Niasse rejects accusations of 'diving'

Monday, 20 November, 2017 203comments  |  Jump to most recent

Niasse: “He was coming into contact. When I felt the contact, I knew then he pushed me away."

Oumar Niasse has defended himself against claims from Scott Dann that he dived to win the penalty that brought Everton back level at 1-1 in Saturday's draw with Crystal Palace.

Everton had made an awful start to the game, conceding inside the first minute, but were handed a route back to parity just four minutes later when they were awarded a penalty from which Leighton Baines scored.

Referee Anthony Taylor adjudged Dann to have fouled Niasse when the pair came together in the Palace penalty box but Dann felt aggrieved, saying: “If there was [contact] it was minimal. I haven't tried to tackle him; he has gone past me and you can see on the replays he has dived."

The Senegalese striker, who would score the Blues' second equaliser later in the first half, insists, however, that there was sufficient contact and he says he would be very surprised if he is pulled up by the Premier League in accordance with their new anti-diving regulations.

Article continues below video content

"People were saying that I fell down easily," Niasse said. "I don't know. I didn't see the video again. To get into the box, I tried to dribble the guy.

“He was coming into contact. When I felt the contact, I knew then he pushed me away.

"The contact was on my upper body but when I felt the contact I was in the box so that is it: that is all I have to do, go on the floor. It was because I was running so quick.

"I will be shocked [if I am charged with diving] because there is contact."

However, presumably in response to the inordinate media furore kicked up by numerous pundits, the FA have indeed referred the matter to their review panel as the first case of its kind to be considered retrospectively.

"It is alleged he committed an act of simulation which led to a penalty being awarded in the 5th minute of the game," the FA statement continued.

"He has until 6pm on 21 November 2017 to respond.

"Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player.

"Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'successful deception of a match official'.

"Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge."


Reader Comments (203)

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

James Hopper
1 Posted 20/11/2017 at 17:33:59
Give it up, Oumar. You went down like a coked-up hooker in Bangkok.

And I love you for it. 😂

Kevin Molloy
2 Posted 20/11/2017 at 17:39:04
If you were wearing a red shirt, it wouldn't be mentioned. It happened right in front of me at the game. Correct decision: penalty every day of the week. Dann stepped across and body-checked him.
Tony Everan
3 Posted 20/11/2017 at 17:41:44
Zaha goes down in our box from a similar “tackle“ – every Crystal Palace fan would be screaming for a penalty.

If awarded, Scott Dan would be laughing his cock off about it on the training ground.

Nigel Munford
4 Posted 20/11/2017 at 17:42:47
Very similar to Lennon’s v Watford, definitely a penalty.
James Hill
5 Posted 20/11/2017 at 17:43:35
I've heard the pundits on TV say so many times, if contact is made, then you are entitled to go down. Scott Dann clearly make contact by stepping across Niasse. If this was the RS, there wouldn't be an issue.

Also why hasn't there been any discussion about Fabregas who clearly dived when there was no contact.

Well done, Niasse, about time we did what all the others do. As much as I hate it, cheating is a big part of the modern game and excepted by the fans of today, why should we be any different?

Alasdair Mackay
6 Posted 20/11/2017 at 17:44:10
Dann actually says "If there was (contact) it was minimal". Translation – there was contact.

He exaggerated his fall, which I don't like, but there was contact. Dann steps across him, impedes him and doesn't get the ball. It's a penalty.

Eddie Dunn
7 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:00:33
It was a big shoulder from Dann and it would have been enough to put the striker off balance and he would be less likely to get a good shot off, even if it was unlikely to put him on his backside.
Ray Roche
8 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:01:41
Unfortunately, pundits have introduced the rule that "contact", however minimal, can justify a free kick, penalty etc. However, this results in Johnny Foreigner rolling about clutching his leg, occasionally the wrong leg, and banging his hand on the ground to indicate just how much pain his broken finger nail has put him in.

Until people and pundits realise that "sufficient" should be placed in front of "contact" then diving will be a permanent and unwanted part of the game. Anything less than the result of a successful sniper's shot from the back of the main stand should result in the ref going "Play on, it's a man's game, yer fanny".

Ian Jones
9 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:17:00
James @ 5. Bit confused by your comments. If I am reading you correct, you first suggest Dann made contact by stepping across Niasse, indicating you agree with the penalty, then seem to congratulate Niasse for cheating. But I suppose I get your point. :)

For me, although I only saw it on TV, it seemed a very soft penalty. It was one of those where we would be up in arms if it had happened to one of us.

