David Luiz

[didierforever 7,349]

i read somewhere that it was my serbian beauty (ivanovic) that told luiz to stay down and play dead when luiz was getting up... is this true?? tell me its not true...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

i read somewhere that it was my serbian beauty (ivanovic) that told luiz to stay down and play dead when luiz was getting up... is this true?? tell me its not true...

You could only see his feet in the video but I'm 80% sure it's Iva.

[Christacinto 137]

great... since we have come to the point where "there are no ethics when it comes to toying with your oppnent" from the next match all chelsea players should dive, playact and whatmore if they feel like it, just have a bite or 2 of the other team

Namasté ji,

Wouldn't you agree that there is a profound difference in taking red and eliciting red? What Luiz did was smart in my book, and moreover, not wrong as such because he simply held the ball and went down after being

torpedoed. I would be jeering too if my talent drove my opponent into a state of temporary insanity.

By no ethics I mean that rolling on the pitch and overacting the pain one feels after a faul is common good in the world of football. Eliciting cards is a dirty thing that I don't like, but it's there and if it happens against us -

why not rejoyce when it happens to the opponents?

Fir

[didierforever 7,349]

Namasté ji,

Wouldn't you agree that there is a profound difference in taking red and eliciting red? What Luiz did was smart in my book, and moreover, not wrong as such because he simply held the ball and went down after being

torpedoed. I would be jeering too if my talent drove my opponent into a state of temporary insanity.

By no ethics I mean that rolling on the pitch and overacting the pain one feels after a faul is common good in the world of football. Eliciting cards is a dirty thing that I don't like, but it's there and if it happens against us -

why not rejoyce when it happens to the opponents?

Fir

point is rafael would have got a red no matter what. the lineswoman was quick to spot the foul and i have no doubt about it. so there was no reason for luiz to do what he did. lying on the ground holding his ankle (when the contact seemed to be on the thigh), and then smirking about it. it was disgraceful. hazard has more talents than 10 luizs combined but it does not mean he will be gloating every time he makes a defender look like a fool and draws out a stupid tackle. luiz's antics showed his character (or rather lack of it). and the total disrespect for the opponent.

i again hold to my point. if u want us to playact and dive because it happens against us, then y not start biting too. WE ARE CHELSEA. play with all the heart and passion but dont forget the basic morals, ethics and principles...

[didierforever 7,349]

You could only see his feet in the video but I'm 80% sure it's Iva.

can u give me the link?

[Madmax 9,219]

- For those saying that he was not simulating, it's not about the smile, it's about holding his ankle when he clearly isn't hurt and staying on the floor to get Rafael sent off (which he deserved anyway).

I don't think I could have said this any better so I'll merely copy-paste one of the reactions on another website :

I usually find that simulation starts becoming an issue when the referee isn't making the calls he should. Webb missed quite a few clear fouls, the vast majority of them by Man Utd and a couple of them pretty nasty (e.g. Cleverly stamp on Mata).

When the other side is kicking, stamping, shoving, pulling shirts etc. and there's no protection from the referee, that's when the simulating starts. Not shameful in my opinion, in fact at times (like in this match) it can reinstate a sense of balance that the referee has lost his grip on. If you've been kicked and shoved the whole game, then a guy comes at you with clear intent to hurt - witness Rafael on Luiz - I for one am not going to blame a player for finding a way of turning the other player's excessive force against him.

[manpe 10,861]

I don't think I could have said this any better so I'll merely copy-paste one of the reactions on another website :

Exactly. This is a point Gary Neville first made and I couldn't agree more.

[Christacinto 137]

point is rafael would have got a red no matter what. the lineswoman was quick to spot the foul and i have no doubt about it. so there was no reason for luiz to do what he did. lying on the ground holding his ankle (when the contact seemed to be on the thigh), and then smirking about it. it was disgraceful. hazard has more talents than 10 luizs combined but it does not mean he will be gloating every time he makes a defender look like a fool and draws out a stupid tackle. luiz's antics showed his character (or rather lack of it). and the total disrespect for the opponent.

i again hold to my point. if u want us to playact and dive because it happens against us, then y not start biting too. WE ARE CHELSEA. play with all the heart and passion but dont forget the basic morals, ethics and principles...

You got me convinced on the WE ARE CHELSEA argument.

Cheerio

[Stats 7,056]

I like Ray Wilkins but he has always had some personal problem with Luiz. He was berating him yesterday after what happened. I can guarantee you if that was a Lampard or so he would not be the same. I mean a few months ago when Luiz was making some blunders he always slated him, but IIRC after Luiz has vastly improved over the recent months I have never heard him praise him and take back those comments.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I don't think I could have said this any better so I'll merely copy-paste one of the reactions on another website :

That's a very slippery slope, my friend, because it is all very subjective. How do you determine when a ref isn't 'giving players protection'? There's no black or white, it's mostly grey. What a player deems as a ref not giving him protection could be very good refereeing to a neutral. What if the player thought he should have had a foul in a couple of incidents but the ref had actually got it right? Would it be okay to simulate then?

Besides, it's very dangerous business when you take 'achieving overall justice' into your own hands. It was probably, imo, 'fair' yesterday that Luiz acted and Rafael got the card, but to other people it is not and in other cases it may not be. Let's assume for a second that Rafael did not deserve a red card, would it have been fair for Luiz to playact and get him sent off because Cleverly deserved to get sent off for the stomp on Mata earlier? If yes, would it then be fair to simulate in order to win a match were the opposition didn't really get any decisions from the ref in their favor but one where you deserved to win because you were clearly the better side?

