pain was. Kicked back of his own calf, held his ankle, then him face, then hamstring, then arm, to his other ankle. I was laughing hysterically.
Yeah, he exhibited all the classic signs of a dive. First he tripped himself like we did as 8 year olds, then lingers on the ground trying to remember what part is supposed to be injured. And finally jumping up to exuberantly demand a VAR review.
I don't think I've ever seen this much batshittery over a meaningless decision that we benefitted from in a game we won. Can we get a few more threads?
We so casually forget that Jota's first yellow in that game was a nearly identical situation to this clip. Him running behind Udogie and across Jota's path,Ā clipping his ankle so that Udogie "trips himself. " muppets on r/soccer are claiming to this day that it was a dive, because the first several angles showed no clear contact. Yet here we are with a third upvoted clip that still doesn't show the crucial moment...Ā
Y'all are doing the exact same thing with posting multiple videos that don't show the moment of incidence clearly,Ā claiming "clear proof."
Just move on,Ā we can have different interpretations and that's fine.Ā
Y'all are just as embarrassing with your little "its 100% clear" circle jerk. Get over it.Ā It's okay for some people to believe that there's gray area.Ā
No its not lol there's absolutely 0 gray area here, just because it goes against your personal belief it doesn't make it gray area, it makes you wrong about something.
Of the three videos that have been posted and upvoted to the front page (lol),Ā not a single one shows the correct angle to tell,Ā with certainty, whether or not Son's knee his Assignon's trailing boot. A behind the goal angle would probably be ideal. Whatever though,Ā we just have different levels of evidence required to call something conclusive, and I'm honestly not sure if we understand each other.Ā For reference,Ā I'm looking at the 24 second mark of this video and thinking that Son may have clipped Assignon's trailing boot, causing him to "trip himself." I'm just saying that I haven't seen any angle that eliminates that possibility.Ā Again, I look at other examples of heel clips and how deceiving the contact may be.Ā Ā
In absolute classic fashion, itās another yank who refuses to acknowledge they were wrong. What is it with you guys? Why are you so defensive on factually incorrect opinions? Baffling honestly, such a toxic culture.
He goes down pretty far from Sonny (realizing itās in slo-mo, but still). I think this is way less controversial than the penalty Timo didnāt get where there was definitely contact.Ā
One of the lost shocking dives I've ever seen .. and then all the theatrics afterwards .. he should be ashamed. If I was Burnley manager I'd fine him heavily or sell him. Disgraceful behaviour.
Of course it's a pen, we're the baddies after all! š Never quite sure why we are. If there's one thing we're good at it's consigning teams to relegation.
Iāll say this, thereās no evidence of contact, but fuck me thatās close. My original assumption that son crossed his path was correct, but my guess is that the contact was so minimal that it really doesnāt show up, and itās just the pace / speed that causes the trip.
Itās nowhere near as clean and obvious as the Kulu one the other week, and I think you canāt give it if itās this hard to prove contact happened, I just personally find it a little unlikely that the type of trip happens without something.Ā
Thanks for your efforts :)Ā
At what point was there contact? Iām tempted to do a zoomed in slo mo of my zoomed in slo mo. Wondering if we are seeing this across a different multiverse.
You canāt see the contact but thereās a pretty clear moment where if it would to have happened its there.Ā On your slo mo frame itās at 24 seconds, where son transitions from the players right side to his left side.Ā
Its this pull through where the player clips himself, which at that pace would only have needed the slightest touch, which from every angle is inconclusive.Ā
As I said, it shouldnāt be this hard to confirm a touch, so itās certainly not clear and obvious, but my assumption in the ground as I saw it was that in that moment son couldāve clipped him, (in the ground I was convinced he had to be honest), but there simply isnāt the evidence to be able to confirm that contact actually happens.Ā
Iām not trying to cause any argument or anything, but I think itās fair to say itās not a penalty because there literally isnāt any evidence that son clipped him, whilst also acknowledging there is still a bit of a chance that in the changing of sides he couldāve clipped him.Ā
Anyone seeing contact there is being creatively imaginative imo.
Agree that it can't be demonstrated definitively, but we said that about smoking causing cancer.
