It almost seems as though the Football Association has gone out of its way to make life as difficult for itself as possible with their decision to charge Oumar Niasse with “successful deception of a match official” in Saturday’s 2-2 draw at Crystal Palace.
It almost seems as though the Football Association has gone out of its way to make life as difficult for itself as possible with their decision to charge Oumar Niasse with “successful deception of a match official” in Saturday’s 2-2 draw at Crystal Palace.
They have also done little to dispel the notion that there is one rule for some and another for the rest. After all, there can’t be many people who wouldn’t bet a sizeable amount that had it been someone like Zlatan Ibrahimovich, Harry Kane, Sergio Aguero or some other media darling who had gone down like that under contact from Scott Dann, the FA would be sitting on their hands right now.
Because there was contact from Dann; this wasn’t an incident where a player has simulated contact in the way that Bernardo Silva appeared to do in Manchester City’s home game with Burnley earlier this season – no surprise that a player of a top-six club was cleared of “diving” – or Glenn Murray's blatant embellishment against Stoke last night.
Whether there was sufficient contact to produce the fall that followed is, of course, at the root of the debate and the answer is probably “no”; there was a degree of “simulation” involved, but his run was impeded nonetheless and some would argue he was “entitled to go down”.
Still, the FA’s decision opens an whole can of worms that they may well come to regret the next time a penalty or foul decision like this affects one of the top clubs.
In creating this grey area around contact between players — something already under threat, it would appear, based on Mike Dean’s weak decision to award Arsenal the free kick that led to their opening goal against Arsenal at the weekend — they have probably spawned yet more hours of micro-analysis of decisions by television pundits that question the judgement of match officials and the credibility of the game’s governing body.
You would hope that the club will successfully appeal the decision and that such decisions will be restricted to more overt acts of clear diving to win penalties in future but I wouldn’t hold your breath. As sure as day follows night, an Everton player will be the first charged under the new guidelines against simulation; you hope, almost certainly in vain, that some consistency will follow.
Reader Comments (87)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:54:20
2 Posted 21/11/2017 at 18:41:00
4 Posted 21/11/2017 at 19:37:59
He's the last ex referee whom should be voicing comment, his record in our games v the RS and others was an embarrassment, so if EFC gets fined surely the officials, the refs adjudication committee and the FA should be fined.
This takes the state of the game into new murky waters and further underlines the FAs lack of vision and integrity?
6 Posted 21/11/2017 at 19:44:02
Give it five years and we'll be looking like the NFL three hours to complete a 90-minute game.
7 Posted 21/11/2017 at 21:25:21
Unfortunately for us, those who accuse him are totally guiltless in there own careers. Take Shearer, not once did he con a ref, nor did Neville or Carragher all angels every single one of them. How did these three react I wonder when Michael Monotone Owen, threw himself over the Argentian defender's legs to get England a penalty which Beckham duly scored? Bloody hypocrites the lot of them.
I hope Newcastle don't win the Cup with a penalty following a dive where would Shearer put his face? I wonder if Carragher ever told Suarez, "Stop it, you're making us look like cheats" ...or if Neville ever said to Ronaldo, "Christiano, stop falling over for fuck's sake!"
I can see a siege mentality building up around Goodison and god help the footballer who dives next at Goodison because he and the ref will get in spades.
Angry of Southport.
8 Posted 21/11/2017 at 22:26:58
1. Where there is no contact whatsoever.
2. Where there is contact however slight, not enough to bowl a player over, but which may not be spotted by the referee and the likes of Shearer, Neville, and Carragher have long argued that, in this instance, 'the player was entitled to go down'.
I would add:
3. The contact is initiated by the attacking player. The first I saw at this was Steve Archibold, could he have been playing for Barcelona in the Steau Bucharest European Cup final? Fabregas was also a skilled exponent of this, where he runs at a player and kicks the leg of the defender before falling. The ref hears the contact and awards the penalty.
Another would be Slippy G in the derby where he asked his mate Clattenberg to upgrade yellow to red for Hibbo, where he threw his right leg out at 90 degree angle, as you do.
We could argue that Niasse was a case of No 2 and I would agree, but I would add a fourth category in this instance. It is clear from our limited viewing of the player, that his balance is not of Olympic standard and he often falls over and loses balance. So, in defence of the appeal, we can show up with a long reel of video showing our Oumar falling to the ground as he loses his balance.
