Ratings v Southampton

[Spur of the moment]

But Eriksen was fouled, he was prevented from having a clear shot on goal by two lunges that didnt even attempt to win the ball. The ref didnt give it as Eriksen didnt fall
but he should have had the pen.

I dont see the exaggeration in tgis case as cheating as he was clearly fouled and falling over would have just meant making sure he got what he should have got

\
No ifs. no buts about it. If he was fouled, that is for the ref to sort out, not Eriksen. If Eriksen had deliberately decided to fall in order to draw attention to the foul, that is cheating. Two wrongs ...

 

[Jordinho]

\
No ifs. no buts about it. If he was fouled, that is for the ref to sort out, not Eriksen. If Eriksen had deliberately decided to fall in order to draw attention to the foul, that is cheating. Two wrongs ...

If he had kept running, instead of skipping over the challenges, he would have been scythed down. That would not have been cheating or exaggeration.

 

[NWND]

\
No ifs. no buts about it. If he was fouled, that is for the ref to sort out, not Eriksen. If Eriksen had deliberately decided to fall in order to draw attention to the foul, that is cheating. Two wrongs ...

It's not cheating, its necessary as if he doesn't do that he doesn't get a foul given in his favour, when he's clearly fouled. Not only is he fouled, but the foul prevents a clear goal scoring opportunity. It shoudl have been a penalty and a red card, but instead, plays waved on, because he didn't go down. He only didn't go down because he broke his stride and jumped over the tackles, giving the keeper enough time to make the shot very difficult. If he'd kept his stride and pulled his foot back to shoot, he'd have been annihilated and he'd have got a penalty and red card.

Where's the fairness in what happened? He needs to go down to get what he deserves, it's not cheating.

 

[Spur of the moment]

It's not cheating, its necessary as if he doesn't do that he doesn't get a foul given in his favour, when he's clearly fouled. Not only is he fouled, but the foul prevents a clear goal scoring opportunity. It shoudl have been a penalty and a red card, but instead, plays waved on, because he didn't go down. He only didn't go down because he broke his stride and jumped over the tackles, giving the keeper enough time to make the shot very difficult. If he'd kept his stride and pulled his foot back to shoot, he'd have been annihilated and he'd have got a penalty and red card.

Where's the fairness in what happened? He needs to go down to get what he deserves, it's not cheating.

So you were quite happy with the penalty awarded to Chelsea when Eto'o went down following the slightest contact from Kaboul?