However, from the angle the ref had of the incident, I can see why he gave the penalty.

Jason Wilkinson
10 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:17:30
Oumar, you "won" your team a penalty. Chelsea had Drogba, United have Young, City Aguero, Spurs Alli, Liverpool well take your pick.

Your crime is playing for Everton mate the press and pundits hate us and have always (in my time watching) done so. I remember Jim Pearson being hacked down in the box and we got an indirect free kick. The pundits on "The big match" I said they thought it was harsh on the defender. I think it was Brum we were playing.

Until they change the laws keep up with the Jones' pal .

Graham Coldron
11 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:23:25
Ginola, Perez, Ashley Young, Ronaldo and the biggest culprit of the lot Owen were all prone to diving but it was viewed as "simulation" when everyone knew what was.

We get one dodgy penalty and there is suddenly a hysterical outbreak of handwringing from assorted hypocritical media types with much shaking of heads and serious expressions. Utter shithouses each and every one of them.

Paul Doyle
13 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:32:54
Who was worse than Gerard for going down?

Nothing was ever mentioned over his collapses, yet when it's us, there seems to be a steward's enquiry with everyone getting in on the act, including failed manager Shearer and a dark-haired Phil Neville, gobshite.

Colin Glassar
14 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:33:24
Oumar, you are a hero!! Ignore the haters in the media.
Liam Reilly
15 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:34:44
It'd set a dangerous precedent if they do charge him as there was clearly contact (however minimal).

I'm not sure we could do without Omar at the moment either. Will surely be discussed on MNF.

Dennis Stevens
16 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:34:52
The defender admits there was contact & claims that he wasn't trying to tackle Niasse – so it would seem he was fouling him instead, at least that's what the ref thought.

It seemed to me one of those incidents where the defender hopes to get away with his actions and the striker hopes to be rewarded for his, annd this one went our way – for a change!

David Barks
17 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:46:56
That was never a penalty. Had it been given against us, you'd all be screaming of bias refs and all the cheats in the game. Christ, just be honest. It won't hurt.
William Cartwright
18 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:47:51
Even the Redshite Clattenberg has got in on the act all the way from Saudi and chastised the player and the Club. Of course the article is 'headline news' for the BEEB...

Can't wait for the continuance of the Paradise Papers.

Poor old Moshiri will have wondered exactly what he bought into; no wonder he seeks solace in Jim White!

Steve Barr
19 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:48:38
I agree with Ray that "sufficient/significant" contact should be made before a penalty is awarded. This minimal contact nonsense is a gift for all these players of dubious ethics, of which there are many, and invites them to fall over at the merest of touches to gain a pen.

This aspect of the game should be seriously addressed, just like holding (manhandling a player to the ground) in the box and of course the verbal harassment of the ref by players to get someone booked or sent off.

There are very simple solutions to all of these issues. By ignoring them the consequence is that the result of a great/close competitive game becomes a lottery.

James Stewart
20 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:55:46
Easy target to attack plucky old Everton. Had it been Salah or Hazard it wouldn't even be a debate. You stay on your feet and you never win a pen, simple.
Dave Lynch
21 Posted 20/11/2017 at 18:56:24
He went down in instalments. Never a pen, if it was given against us, we would be fucking livid.

Glad it was given though...

Roy Noon
22 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:15:40
My first view of it was that it was a really soft penalty. Second view, I noticed how Dann had checked him with his shoulder.

Dann knew exactly what he was doing. He clearly didn't want to tackle him, so he impeded him by checking him with his shoulder. The contact wasn't especially significant, but anywhere else on the field it would have been a foul. It was in the penalty area .so its a penalty.

Did Niasse dive or exaggerate his fall? Yep, it looks like he did... but he's a bit of a gangly git, so perhaps he didn't?

As for the MotD pundits, really I don’t give a toss. Especially Shearer. He of the, "I'll kick Neil Lennon in the face and we'll just brush it under the carpet, so I can go to the World Cup" while Duncan Ferguson had to serve a jail sentence for an on-pitch assault.

Mary Poppins, my arse!

Paul Hughes
23 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:16:37
There was minimal contact and he went down like he'd been shot. Never a pen in my opinion, but who cares? Lennon's one last week was different. There was no intent, but the defender cleaned him out. Definite pen.
Brian Cleveland
24 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:19:30
I initially thought it was never a pen... but when you see the angle from behind the goal (which is not the angle the ref has!), you can see Dann steps across into him and stops him going past.