I admit to being extremely biased watching Everton games, but I felt last Saturday that Palace players were going down at the feeblest of contact throughout the game. If we are to implement this anti-diving act, I am completely behind it, but it requires full implementation and in this latest case, 5 or 6 Palace players would also be charged from last Saturday.
Big downside here is that the likes of Dann and the rest can be assured that Niasse will never again be awarded a penalty. Open season, as in the Andy Johnson days.
9 Posted 21/11/2017 at 22:46:09
10 Posted 21/11/2017 at 22:48:19
I also agree and argued in work today that Niasse is like a new born foal at times when he runs into the box with defenders all around him. He fell over when he scored v Watford and the goalie was injured in retrospect he probably meant it and took the goalie out for good measure.
The cheats are the FA who pick on the teams outside those they are scared to death of. Why can't we get an FA Chairman with some balls for a change and I mean 'balls' as in 'courage'. Too many FA people have the other type of balls and concentrate their efforts on scratching them.
11 Posted 21/11/2017 at 22:48:20
We've had violent players who have done things which are not acceptable but most of the time, they haven't got away with it and other times they were punished based on reputation â€“ Fellaini and Ferguson. There have been some signs â€“ probably since Martinez was in charge â€“ that certain players might go over too easily, Deulofeu being a prime example. But we are not renowned for it like players at other clubs.
Which is why it grates even more that Niasse has been charged. There was contact. Yes, he makes a meal of it but context is needed: he's a clumsy player. Personally I didn't like seeing it from an Everton player but I've seen much worse on a regular basis from other teams and nothing was done.
I think the FA have decided to set a precedent because we are not in the media propaganda narrative and they'll get less focus on it and there's no high profile manager to bitterly complain. Fine, but if I see Dele Alli or Aguero going down similarly this season and there's no punishment, it will go to show that the FA are corrupt. As if we needed another example.
12 Posted 21/11/2017 at 22:57:40
Where you stand depends on where you sit.
Niasse is easy meat let's see the FA take on the serial offenders here... They won't dare.
13 Posted 21/11/2017 at 23:02:20
14 Posted 21/11/2017 at 23:37:01
Niasse had contact, perhaps he should spuriously bring out the race card to get it swept under the carpet.
15 Posted 21/11/2017 at 00:05:34
9/10 a ref wouldn't give that penalty in real time, he'd apply common sense, despite contact. But on review you apply the law with no interpretation. As there is contact thats all that is required. On review a pen 10/10 times.
Video review is only useful for matters of fact, not interpretation. Otherwise you get the NFL, as you rightly point out. Flows like concrete.
16 Posted 22/11/2017 at 00:09:04
17 Posted 22/11/2017 at 00:21:44
FFS, Clattenberg must have thought LFC are the Scientologists. He was deceived by them his entire Premier League career.
I hope the FA are successful as they will be asking FIFA to change the laws in a week so they stop looking like the bunch of stupid cunts they are.
18 Posted 22/11/2017 at 00:39:26
Remember when Wenger called Andy Johnson a diver? I don't think we got another penalty for about 18 months. No matter how many times he got fouled in the box, the seed was sown...
19 Posted 22/11/2017 at 01:34:28
20 Posted 22/11/2017 at 03:25:36
I predict a riot very soon.
21 Posted 22/11/2017 at 04:50:05
22 Posted 22/11/2017 at 07:17:22
Can we have our last-minute winner at Anfield (the "Westerveld" goal) retrospectively granted, seeing that the ref that night pretended the game was over when it went in?
And the League Cup final of 1984, where Alan Hansen handled the ball... Can we have at the least a replay?
The FA talk about players and managers bringing the game into disrepute, but they're becoming quite skilled at doing so themselves.
23 Posted 22/11/2017 at 09:13:03
I have never considered Niasse a diver and am disgusted that he has been singled ou,t by the way.
24 Posted 22/11/2017 at 09:34:24
25 Posted 22/11/2017 at 09:37:45
26 Posted 22/11/2017 at 09:46:44
Did the defender play the ball? No
Was the strikers reaction a bit theoratical? Yes
That's the key questions. It wasn't a simulation because there was contact.
An unbelievably poor decision and, I agree, sets the bar high.
We will all watch the games now and feel even more disgruntled as players who blatantly cheat go without punishment.
27 Posted 22/11/2017 at 09:57:45
28 Posted 22/11/2017 at 10:24:04
29 Posted 22/11/2017 at 10:30:46
But don't we need to ask more than that? As contact, without playing the ball, isn't necessarily a foul. I'm not saying this clearly wasn't a foul. But there is more to it than just asking whether there was contact without playing the ball.