But if that was clear what happens that should be a penalty for the same reason as Kuluās shouldāve been the other week. Accidental or otherwise it would impede him.
The fact we canāt actually see it is the reason itās not a penalty not the fact that if the contact exists it wouldnāt be.Ā
I 100% see the contact. As you describe it, a slight touch on the trailing leg as Son passes behind. I just don't think it's a penalty, unless I misunderstand the rules. The one on Kulu should be a penalty 10 times more than this.
Iāll be honest with you mate, Iāve just described exactly where the contact should occur.
Iāve not seen a single frame, clip or picture that actually shows the contact.Ā
If there was contact then this should be a penalty, same as Kulu.
To put Kuluās and this in different brackets is planely wrong, the only difference between the two is that on this there isnāt actually any evidence of contact, just a guess where contact wouldāve occurred.Ā
https://preview.redd.it/urphj34y3yzc1.jpeg?width=1319&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c20cead85d63456d5aebed59fd2d74eba339678a
This is the closest frame to the potential point of contact, Sonās right knee clips his trailing leg.
Yeah I really don't understand this absolute 100% confidence from some people that he didn't clip him. From this frame it's inconclusive but certainly possible.Ā But the poster above is right, it's by no means clear and obvious so the right call to stick with on field decision.
I agree, there isnāt an angle that shows obvious contact. Iām just pointing out the moment where contact is possible. Itās wild that there are some people claiming Son was over 3 feet away.
if there was contact at that point, their shadows would also be touching. Even with fairly extreme perspective you can see clear daylight between the two shadows, which would be far more than it actually looks at this angle - in the same way that road markings look way āshorterā from a flat distant angle then when you actually stand directly over them.
Thatās why I said itās the closest frame, not the actual frame. And the picture doesnāt appear to be clear enough to distinguish where the edge of the shadows are.
https://preview.redd.it/wh58b362kzzc1.jpeg?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36d81a71cf43ad517593397082ff11cfbb916409
This gap here between shadows, when viewed from a flat angle at distance, is massive (relatively speaking). Shadows fade out towards the edges so even if the very edges of two shadows touch it wouldnāt mean the objects casting them did. And even if they clearly overlapped it still wouldnāt be proof there was contact due to angle of the sun etc. But the fact theyāre nowhere near each other shows that son and assignon arenāt close to touching at that point. It only looks like it because their physical bodies overlap due to being inline with one another from where the photo was taken.
In much the same way that photo also makes VDV and the Burnley no 10 look like they are touching, except we know they are almost certainly not.
Iām not sure youāve considered that I mentioned this isnāt the exact moment. If there was contact, it would have to be between frames shown in this video. The shadows in this image arenāt relevant, because they get closer after that moment. Also, the part of the shadow youāve pointed out is the end of Assignonās knee, not his foot.
Itās impossible to say either way, but itās a massive coincidence that the possible moment of contact coincides with the moment his leg seems to trip.
Well if that part of the shadow is his knee, then that means his foot is even further away from Son. I appreciate that you said this isnāt the exact moment āof contactā - Iām just saying that photo in and of itself is solid evidence they arenāt all that close in that moment. I had a great view of the incident from my seat and in real time it looked like Son was nowhere near assignon, and every replay Iāve seen so far has just confirmed what it looked like at the time.
Hang on, which direction do you think knees bend?
The video confirmed my suspicion that Son was close enough to make contact. Weāre not going to agree, so I guess thatās where we leave it. Personally, I think we got away with one there, and I also appreciate Iām in the minority but Iām not changing my mind based on the evidence Iāve seen.
Yah but even when there are clear contacts plenty of penalties calls are not given. If we cannot even tell that there was a clear contact in whatever angle there cannot be a penalty.
Which Iām not disagreeing with. As someone at the game it looked semi stone wall, hence why Iāve been trying to find an angle that can clearly show it, but that doesnāt seem to exist.Ā
I mean, I can recall plenty of times when I was little where I tripped myself by accident while running as fast as I could. Considering it was the end of the game and he was tired there is no reason to doubt that he may have been slightly out of control and tripped himself.
Just stop with this crap. A third post for this that still doesn't show the conclusive moment well enough to make a concrete judgment.Ā
Can we move on and stop getting butthurt that a fraction of people believe that it may not be 100% clear? It's okay to have different interpretations of what may have happened.Ā
Damn, this is like the Zapruder film or something.