Yes, I'd angry if that had gone against us, but about time we had one go for us... perhaps that's the debate, how the hell did Everton (yes, Everton!), get a dodgy penalty? Did the ref get confused?!

Paul Birmingham
25 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:20:24
Across the season hopefully these decisions will be maintained by the referees.

How many tines have we been done on dodgy decisions over the years and you will recall a certain Clive Thomas and the RS curse was cast and has never been exercised.

We are riding our luck but the luck will run out and as an example the players must look to Lennon for putting a proper shift in. Most of this team haven't done a decent shift for 2-3 years.

Let's make the "unbeaten run" in the league to x3 games and no repeat of the pathetic show at Saints last season.

John Pierce
26 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:29:15
Never ever a penalty. But you make you own luck, and that lad works so hard I'm never surprised he makes something of nothing.

Oddly, Taylor was wide left as Niasse went past Dann. Had he been anywhere else the tiny bit of contact wouldn't have been seen.

Taylor is generally a referee who is quick to judge, card and send off. And he couldn't wait to give it. Even lectured Dann about what he thought on the matter.

We benefited from his poor judgement a lot in that game. Niasse and Davies easily could have been sent off for 2nd bookable offences.

Generally the harder the work, the more opportunities you get in dangerous areas. Maths tells you you are more likely to get something, however soft that penalty was.

Never ever a penalty.

Mike Gaynes
27 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:44:14
As a longtime defender, I would have been all over the ref (and have done) for giving that pen.

But as a Blue, hallelujah!

Darren Hind
28 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:54:17
There definitely was contact. Therefore penalty. We will get enough decisions go the wrong way for us without contesting the ones which are given in our favour.

As arl Daddy Ives used to say when refereeing kids 5-a-side in Penrhyn Street School in the sixties" "PENALLY!"

Jack Convery
29 Posted 20/11/2017 at 19:57:35
"Hi Jim, it's Moshiri – can you speak to those contacts you have and get them off our back over this Oumar diving business? And of course you'll be first to know who we appoint as manager when we get round to it... sometime in 2019."

My own opinion is that Niasse did not deliberately fall over. How many times have we witnessed him gallop into the box and fall over defenders and goalkeepers whilst trying to keep on his feet. He's too honest to dive. He's too honest to deceive.

Watch Dann's elbow as Niasse goes past him, he jabs it out and makes contact – Niasse is unsteady on his feet at the best of times, when running with the ball. It's a no-brainer.

However, those calling for his head over this have short memories – Snodgrass for Hull, Sterling for Man City, Owen for England v Argentina –- hypocrites the lot of them. And never mind Suarez for LFC nuff said. The great self-elected acting up again... sod 'em – sod 'em all.

Stan Schofield
30 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:02:04
My mate is a referee, and is also a red. He reckons that, according to the laws of the game, it was a penalty. That'll do for me,
Mike Allen
31 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:09:33
Never mind Niasse – the Watford team (vs West Ham) should be headline news, the way they over-reacted to every 50/50 with Carroll, absolute cheating cowards.

Yes, one got a bloody nose in a fair challenge... what happened after that was a disgrace to the game. But alas, that's the nature of the game these days and the officials cant handle it.

The Niasse penalty? Arm across his chest stopped him in his tracks... penalty! Should the referee have given it? I don't see how he could have seen it from his position... but what's the fuss?

Why pick on this one more genuine shouts not given than dodgy ones given? (Not that this one was dodgy!)

John Pierce
32 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:12:00
Stan, for what its worth I’m officiate in several sports including football.

There are the laws of the game and applying them using the spirit of the law/rule.

Did the defender take away his opportunity play the ball? I’d say not; he'd punted so far away from him that he couldn’t get it, he chose to exaggerate the contact because of his lack of control.

The referee has applied the rule/law as printed in the book. That’s a poor interpretation.

And thank fook for it. Never a pen but I love it as a fan!

Raymond Fox
33 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:14:26
Niasse was indeed impeded and had an elbow nudged into his chest but he could have stayed on his feet if he had tried. We need some luck, so I'm not complaining.

He finished our second goal off coolly like a top player, long may it continue.

Mark Riley
34 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:25:33
I couldn't see it when I was there but, watching MotD, it was a blatant dive. Do I blame him for it? Not at all. At the moment, we're desperate.

Not sure why people are saying he was fouled. If it was a Palace player, we'd be shitting through our ears with rage.