30 Posted 22/11/2017 at 11:21:57
31 Posted 22/11/2017 at 11:29:37
32 Posted 22/11/2017 at 11:43:42
If they're trying to clamp down on the 'throwing yourself to the ground upon contact' epidemic then I'm all for it. Yes, it's unlucky that it's an Everton player getting the first application of the rule but it had to be one team whoever it was would feel aggrieved.
That said, we've seen these kind of things before. They make an example and then stop.
33 Posted 22/11/2017 at 12:11:42
34 Posted 22/11/2017 at 12:20:50
At the game from a vantage point seventy yards away behind Niasse's run I thought he had taken a nudge which threw him off balance. The TV footage from the other end, slowed down, makes it look as though he dived after contact. If he is found guilty of simulation in this instance it should remove forever the concept of players being 'entitled' to go down after 'contact'. This could mark the beginning of the end of penalties for fouls inside the area.
35 Posted 22/11/2017 at 12:59:08
They never would have started this on any of those teams as Mourenio, Wenger et al would have gone to war on them so no, they choose us with a rookie in charge to start this cycle which I seriously hope will be looked at weekly to see it continue irrespective of which club's players are guilty or not, somehow I think this long standing bias will prevail.
36 Posted 22/11/2017 at 13:07:49
37 Posted 22/11/2017 at 13:08:00
This is like 10 men being caught drink-driving and the police only deciding to pursue one of them.
I'm absolutely fine if they try to charge Niasse for this just as long as they go back to September and retrospectively charge everyone who has deemed to have dived.
Can of fucking worms ahoy!
38 Posted 22/11/2017 at 13:12:30
It should help in stopping it from happening.
39 Posted 22/11/2017 at 13:16:48
That's well and good but it's outrageous of the FA to sit on their hands doing nothing with these new rules and then suddenly target a player for no apparent additional reason other than "Oh, that's the rule." Was it the rule when Deli Alle was caught out? Will he get a retrospective ban too?
40 Posted 22/11/2017 at 13:47:43
Jamie Vardy has been winning penalties for years by initiating contact and leg-dangling.
The grey area here is slightly whiter?
41 Posted 22/11/2017 at 13:58:02
I hate to sound paranoiac about this, but, assuming I am correct in saying the rule was in place from the start of the season, I am pretty certain from Day 1 cases of apparent deception where available for all to see and there for the FA to take action against. So I say again... why now?
42 Posted 22/11/2017 at 14:33:49
43 Posted 22/11/2017 at 14:38:54
I will nail my colours to the mast and say, I abhor the feigning of an injury in order to have an opponent dismissed, the diving in the area in order to secure a penalty kick, which is what Niasse is accused of, and the constant appeals from players for decisions that they are blatantly not entitled to. I place the blame on the FA, the Clubs, and the media for the situation we are now faced with.
I haven't read the laws of the game for a long time, and when I did, I suspect that it was an abridged version. As I recall, when it came to refereeing matters (for example, a penalty decision), it read 'In the opinion of the referee'. Now, in the 'opinion of the referee' on Saturday, it was a penalty, and I feel that all the new ruling has done is to undermine the authority of the referee.
I place the blame on the Clubs in as much as, if they have players who show a tendency to cheat, they should stamp down on such behaviour. I believe, although I have no way of proving it, that players are actually encouraged to con the referees.
This business of "if they feel contact they are entitled go down" is, in my opinion, entrenched in the game, and you've even got ex-professionals condoning it. What was once a contact sport is rapidly becoming a non-contact sport, and in future the penalty law which I believe is law 12, will read, 'In the opinion of Sky Sports One" and ratified by a panel of puffed-up ex-professional footballers, this decision is final.
44 Posted 22/11/2017 at 14:51:23
The big danger of this lunatic law is that the said fools who run the the game could render any goal or penalty scored null and void after the game is over, further making a mockery of the game itself and affecting 'death or glory' ie, promotion, relegation, cup, etc results.
This great game of ours is fast becoming farcical in many ways because of incompetence, corruption, and greed at all levels from Fifa down and, as always, the fans are the losers.
45 Posted 22/11/2017 at 15:05:49
Contact doesn't rule out diving nor it not being a foul. Every tackle has some element of contact. Did that take away his ability to retain possession? No, the ball was miles away.
As for the FA, if you chose to review items which are not matter of fact, then good luck to ya. Any tackle is made up of several contextual issues. Speed, distance, angle etc. Then you do make it almost impossible. Any panel cannot replicate those elements.
