Gary Neville “It was a big risk that he didn’t need to take”

Exactly. Funny how nobody has ever warned a GK before about the "risks" of bouncing the ball and suddenly now the professors of hindsight produce a list of spurious reasons why he shouldn't have done it. Laughable really

People didnt start to warn smokers until people started dying.

Common sense however. There are many things that can go wrong, not probable, but still very possible. Why do it when you dont need to?

Its like playing russian roulette with a gun with a capacity for a million bullets and only one is loaded. The chances are you will be fine, but just dont play in the first place if you dont have to.

Its the same reason players put their hands behind their backs in a wall. They are perfectly allowed to have their hands by their side however know if the ball hits it then the ref can make a mistake and give a penalty, they take that risk away as its not needed to have them by their side.

When defenders are always taught to not dive in when the player enters the box. They are perfectly allowed to yet are taught not to. Even when they take the ball cleanly then are often berrated by theor manager. Why? Because the ref can make an error and it gives the opponant the chance to cheat.

Its not the first time someone has tried to disposses a goalkeeper. Borini did it in the play off final, Henry did it for Arsenal too. Both penalised however it goes to show that strikers will try it and its not as uncommon as it should be. It only takes one time for a ref to misinterpret it as dropping it and you have lost a goal. And it happened.

Exactly. Funny how nobody has ever warned a GK before about the "risks" of bouncing the ball and suddenly now the professors of hindsight produce a list of spurious reasons why he shouldn't have done it. Laughable really

People didnt start to warn smokers until people started dying.

Common sense however. There are many things that can go wrong, not probable, but still very possible. Why do it when you dont need to?

Its like playing russian roulette with a gun with a capacity for a million bullets and only one is loaded. The chances are you will be fine, but just dont play in the first place if you dont have to.

The guy is just unbelievable, he gets found out for being an antagonising wind up and still blatantly continues, the thread subject has nothing to do with him

Exactly. Funny how nobody has ever warned a GK before about the "risks" of bouncing the ball and suddenly now the professors of hindsight produce a list of spurious reasons why he shouldn't have done it. Laughable really

People didnt start to warn smokers until people started dying.

Common sense however. There are many things that can go wrong, not probable, but still very possible. Why do it when you dont need to?

Its like playing russian roulette with a gun with a capacity for a million bullets and only one is loaded. The chances are you will be fine, but just dont play in the first place if you dont have to.

The guy is just unbelievable, he gets found out for being an antagonising wind up and still blatantly continues, the thread subject has nothing to do with him

Nothing to do with Gary Neville either is it.

However he agrees with me. Maybe we are both antagonising then, lets get in touch with the FA

I like Neville, but that's bollocks.

This.Against the rules,end of.

I like Neville, but that's bollocks.

This.Against the rules,end of.

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

Exactly. Funny how nobody has ever warned a GK before about the "risks" of bouncing the ball and suddenly now the professors of hindsight produce a list of spurious reasons why he shouldn't have done it. Laughable really

People didnt start to warn smokers until people started dying.

Common sense however. There are many things that can go wrong, not probable, but still very possible. Why do it when you dont need to?

Its like playing russian roulette with a gun with a capacity for a million bullets and only one is loaded. The chances are you will be fine, but just dont play in the first place if you dont have to.

The guy is just unbelievable, he gets found out for being an antagonising wind up and still blatantly continues, the thread subject has nothing to do with him

Nothing to do with Gary Neville either is it.

However he agrees with me. Maybe we are both antagonising then, lets get in touch with the FA

As a pundit, it IS his job yes.

As a football fan its my job

As a football fan its my job

As a pundit, paid by sky it is his job to do it.

As a Swansea fan, clearly intent on nothing other than antagonising and winding up Cardiff fans for your own sick kicks, it is not your place to comment. It's not like you offer an opinion and leave it at that, you get people bogged down in a row, its obviously your main goal and what you set out to do every time you log on.
You come on here with what you think is a clever front, to simply debate in a non argumentative manner, never abusive, but to some it is clear what your purpose is and you try and do it by being "clever" under the pretence of being a "nice swansea fan just here for a debate" in reality you cause nothing but shit.

As a football fan its my job

As a pundit, paid by sky it is his job to do it.

yes you have said. As a football fan it also means I wish to discuss it too

As a Swansea fan, clearly intent on nothing other than antagonising and winding up Cardiff fans for your own sick kicks, it is not your place to comment.

how am i clearly intent on antagonising? Im debating in a very fair manner and hold the same opinion as one of the most respected pundits in the country. If my opinion is offensive then so is his.

It's not like you offer an opinion and leave it at that, you get people bogged down in a row, its obviously your main goal and what you set out to do every time you log on.

this is the second time in 2 days you have accused someone of this for posting perfect sense, you were made to look a tit last time. Do you not learn?

You come on here with what you think is a clever front, to simply debate in a non argumentative manner, never abusive, but to some it is clear what your purpose is and you try and do it by being "clever" under the pretence of being a "nice swansea fan just here for a debate" in reality you cause nothing but shit.

so because im nice, never abuse and put forward decent arguments then im actually being a bad poster jog on

Like I said, you put on this lovely front..your here to be an antagonising fucker and that is clear for all to see.

Like I said, you put on this lovely front..your here to be an antagonising fucker and that is clear for all to see.

Being antagonising by talking sense and holding the same opinion as the pundits whos words most people hang off?

Its complete common sense. He didnt need to bounce it, there were risks to it, so he shouldn't have done it whether the rule book says its fine doesnt come into it.