Stan Schofield
35 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:30:14
John @32: What you say is interesting. The reason I asked my red mate is that, during the 2015-16 season, Benteke (playing for Liverpool) got a similar penalty at Palace. There was a bit of controversy, and Klopp said that Benteke had every right to go down because he'd been made contact with and to some degree hindered.

I said to my mate that I was surprised by what Klopp had said, because it didn't seem consistent with 'fair play' (or interpreting the laws 'sensibly'). But my mate, being a red, was 100% behind Klopp. So, I was quite keen to get his view on the Niasse penalty, and it's possible he said it was a penalty because he remembers saying Benteke's was a penalty.

I suppose that might illustrate that interpreting the laws (the spirit, over and above the letter) can be subjective and biased, depending on who's doing the interpreting.

Will Mabon
36 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:30:53
Dann could easily have stood back and not made contact, he chose to step in and deflect Niasse off track, he obstructed his run. Unfortunately the contact caught Niasse at an unstable point in his stride, knocking him off balance and causing him to fall, so obstruction became a foul = penalty.

Steve Cotton
37 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:31:00
There hasn't been as much fuss about a player going over too easily since... erm, Andy Johnson. No fuss about Gerrard or Torres or Suarez – that was all okay. As soon as little Everton start getting decisions, all hell breaks out...
John Pierce
38 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:43:37

You honestly believe that or is your tongue firmly in your cheek? The contact did not take away his opportunity to try and retain possession.

He left terra firma like the a circus act trying to get through a flaming hoop.

All power to him, his choice and he's not the one making the decision. Never ever a penalty.

I truly hope he repeats the dose at Mordor in the last minute. The Palace of injustice.

Stan Schofield
39 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:49:35
I can imagine Niasse causing Liverpool all sorts of trouble in the Derby, their defence is shite and he's a terrier.
Dennis Stevens
40 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:56:02
No wonder they want him suspended, Stan.
Paul Kelly
41 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:57:04
100% stonewall penalty. Fook everyone else.
Neil Copeland
42 Posted 20/11/2017 at 20:59:42
For as long as I remember, we have been saying on here that Everton are too nice and we need to get in the opposition's face...

Well, guess what, Niasse got right in the face of Palace and look what happened. Long may it continue.

Peter Cummings
43 Posted 20/11/2017 at 21:01:59
Penalty or not, unless it is a blatantly obvious offence, dodgy pens will always be 'debatable', but what fans should be complaining most about in my opinion is the new offside rule.

Time and time again we have seen players given offside when the toe of the boot or a bit of the head or shoulder is an inch, or less, beyond the opposing defenders.

Derek Knox
44 Posted 20/11/2017 at 21:07:52
Tom Daly will be disappointed, he was looking for a new partner.
Laurie Hartley
45 Posted 20/11/2017 at 21:12:04
I've looked at it a few times on the 5 minute highlights of the official web site. Dann checked him in my opinion. The ref was not more than 10 yards from them with a clear sight of the incident. A penalty it is.

On Niasse himself, the lad has got a heart as big as a lion. We need that at the moment – let's hope it rubs off on the other players.

While I'm at it we have another player that was left out in the cold by Koeman – Aaron Lennon. Another one who is giving us everything at the moment.

I find it quite ironical that these two lads are the ones who will help us if we are to fight our way out of the situation we currently find ourselves in.

Neither of them are world beaters but credit to David Unsworth for realising what they have to offer and playing them.

John Pierce
46 Posted 20/11/2017 at 21:21:21

I'd proffer the inclusion of Niasse and Lennon, is more a matter of respect. As most of the senior professionals probably believe Unsworth won't be around for too long the respect just isn't there and that's been borne out in their performances.

The 'unders', Lennon & Niasse all know Unsworth and respect him, their performances and effort have been markedly different.

Unfortunately Unsworth cannot play a U23 side in the Premier League. The commitment of several of the senior team has been shocking, largely because ultimately Everton's position won't affect them in the long term.

Keith Johnson
47 Posted 20/11/2017 at 21:26:45
Oumar is proving everyone wrong. Carry on, lad, you are slowly becoming a true blue.

One other thing: I don't know what others think about Barton, he keeps on running every player down and the club... maybe he is bitter that we never signed him... thank god! The gambling fiddling junky -- just find a cliff to jump off, you crook.

Will Mabon
48 Posted 20/11/2017 at 21:33:06
John @ 38, my tongue was sort of in my cheek for the balance and fall part of the post.