In fact, slow motion often distorts the issue and it's not reviewing like with like.
A nice distraction whilst we still have no-one in charge .
46 Posted 22/11/2017 at 15:10:32
47 Posted 22/11/2017 at 15:35:09
48 Posted 22/11/2017 at 15:39:14
The FA are making a big error here though as it should have been announced to all that cheating would be punished. Typical that they pick on us though!!
49 Posted 22/11/2017 at 15:47:48
I look forward to them giving reasons why other such examples have not been acted upon and how many three-man panels they will have to employ to get rid of the backlog.
50 Posted 22/11/2017 at 15:55:40
51 Posted 22/11/2017 at 16:02:57
They also say that all 3 members of the panel have to be in agreement with regard to the deception. So, this was obviously the case with Niasse, with the original and appeal hearing.
So, therefore are we saying that no other instances of deception have been referred to the FA? And if any other instances have, presumably the panel have not been in unanimous agreement as to simulation?
I must admit, I find this whole matter perplexing? Or perhaps, just rotten to the core?
52 Posted 22/11/2017 at 16:15:26
Football is so rotten to the core, it is untrue. After the ridiculous play-acting and cheating shite we have witnessed in the Premier League for years from countless players, for Niasse to now forever be branded as the first Premier League player to be charged with diving leave me incredulous. It is a slur on our club. I am totally disgusted at this.
53 Posted 22/11/2017 at 16:38:24
Everton need to flag up to the FA and to the BBC - every single incident in every Premier League game that meets the same criteria for a ban.
54 Posted 22/11/2017 at 16:40:36
16:22 18 Nov
YELLOW CARD - Mamadou Sakho
Blatant pull back on Calvert-Lewin as he tried to break
Can someone tell me why Sakho isn't facing charges? Ref gave him yellow when it should have been red!
Successful deception of a match official? Or was it the referee simply getting it wrong?
The FA cant have it both ways.
Can a referee hide behind "Successful deception of a match official" every time they make a mistake.
Shame on the FA Again
55 Posted 22/11/2017 at 16:57:41
56 Posted 22/11/2017 at 17:30:15
57 Posted 22/11/2017 at 17:47:01
58 Posted 22/11/2017 at 17:51:57
I think the rule is something like they can only review a decision that was not already penalized by a yellow card, ie, something the referee did not see at the time. I never paid much attention, as I assumed they'd never bother if it was against Everton...
59 Posted 22/11/2017 at 19:16:11
61 Posted 22/11/2017 at 19:26:19
Absolutely sure that Aguero etc would not be charged. Scandalous decision against an honest player.
62 Posted 22/11/2017 at 20:04:30
Will it be applied to the more famous names or is dear old Oumar just a scapegoat.
63 Posted 22/11/2017 at 20:33:57
Niasse was successful, and because he was he has been spotted and charged. If he is subsequently suspended, surely Dann's deceit can then be considered to be successful, and we can await a charge against him?
64 Posted 22/11/2017 at 21:56:28
It was a dive, get real, get over it, stop the hysterics.
65 Posted 22/11/2017 at 22:07:25
If referees are to gain respect from players, then their decisions must be final. If decisions are to be overturned by highlights on a Saturday night, then football is in big trouble. It undermines referees and their performances. If the referee believes he didn't see the incident and wants the Football Association to take action, then fine.
Sadly video technology will be with us soon with stop-start football. The joy of football is debate over controversial decisions that all of us could interpret differently. Take that away and what do you have? Three hours of football with video replays that actually the referee still interprets differently to the fans.
66 Posted 23/11/2017 at 01:07:23
Niasse should have been thanked by the FA.
Ah well, I guess we can at least add it to our list of "firsts"!
67 Posted 23/11/2017 at 01:23:21
It's like not punishing attempted robbery because they didn't get away with anything.
The way they have set this up, I'm pretty sure players will still be willing to "take one for the team" and risk a subsequent ban by taking a dive in order to get the penalty / goal in that particular match.
They should be trying to stamp out ALL diving, at all times, anywhere on the pitch.
Anyone would think the FA was run by numpties.
68 Posted 23/11/2017 at 01:32:19
It is perplexing not to differentiate between making the most of minimal contact and pretending contact occurred when it didn't.
It is shameful not to have scrutinised all contested decisions and publicised the findings this season. There is no objective â€˜justice' unless all potential â€˜offences' are judged in a consistent manner.