If you think thats antagonising then i suggest you out me on ignore or we are going to have this boring debate over and over again and you will ruin even more threads.

Clearly Neville also has to be added to the list of those who don't know the rules. Marshall did NOTHING WRONG so why did he take a risk? It was the officials who did WRONG.

StT.

Clearly Neville also has to be added to the list of those who don't know the rules. Marshall did NOTHING WRONG so why did he take a risk? It was the officials who did WRONG.

StT.

How many more times.

Neville is fully aware of the rules. He doesnt need to do bounce the ball, irrespective if hes allowed or not. hes also allowed to balance on his head with the ball inbetween his feet but he wont because its risky.

and by doing it he is opening himself up for human error on his part and of the part of the officials, which duly happened. He didnt need to do it, he shouldnt have done it and the worst case scenario happened.

And you wont catch him doing it again either.

Roathie likes to deal in facts, so here's a fact: -

FACT: Eto'o broke the rules by doing what he did & Marshall shouldn't have to stop doing things to ensure he doesn't get caught out.

It's like saying that a centre back shouldn't make a last ditch tackle in the box successfully, just in case the referee calls it wrong and awards a penalty.

Totally nonsensical.

in the rules , he broke the rules and the ref got it wrong , footballers get away with loads of stuff , just unlucky for marshall this time

Roathie likes to deal in facts, so here's a fact: -

FACT: Eto'o broke the rules by doing what he did & Marshall shouldn't have to stop doing things to ensure he doesn't get caught out.

yes he should as the needless act can have many implications, one is refereeing error which we saw onnthe weekend.

This is why footballers put their hands behind their backs when in the wall and rarely dive in when in the box. Both are in the rules and perfectly legal, however execution of those actions, even done fairly gives the opponent chance to cheat or the referee to make a wrong decision.

Thus they dont do it, just like marshall wont be bouncing the ball in a crowded area again.

It's like saying that a centre back shouldn't make a last ditch tackle in the box successfully, just in case the referee calls it wrong and awards a penalty.

no its nothing like that barry. Tackling is part of the game and a necessary part of the game. Bouncing a ball isnt. Due to the lack of necessity of the the action of bouncing a ball leads to the fact its idiotic to do it.

Totally nonsensical.

doing a needless act when it has many chances to go wrong? It certainly is yes.

Fact: Referee made the error - not Marshall.

Although I find it amusing that you are so reliant on a pundit for this debate, yet when pundits speak against what your opinion is, you are dismissive of them.

Fact: Referee made the error - not Marshall.

Although I find it amusing that you are so reliant on a pundit for this debate, yet when pundits speak against what your opinion is, you are dismissive of them.

Im not reliant on a pundit. This was my opinion prior to this story emerging as i documented

Yep ref made an error. Marshall did too by giving him the chance to make an error hence why he has said he wont be doing it again. You are once again muddling up whats allowed and what should be done.

He is allowed to catch the ball between his thighs instead of his hands too, but it would be an error of judgement to do it due to the risks involved.

It really is not a difficult concept.

Marshall made no error. He was totally in control of the ball, according to the rules of the game. He did nothing incorrectly. The only error was from the referee.

These are facts.

Marshall made no error. He was totally in control of the ball, according to the rules of the game. He did nothing incorrectly. The only error was from the referee.

These are facts.

And nobody is disputing those facts. Apart from the only error being that of the ref that is. One is a rule error the other is an error of judgement.

It is a fact that players have tried to disposes keepers in this way previously, it is a fact that it is up to the referees how they determine how it was dropped, its also a fact that the ball could easily hit a divot or his foot, or someone elses foot etc etc

Due to this and the irrelevance of the act of bouncing the ball - the risks by far outweigh the gains of such an action. Therefor was an error of judgement and which is why he himself has said he wont do it again. If it wasnt an error of judgement then he would have no need to reassess.

Its the same notion as the players in the wall putting their hands behind their back as ive mentioned a few times. Its perfectly legal to have your hands by your side but it eliminates the chance of human error and giving away a pen. Having your hands by your side is essentially a pointless act, so they ise their judgement and put them behind their back, purely a preventative measure to take away the scenario where the ref sees it as deliberate.

And this is why Marshall shouldn't have bounced it and has learned his lesson the hard way.

Not at all. Marshall was in control of the ball, in line with the guidelines of FIFA. If the referee had done his job correctly, it would have been a foul given towards Marshall.

Simple as that. Error lies totally with the referee.

Not at all. Marshall was in control of the ball, in line with the guidelines of FIFA. If the referee had done his job correctly, it would have been a foul given towards Marshall.

Simple as that. Error lies totally with the referee.

Everyone knows the rules Barry. However as soon as he bounces it hes leaving that up to the referees interpretation of how it left his hand. He doesnt need to bounce it, so its a needless risk.

If a center back went up for headers with the ritual of running his hand an inch over the ball prior to heading it but not actually touching it, hed be doing nothing wrong at all in the eyes of the game. However its a pretty stupid thing to do and giving a ref the opportunity to think he handled it and give away a pen. Is a matter of an error of judgement not a rule break, this is what you are not grasping.

If he doesnt see it as an error of judgement then why has he said hes not bouncing the ball in a crowded are anymore?

Surely what neville is saying! Marshall new the player was next to him so why didn't he just hoof it instead of letting ball out of his hands? He's not arguing about merit of rules just fact he didn't need to drop ball in 1st place. ?

Take a look at this goal.

http://www.snotr.com/video/1353/The_sne ... _of_soccer