Look though at the replay from behind the event, showing the ref with the same view, and say that Dann didn't actively and deliberately turn his body and shoulder into Niasse (The contact is confirmed when viewing from the other side).

He made a deliberate move to impede Niasse that was no form of tackle or attempt to win the ball, but designed to block or deflect him. That is undeniable from the video. If that counts as deliberate foul play in the ref's eyes, then it's a pen. Whether Niasse fell or not doesn't change that.

Watch from 15 seconds:


Brent Stephens
49 Posted 20/11/2017 at 21:37:28
I'm wondering what part of Dann's body checks / fouls Niasse.

Looking at it several times, I see an arm from Dann come across Niasse's chest but with what seems like the slightest of contacts - and contact in itself isn't necessarily a penalty. Shoulder to shoulder seems to follow - which in itself wouldn't be a foul, unless undue force. And I don't see any leg trip Niasse.

So, while not certain, I have some doubt that was a penalty.

Laurie Hartley
50 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:23:08
John # 46 - No doubt you are on the money about their respect for Unsworth but if you are correct about the attitude of some of the "senior" players then that is a sad indictment of them.

We all know how poorly Niasse has been treated, and the way in which he has responded, but I also recall Baines saying something along the lines that Aaron Lennon's commitment when he was brought in in the January window, when we were struggling under Martinez, gave the then "senior players" a shake up.

It seems commitment is part of his personal make up.

Hugh Jenkins
51 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:39:04
I detest cheats of all kinds. But Oumar was body checked.

Whichever way you look at that clip – it is clear.

Dann turned into him with his shoulder, at an angle that could only result in Oumar being impeded and knocked out of his stride.

That is a penalty!

Brent Stephens
52 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:42:49
Hugh, you think it wasn't shoulder to shoulder? I'm not sure.
Bob Parrington
53 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:47:15
Laurie (#45) and Will (#48) – you're both spot on. From that view, it is 100% nailed on. Dann was beaten by Niasse, turned his back on him and stepped across his path, without even trying to touch the ball, and then used his left elbow.

Goal-scoring opportunity. Referee exactly right.

Hugh Jenkins
54 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:52:21
Whilst all this is going on, perhaps we can resurrect a clip of Carragher wrestling Lescott to the ground on the six yard line in the derby, and circulate that around.

What goes around, comes around and we've suffered more than our fair share of bad calls in recent times.

Brent Stephens
55 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:52:47
Bob, I'm not sure Dann's back makes contact with Niasse. Looks to me as if it's shoulder to shoulder. Is that still legit in the rules of the game?
Brent Stephens
56 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:54:01
Yes, Hugh. Carragher got away with murder.
Rob Halligan
57 Posted 20/11/2017 at 22:58:35
You wouldn't be surprised what Carragher said about the penalty incident on the Monday night football! Was definitely not a penalty and Niasse should serve a two-match ban for diving.
Rob Halligan
58 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:05:17
In my opinion, it was a definite penalty. Dann puts his arm across Niasse's chest to impede him, but quickly removed it then knocked him with his shoulder.

Okay, he went down rather easily, but contact was made to impede Niasse and put him off his stride. He had every right to go down.

Hugh Jenkins
59 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:07:02
Brent (#52) – my idea of shoulder to shoulder has always been that you are side by side and jostling each other whilst moving in the same direction.

In this instance Oumar is moving towards goal, Dann is moving away from goal towards Oumar when he clips Oumar in the armpit, with his shoulder.

Newtons laws – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Dann knew exactly what he intended and had therefore braced himself for the impact. Oumar hadn't so the sudden impact whilst in full flow, provided the opposite reaction and put him on his backside.

When we were kids, playing in the park, we did it all the time, if someone faster was going past you. The clip in Will's post at 48 clearly shows this and it is a manoeuvre as old as the hills.

Simon Smith
60 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:07:11
On a slightly different note. Very composed finish by Niasse for his goal! I think he's literally the only player that is brimming with confidence at the moment
Tom Bowers
61 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:07:39
Referees have to call it as they see it, sometimes through a crowd of players they won't call something that is pretty obvious to a TV viewer or a fan on the other side of the incident.

That is why they have touchline officials but they just won't commit themselves at times, much like the one Brighton should have had today.

Niasse was fouled but oh so subtly as many defenders know how to and this time the ref gave it.

Brent Stephens
62 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:14:16
Hugh, I have no doubt Dann knew what he was doing and braced himself – that in itself is no foul. And as you say, Niasse hadn't braced himself – that doesn't make a shoulder charge a foul.