69 Posted 23/11/2017 at 01:37:24
I was watching the Champions League highlights and the shower are playing Seville. Moreno stands on the Seville player's toes, but the Seville player doesn't go down straight away, he takes a few steps then dives. Glen Hoddle in commentary says that “there was contact so it's a penaltyâ€.
So why the double standards, well because we aren't one of the supposed top 6. Makes me sick to think that Niasse is being suspended because of hypocrites like this. Shame on you FA.
70 Posted 23/11/2017 at 04:29:31
Every tackle doesn't inevitably have some element of body contact - you are supposed to contact the ball with your foot. Forms of contact, such as kicking, tripping, charging, pulling and so on are clearly outlawed in the rules of the game, as foul play.
The one exception when a move of deliberate contact is made, is when players are competing shoulder-to-shoulder and both within playing distance of the ball.
Also, the position of the ball is irrelevant to whether a foul is committed. If someone runs up to the keeper at the opposite end of the field from the play and boots him, it's foul play or violent conduct. The player will be punished, the offended team will get a free kick. This is why players get punished for off-the-ball incidents. Retaining possession of the ball is unrelated.
This ruling has a serious problem. By the laws of the game in the link above, Dann committed a foul in the penalty area, the foul of impeding an opponent with contact. This means a direct free kick, and a penalty kick if in the penalty area.
It is without question that Dann deliberately moved to impede Niasse. The extent of contact is not described or defined in the rules; it says only "Contact". If there was no contact then Dann's action were impeding the progress of an opponent without any contact being made. This would result in the awarding of an indirect free kick.
Unless the ruling were to find that Dann took no considered or deliberate action whatsoever, this would mean that Niasse was guilty of enhancing an accepted indirect free kick offence into a penalty by simulation. This would require a finding that there was no contact. If the "Panel" accepts that there was contact, any contact if not accidental, then Niasse's actions in falling after this contact are irrelevant, according to the wording of the FA's own rules.
This second link describes the FA's powers and intent to punish simulation as "Successful Deception of a Match Official". This merely outlines the concept. A actual ruling upon which action is taken must surely contain an explanation of how the official was deceived.
Either, there was no contact, or Niasse had to have deliberately initiated contact for him to be guilty of simulation. Why has there been no statement of ruling containing these vital aspects? The Panel has simply "Found" that there was simulation... OK, HOW? What did he do? And was Dann completely exonerated of any attempt to obstruct in any manner?
No wonder they rejected an appeal. Either someone has realized a proper appeal would tear this apart by demanding stated facts that would stand the scrutiny of recorded film, or "Someone" wants to maintain some interpretive wiggle room.
71 Posted 23/11/2017 at 12:33:20
72 Posted 23/11/2017 at 12:48:51
The debating points for me are about the significance of the arm across the chest, and about whether the charge was shoulder to shoulder. And, as you say, falling after a foul doesn't negate a foul.
73 Posted 23/11/2017 at 14:15:54
Brent, you keep repeating the shoulder to shoulder competition for the ball without seeming to understand that it doesn't apply if the tackler is simply moving towards the player and not in the direction of the ball. That is just a foul.
74 Posted 23/11/2017 at 15:00:39
75 Posted 23/11/2017 at 15:34:20
I'm off to the match tonight and I don't expect I'll see many shoulder charges.
76 Posted 23/11/2017 at 15:39:48
77 Posted 23/11/2017 at 23:00:30
John, players legitimately using upper body strength to ease another player off the ball happens all the time. A shoulder â€˜charge' is not the same as competing shoulder to shoulder when both pursuing the ball. Dann's movement to impede denies Niasse the opportunity to catch up with the ball he is chasing and has to be considered an unfair challenge irrespective of Oumar making a meal of it.
78 Posted 24/11/2017 at 00:50:42
As you say, there is nothing wrong with any legitimate challenge, in my opinion there was a coming together of Dann and Niasse, I'm not a 100% sure that it was a foul challenge, [but I accept that the referee was], and I don't for one second believe that Niasse took a dive.
I grew up believing that there two people who were infallible, and they were the Pope and the referee, in some quarters the Pope is still considered to be infallible. I'm afraid that the referee has been stripped of that distinction, and he has to answer to the so called experts on Match of the Day and other similar television programmes.
I can envision football games being staged [without human input] by the all seeing cameras, and the Alan Shearer, Lee Dixon and Glenn Hoddle of the day, thankfully I won't be around to see it.
