EPL Debate: Is It Sometimes Right To Go to the Ground?

Springing forward into the penalty area with his trademarked pace, Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney was in an all too familiar situation: He was in the clear with only the goalkeeper to beat. He was on his way to doing what any prolific striker does best by putting the ball into the back of the net.

Being only six minutes into the heated Manchester United-Liverpool derby match last weekend, Rooney was spotted by an expert pass from United teammate Anderson as he managed to blaze past a perplexed Liverpool defense.

That is, of course, until Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher managed to intervene at the last second—with a harsh tackle just as Rooney was releasing a shot upon Liverpool goalkeeper Pepe Reina.

Rooney did manage to use his strength to stand up on his feet from the challenge; only to see his shot flutter harmlessly away from danger. Whilst it may have seemed that Rooney had blown a golden opportunity to end his supposed goal drought for United, he had every right to feel aggrieved by the 'non-call' by match referee Steve Bennett.

Replays had shown that Carragher had caught none of the ball and had caught all of Rooney instead, while rendering a golden opportunity for United to climb ahead during the match.

Had it not been for the hasty and highly publicized sending off of Liverpool's Javier Mascherano, Rooney's 'non-call' would have been a greater talking point through the press.

Before releasing the shot, Rooney had a choice: he could have simply stayed on his feet while battling to maintain balance (which he did) or he could have went to ground—hoping for a penalty. 

Perhaps it had been the 'English attitude' within Rooney, but he managed to convince himself to do the noble thing and continue battling on while staying on his feet. For all the scrutiny the 22-year-old has faced throughout his relatively young career, Rooney deserves full credit for committing himself to fair play and honesty in football.

"I'd never dive," said Rooney.

"I'd like to think of myself as an honest player. That's the way I play. I don't like diving, football doesn't need it."

Nowadays with a golden opportunity to earn a penalty, who knows how many strikers would have gone down dramatically in order to gain an advantage for their team?

A countless amount of world-class strikers would have surely gone down had they been in the same exact situation that Rooney found himself in—some might even go down as if they had been shot.

For instance, in the same Manchester United-Liverpool match, Fernando Torres himself, was committing to acrobatic dives in order to sustain some kind of advantage for Liverpool.

While Rooney did manage to do the right thing, was his decision to stay up on his feet stupid?

It was clear in the heat of the moment that Rooney was being impeded and that Carragher was gaining an unfair advantage over him and even managed to clip him in a dangerous position. Had he went to ground from the reasonable knock dealt by Carragher, would that not have been the smarter thing to do?

Think about it this way: If the defender (in this case Carragher) was gaining an advantage by impeding Rooney’s progress, is that not the same level of offence as diving? By putting an arm or elbow onto the attacking player, is the defender not gaining an equally unjust advantage?

While Rooney did have every right to go to ground, I am by no means suggesting that diving is correct or just, in any way shape or form. However, from an attackers' persepective, is it not sometimes just to go to ground if the defender has already gained a significant advantage over the attacking player?

After all, it was clear that Rooney no longer had the ability to do what he wanted with the ball. He was against the run of balance and at that point there really wasn’t much Rooney could have done about it.

Simply put, Wayne Rooney didn't have to stay on his feet—he just chose to do the honorable thing.