My point is, two wrongs don't make a right and if you're not careful with these kind of thoughts you end up losing your sportsmanship and the ethics that sports are built on.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

can u give me the link?

Sorry mate, it's been removed.

[Madmax 9,219]

That's a very slippery slope, my friend, because it is all very subjective. How do you determine when a ref isn't 'giving players protection'? There's no black or white, it's mostly grey. What a player deems as a ref not giving him protection could be very good refereeing to a neutral. What if the player thought he should have had a foul in a couple of incidents but the ref had actually got it right? Would it be okay to simulate then?

Besides, it's very dangerous business when you take 'achieving overall justice' into your own hands. It was probably, imo, 'fair' yesterday that Luiz acted and Rafael got the card, but to other people it is not and in other cases it may not be. Let's assume for a second that Rafael did not deserve a red card, would it have been fair for Luiz to playact and get him sent off because Cleverly deserved to get sent off for the stomp on Mata earlier? If yes, would it then be fair to simulate in order to win a match were the opposition didn't really get any decisions from the ref in their favor but one where you deserved to win because you were clearly the better side?

My point is, two wrongs don't make a right and if you're not careful with these kind of thoughts you end up losing your sportsmanship and the ethics that sports are built on.

It IS subjective, but isn't everything? Refereeing itself is subjective, open to the referee's interpretation of the laws. Some refs like to let play continue, some blow for fouls straightaway. It's part of the game, it's the human element that everyone gets so up in arms about when discussing technological applications in football. A part of that human element is how players, who are the ones going at it in those big matches in a cauldron-like atmosphere, react to these refereeing calls. It's all about the romance around the game - the perceived injustice, the betrayals, the reprisals, the emotions.

Of course two wrongs don't make a right, but do Chelsea fans bring up Abidal's 'wrong' sending off in the CL semi or do they only talk about the 'wrong' non-calls on the penalties by the same man from Norway, Mr Ovrebo? Do we not gleefully point to Macheda's handball consolation when United fans talk about Drogba's offside goal that proved to be the league winner in 2010? Don't we call it a 'cancelling out'?

My post was about what is a plausible explanation for the reason behind playacting/simulation under some circumstances. Do I like players doing it? No. But can I understand why in some situations (like yesterday), some players would go down that route. Yes, had Luiz done what he did under different circumstances, under the watch of a fair referee, I might have reacted differently. Does that make me a hypocrite? Or unethical? Or someone who's lost a sense of sportsmanship? No. It's merely reacting to a situation on its merit.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

It IS subjective, but isn't everything? Refereeing itself is subjective, open to the referee's interpretation of the laws. Some refs like to let play continue, some blow for fouls straightaway. It's part of the game, it's the human element that everyone gets so up in arms about when discussing technological applications in football. A part of that human element is how players, who are the ones going at it in those big matches in a cauldron-like atmosphere, react to these refereeing calls. It's all about the romance around the game - the perceived injustice, the betrayals, the reprisals, the emotions.

Of course two wrongs don't make a right, but do Chelsea fans bring up Abidal's 'wrong' sending off in the CL semi or do they only talk about the 'wrong' non-calls on the penalties by the same man from Norway, Mr Ovrebo? Do we not gleefully point to Macheda's handball consolation when United fans talk about Drogba's offside goal that proved to be the league winner in 2010? Don't we call it a 'cancelling out'?

My post was about what is a plausible explanation for the reason behind playacting/simulation under some circumstances. Do I like players doing it? No. But can I understand why in some situations (like yesterday), some players would go down that route. Yes, had Luiz done what he did under different circumstances, under the watch of a fair referee, I might have reacted differently. Does that make me a hypocrite? Or unethical? Or someone who's lost a sense of sportsmanship? No. It's merely reacting to a situation on its merit.

What I meant by two wrongs not making a right is that just because a wrong has been made, you don't go out and make another to make things right. The difference between this and the Macheda goal and the Abidal sending off is that those things happened by an error from the ref while simulation is a conscious decision to do something wrong. Meaning you are suggesting that it is okay for players to take refereeing into their own hands by means of simulation when the ref makes some mistakes.

My point was that we should show absolutely no tolerance for simulation, in any circumstance because that will only open the door for acceptance of even less sportsmanlike actions.

[bleed_blue 136]

Choulo19 criticising Luiz for yesterday. Why am I not surprised having seen his posts over the last few days in this thread and the Mikel thread.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Choulo19 criticising Luiz for yesterday. Why am I not surprised having seen his posts over the last few days in this thread and the Mikel thread.

You've been here 10 days and you're already expecting stuff from me? I'm honored!

[Ollie 4,400]

I don't think Luiz' reaction was bad, i think he was laughing really because he knew his mate got angry and kicked him, it was a bit of banter i think. I don't think Luiz expected the red card to be shown to Rafael. I think the red card was deserved. He's 'trolled' them a few times now hasn't he. He kicked Rooney early in his Chels career, he scored a couple of goals against them and now this. David Luiz is already a Chels hero.

[Manuf 1,448]

Luiz had a good game driving Chelsea from the back but he did have one bad moment with Rafael - not the corner flag incident everyone's talking about - but the moment when Rafael cut inside and Luiz went walk-about leaving Ivanovic alone in defence. thankfully, Rafael's cross was deflected behind. Ivanovic was pissed off at that point but that's one area where Luiz can work on - Positioning

great positioning by Azpi though, cut off 2 players.

[Strike 7,217]

great positioning by Azpi though, cut off 2 players.

yeah. Azpi was great and the back four in general was solid for most of the game but even when having a good game, i feel Luiz is a ticking time bomb. Reduced drastically now but the odd mistakes are still there. By next season, he should be a beast