79 Posted 24/11/2017 at 00:52:55
I always thought the two infallibilities were the Pope and Bovril.
80 Posted 24/11/2017 at 10:08:51
81 Posted 24/11/2017 at 10:26:45
82 Posted 24/11/2017 at 16:55:37
83 Posted 24/11/2017 at 20:46:33
84 Posted 24/11/2017 at 23:25:54
"Everton's Oumar Niasse 'exaggerated the effect of a normal contact to deceive the referee' and win a penalty according to the written reasons for his two-game ban for diving. "An independent regulatory commission noted 'the nature of the contact made by Dann was minimal and would not have thrown Niasse off balance and knock him down in the way he portrayed'. "
"An independent regulatory commission noted 'the nature of the contact made by Dann was minimal and would not have thrown Niasse off balance and knock him down in the way he portrayed'. "
So, they have tried to qualify it.
The FA rules say "Contact" - not "Nature of contact". The effect of the contact is not mentioned in the rules. There is also no such thing as "Normal contact" described anywhere in the rules.
Also - "...the nature of the contact made by Dann was minimal".
So Dann actively and deliberately made contact (as borne out by video). This violates the FA's own rules, the punishment for which is a penalty when in the area.
So it's normal now, to actively step into the path of a player and make a considered minimal amount of obstructing contact? OK defenders, you can now obstruct attackers running into the box, deflecting them from the ball (with an arbitrary amount of contact decided by a "Panel" on an as-and-when basis) whilst making no attempt to play the ball. Bullshit.
They're basically admitting that Dann made illegal contact but that this is overridden by Niasse's reaction. Perhaps we can see a definition and examples of suitable reaction?
As suspected, the FA are using a "Panel" to reinterpret clear rules of football when it suits their purposes. They want the option to blur rules and punish when it suits, in a way that correct use of the rules wouldn't allow.
A half decent solicitor would tear such crap to shreds - hence their option to deny appeals.
86 Posted 26/11/2017 at 07:02:14
The FA already has the power to step in with retrospective action when it is believed that a ref has missed an important action, resulting in a player gaining an unfair advantage, but no action is deemed necessary when the referee has seen the alleged incident and taken action. In this case the referee was in a good position to see the incident and accordingly interpreted the evidence of his eyes and took appropriate action by awarding a penalty. As I think someone has already mentioned, any barrister worth his salt could have torn the FA's case to pieces. The whole thing stinks.
Add to that the fact that a player running at speed can easily be knocked off balance by minimal contact if correctly applied as I believe to be the case here, then as soon as the FA admit that contact took place in the box, then they ultimately destroy their own case.
I've waited until now to comment, having given myself time to review the video a number of times, assess the wording of the tribunal decision and to read the rules pertaining to foul play and the application of said rules by referees. How much time did this kangaroo court actually give to the case, LOOKED AT FROM BOTH SIDES, before making this arbitrary ruling which I understand has no right of appeal?
It would appear that the basic tenets of British justice simply do not have any place in football, which more and more is becoming a law unto itself. No wonder the FA and those who govern the game in this country have become a laughing stock and have so little respect from the root and branch followers of a once great game, now reduced to nothing more than a money making enterprise, seemingly run to suit the top echelons of club football, with one law for the rich and glamorous clubs and another for the also - rans.
It will be enormously interesting to see if this ridiculous tribunal is brought into action this weekend or at any time in the near future when one of the players from those rich glamour clubs is caught on camera flagrantly diving to gain an advantage. I won't be holding my breath, and therein lies the crux of the problem they have now created for themselves, because unless they now clamp down on the well known divers at the top end of the league, their integrity will be further eroded and will take the game even further away from the fans who pay to watch their teams in action.
87 Posted 26/11/2017 at 07:23:21
88 Posted 26/11/2017 at 08:17:40
I still doubt the merits of having amateurs seemingly in a position to overrule/undermine the authority of professional referees. If there must be a panel of this type it should consist of current and/or former match officials, possibly with one or two ex-players acting as consultants to give a different perspective - but not to be part of the decision directly. It also seems obvious to me that only the match official concerned should be able to refer an incident to the panel, on the basis that he has reviewed it from various angles & revised his view of the incident after the match.
89 Posted 26/11/2017 at 08:29:18
90 Posted 26/11/2017 at 08:58:44
I would prefer that the game's original referees were to be involved in some way with the review, as they are the only ones who know the context of the incident within the particular match. If they could veto a decision by the panel, or approve it.
91 Posted 26/11/2017 at 09:12:19
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.