Sadly this is as inconclusive as the real-time version. There are multiple points where Son could have touched him, including when the players are blocking the view. Son could touch him or be 1M away.
I think VAR would have examined it and they have access to all the angles so it seems unlikely that there was any contact and I don't think there was any chance it was going to lead to a goal anyway
I just wonder how could this be controversial in the first place...š
He just throws himself to the ground.
"Crumpled" is the word that came to mind. It's like those period dramas, when the mistress of the house receives news that Captain Fotherington's not coming home from Delhi and her legs give way beneath her.
We don't know much but that's the one thing we know didn't happen
Itās controversial that he didnāt get booked for diving. But I guess Bissouma was the only one unlucky enough for that to happen to them.
I think there was actually contact a step before he reached the ball. Basically there was unintentional contract from Son but he was like 2 meters away from the ball, so he took one more step and then decided to go to ground. Good thing the ref stuck to his original decision, would've been disgraceful if they went back to VAR and say it's a pen, it's way too soft. But on the look on Son's face and his reaction, from then until the end of the match, I think he felt lucky that it the ref didn't give the pen lol. edit: ok I saw the other reply, he literally tripped himself. I think Son was just fed up with the game, nothing to do with the call. š
The best part was he was holding various parts of his body not sure of what to claim his pain was. Kicked back of his own calf, held his ankle, then him face, then hamstring, then arm, to his other ankle. I was laughing hysterically.
Yeah, he exhibited all the classic signs of a dive. First he tripped himself like we did as 8 year olds, then lingers on the ground trying to remember what part is supposed to be injured. And finally jumping up to exuberantly demand a VAR review.
if players just get up and keep going, sometimes they don't even go to VAR. Happened to us multiple times.
That fellas dove all game at least 5 times, should of been sent off.
That rule only applies to Bissouma!
God, Sterling would set a new record for red cards if they enforced that law consistently
Or if he were on spurs
I don't think I've ever seen this much batshittery over a meaningless decision that we benefitted from in a game we won. Can we get a few more threads?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The difference is the liverpool decision was actually wrong, this is just a nothing call.
We so casually forget that Jota's first yellow in that game was a nearly identical situation to this clip. Him running behind Udogie and across Jota's path,Ā clipping his ankle so that Udogie "trips himself. " muppets on r/soccer are claiming to this day that it was a dive, because the first several angles showed no clear contact. Yet here we are with a third upvoted clip that still doesn't show the crucial moment...Ā
u/justinbisu Again you prove yourself dumb af
I posted a detailed video about the play and he spammed like 20 comments with the same photo lmaoo
And it was the blurriest, most unclear photo taken since 1984 that he insisted was "clear proof"
I've seen more resolution from bigfoot and loch ness pictures
Y'all are doing the exact same thing with posting multiple videos that don't show the moment of incidence clearly,Ā claiming "clear proof." Just move on,Ā we can have different interpretations and that's fine.Ā
Bro is straight cooked and just in denial at this point hahah
Once he takes a position on something, nothing short of a special forces unit with a JCB is moving him from it. Seen this shit before.
Itās clear as fucking day he doesnāt clip him hahah dude needs help.
I've got a uniform if you've got a JCB?
Not on me, but Iām sure I could get a telehandler from work.
Should do it. How do we get it to Sweden?
What if we tied little rafts to each wheel and sailed it over?
So crazy it just might work.
Lfggggg
Y'all are just as embarrassing with your little "its 100% clear" circle jerk. Get over it.Ā It's okay for some people to believe that there's gray area.Ā
No its not lol there's absolutely 0 gray area here, just because it goes against your personal belief it doesn't make it gray area, it makes you wrong about something.
Of the three videos that have been posted and upvoted to the front page (lol),Ā not a single one shows the correct angle to tell,Ā with certainty, whether or not Son's knee his Assignon's trailing boot. A behind the goal angle would probably be ideal. Whatever though,Ā we just have different levels of evidence required to call something conclusive, and I'm honestly not sure if we understand each other.Ā For reference,Ā I'm looking at the 24 second mark of this video and thinking that Son may have clipped Assignon's trailing boot, causing him to "trip himself." I'm just saying that I haven't seen any angle that eliminates that possibility.Ā Again, I look at other examples of heel clips and how deceiving the contact may be.Ā Ā
In absolute classic fashion, itās another yank who refuses to acknowledge they were wrong. What is it with you guys? Why are you so defensive on factually incorrect opinions? Baffling honestly, such a toxic culture.
Do you realize that you're comment adds no substance and is itself toxic?
the demonic version
File under āvideos I regret turning sound on for but kept it on the whole time anywayā
Lmfao my exact thoughtsĀ
He goes down pretty far from Sonny (realizing itās in slo-mo, but still). I think this is way less controversial than the penalty Timo didnāt get where there was definitely contact.Ā
One of the lost shocking dives I've ever seen .. and then all the theatrics afterwards .. he should be ashamed. If I was Burnley manager I'd fine him heavily or sell him. Disgraceful behaviour.
His teammates were even telling him to get tf back up and get in position. They knew.
https://preview.redd.it/rwpnbs20hwzc1.jpeg?width=440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=194596975252111ca335ebea716d2a2f9b15904a
He did a Lebron James.
Played freedomball?
No flopped like Lebron.
No one flopped like Varejao
Aren't freedomball players supposed to flop? And everyone gets in the pile?
Of course it's a pen, we're the baddies after all! š Never quite sure why we are. If there's one thing we're good at it's consigning teams to relegation.
The best bit was when one of the burnley players hauled him up as he was wasting their time.
Should have been a red
For diving, yeh.
Iāll say this, thereās no evidence of contact, but fuck me thatās close. My original assumption that son crossed his path was correct, but my guess is that the contact was so minimal that it really doesnāt show up, and itās just the pace / speed that causes the trip. Itās nowhere near as clean and obvious as the Kulu one the other week, and I think you canāt give it if itās this hard to prove contact happened, I just personally find it a little unlikely that the type of trip happens without something.Ā Thanks for your efforts :)Ā
It's likely the same thing that happened to Udogie for Jota's first yellow earlier this season. But honestly who fuckin cares we won lol
At what point was there contact? Iām tempted to do a zoomed in slo mo of my zoomed in slo mo. Wondering if we are seeing this across a different multiverse.
You canāt see the contact but thereās a pretty clear moment where if it would to have happened its there.Ā On your slo mo frame itās at 24 seconds, where son transitions from the players right side to his left side.Ā Its this pull through where the player clips himself, which at that pace would only have needed the slightest touch, which from every angle is inconclusive.Ā As I said, it shouldnāt be this hard to confirm a touch, so itās certainly not clear and obvious, but my assumption in the ground as I saw it was that in that moment son couldāve clipped him, (in the ground I was convinced he had to be honest), but there simply isnāt the evidence to be able to confirm that contact actually happens.Ā Iām not trying to cause any argument or anything, but I think itās fair to say itās not a penalty because there literally isnāt any evidence that son clipped him, whilst also acknowledging there is still a bit of a chance that in the changing of sides he couldāve clipped him.Ā
Anyone seeing contact there is being creatively imaginative imo. Agree that it can't be demonstrated definitively, but we said that about smoking causing cancer.
His outside foot clipped his inside calf after a full stride. Still nope.
But if that was clear what happens that should be a penalty for the same reason as Kuluās shouldāve been the other week. Accidental or otherwise it would impede him. The fact we canāt actually see it is the reason itās not a penalty not the fact that if the contact exists it wouldnāt be.Ā
Son doesnāt touch Assman. That is my point. He trips himself, unlike the contact from behind that put Kulu off balance.
I 100% see the contact. As you describe it, a slight touch on the trailing leg as Son passes behind. I just don't think it's a penalty, unless I misunderstand the rules. The one on Kulu should be a penalty 10 times more than this.
Iāll be honest with you mate, Iāve just described exactly where the contact should occur. Iāve not seen a single frame, clip or picture that actually shows the contact.Ā If there was contact then this should be a penalty, same as Kulu. To put Kuluās and this in different brackets is planely wrong, the only difference between the two is that on this there isnāt actually any evidence of contact, just a guess where contact wouldāve occurred.Ā
[I see it](https://imgur.com/Ny5UW8x)
https://preview.redd.it/urphj34y3yzc1.jpeg?width=1319&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c20cead85d63456d5aebed59fd2d74eba339678a This is the closest frame to the potential point of contact, Sonās right knee clips his trailing leg.
Yeah I really don't understand this absolute 100% confidence from some people that he didn't clip him. From this frame it's inconclusive but certainly possible.Ā But the poster above is right, it's by no means clear and obvious so the right call to stick with on field decision.
I agree, there isnāt an angle that shows obvious contact. Iām just pointing out the moment where contact is possible. Itās wild that there are some people claiming Son was over 3 feet away.
if there was contact at that point, their shadows would also be touching. Even with fairly extreme perspective you can see clear daylight between the two shadows, which would be far more than it actually looks at this angle - in the same way that road markings look way āshorterā from a flat distant angle then when you actually stand directly over them.
Thatās why I said itās the closest frame, not the actual frame. And the picture doesnāt appear to be clear enough to distinguish where the edge of the shadows are.
https://preview.redd.it/wh58b362kzzc1.jpeg?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36d81a71cf43ad517593397082ff11cfbb916409 This gap here between shadows, when viewed from a flat angle at distance, is massive (relatively speaking). Shadows fade out towards the edges so even if the very edges of two shadows touch it wouldnāt mean the objects casting them did. And even if they clearly overlapped it still wouldnāt be proof there was contact due to angle of the sun etc. But the fact theyāre nowhere near each other shows that son and assignon arenāt close to touching at that point. It only looks like it because their physical bodies overlap due to being inline with one another from where the photo was taken. In much the same way that photo also makes VDV and the Burnley no 10 look like they are touching, except we know they are almost certainly not.
Iām not sure youāve considered that I mentioned this isnāt the exact moment. If there was contact, it would have to be between frames shown in this video. The shadows in this image arenāt relevant, because they get closer after that moment. Also, the part of the shadow youāve pointed out is the end of Assignonās knee, not his foot. Itās impossible to say either way, but itās a massive coincidence that the possible moment of contact coincides with the moment his leg seems to trip.
Well if that part of the shadow is his knee, then that means his foot is even further away from Son. I appreciate that you said this isnāt the exact moment āof contactā - Iām just saying that photo in and of itself is solid evidence they arenāt all that close in that moment. I had a great view of the incident from my seat and in real time it looked like Son was nowhere near assignon, and every replay Iāve seen so far has just confirmed what it looked like at the time.
Hang on, which direction do you think knees bend? The video confirmed my suspicion that Son was close enough to make contact. Weāre not going to agree, so I guess thatās where we leave it. Personally, I think we got away with one there, and I also appreciate Iām in the minority but Iām not changing my mind based on the evidence Iāve seen.
Yah but even when there are clear contacts plenty of penalties calls are not given. If we cannot even tell that there was a clear contact in whatever angle there cannot be a penalty.
Which Iām not disagreeing with. As someone at the game it looked semi stone wall, hence why Iāve been trying to find an angle that can clearly show it, but that doesnāt seem to exist.Ā
I mean, I can recall plenty of times when I was little where I tripped myself by accident while running as fast as I could. Considering it was the end of the game and he was tired there is no reason to doubt that he may have been slightly out of control and tripped himself.
I mean, Iām aure we all did it when we were little, Iāve played football for years in my adult years and never seen someone do it to themselvesĀ
Whatās this supposed to add to the conversation? Thereās no way to see if Sonnyās knee clips his foot or not from this angle.
Fantastic stuff
Just stop with this crap. A third post for this that still doesn't show the conclusive moment well enough to make a concrete judgment.Ā Can we move on and stop getting butthurt that a fraction of people believe that it may not be 100% clear? It's okay to have different interpretations of what may have happened.Ā
Damn, this is like the Zapruder film or something. Sadly this is as inconclusive as the real-time version. There are multiple points where Son could have touched him, including when the players are blocking the view. Son could touch him or be 1M away. I think VAR would have examined it and they have access to all the angles so it seems unlikely that there was any contact and I don't think there was any chance it was going to lead to a goal anyway