It's just that I think there's enough doubt around this to suggest that Dann met Niasse shoulder to shoulder. Dann didn't make contact on Niasse's back nor front. Of course, Dann wants to move Niasse away from his path towards goal.

I think it looks like shoulder to shoulder and not a foul. I'm not saying it's certain that it wasn't a foul – just that there's significant room for doubt.

Brent Stephens
63 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:16:05
And I think Rob has a different take in identifying the arm across the chest as being the foul, not the shoulder. And that arm might be the what decided it for the ref??
Kim Vivian
64 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:17:54
The ref gave it, so it was a penalty. Easy really.
Brent Stephens
65 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:19:29
Perceptive, Kim!
Rob Halligan
66 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:24:13
Interesting that neither MotD or Sky showed the incident when Calvert-Lewin robbed Sakho and had a clear run on goal, only had to have his shirt virtually ripped off his back.
Hugh Jenkins
67 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:24:57
Brent (#62) – I understand what you are saying. The problem is, there are so many variables at play, eg, the line of vision of the referee, the ref's interpretation of the rules, whether or not the assistant referee sees anything, or, for that matter, whether the referee bothers to consult the assistant referees. etc.etc.

The old adage is that it all levels itself out over a season.

Given the Carragher example I quoted above (and others), I think Everton should, by this time have a sufficient credit in the (Bank of Poor Decisions), for us not to worry unduly whether this one was 100% right.

There was contact – there was no dive, the ref decided it was a penalty – we might look back on this in May and say – that was the goal that keeps us in the Premier League. At that point, will we care?

Simon Smith
68 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:25:58
Just looked at his league stats this season. 5 goals in 379 minutes! A goal every 75 minutes! Impressive.
Mike Gaynes
69 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:30:04
Stan (#30), I am a ref myself and I wouldn't have given it, but I'm the old-fashioned play-on type.
John Pierce
70 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:39:56
Will, yeah I've watched it every which way and how.

Contact, impediment or blocking is not a the only conditions for awarding a foul. I think too much emphasis is placed on the law and not enough on context. The law is the starting point, context is everything.

Many tackles are made with contact. The key for me is without the contact would Niasse be able to play the ball? Based on his touch, no? Based on the player's own perception, no, because he chose to exaggerate the contact, he knew he couldn't get there. Down he went.

Did that contact change that outcome? Nope. What opportunity did Dann take away? Nothing to my mind at least.

I might be being a bit picky, but my official's viewpoint but fouls don't have to be hard, or subtle, its always what did you take away that is the main consideration.

When a player over runs the ball in the way Niasse did, the contact applied is secondary in the thought process.

And for those clever fookers out there who might point out players can go around ‘clotheslining people' after the ball has gone; that's a foul for violent conduct.

Please note, as a fan, I love it. Diving doesn't get the recognition it deserves! It's no less or more than mowing down a player clean through. It's part of being professional, there's no moral mountain in football.

And if there is, is deathly silent as no fooker is on it!

As for my tongue, as I speak official, definitely forked!

As an official, no pens lads!

Mark Riley
71 Posted 20/11/2017 at 23:54:22
Agreed, Simon Smith. He has his faults, not the best control and he doesn't head the ball but he's some finisher. I've seen him put some decent goals in against Sunderland, Bournemouth and Palace.

To think that Koeman brought Kone on last season a few times and this lad wasn't even given a locker. Criminal.

Ian Horan
72 Posted 20/11/2017 at 00:01:58
I seem to remember Stevie G Laaaa getting one for the RS against Sheffield Utd. No contact was made but the ref at the time said the defender intended to impede him. So Dann intended to impede Oumar!!! And unlike the RS one, there was contact; minimal, yes, but contact
John Pierce
73 Posted 21/11/2017 at 00:32:20
Can’t devine intent
Steven Astley
74 Posted 21/11/2017 at 00:36:25
John, jog on mate with your blabbering post.
It WAS a penalty, stonewall. End of.
Colin Metcalfe
75 Posted 21/11/2017 at 00:41:54
Tell you what – when he bamboozled two Palace defenders and got his shot off, that was very good skill. He is full of surprises, our Oumar!!!
Steve Ferns
76 Posted 21/11/2017 at 00:47:33
Who cares whether it was a pen or not. We got it, we scored. It makes up for the one at Leicester we never got.
John Pierce
77 Posted 21/11/2017 at 01:15:42
Steve A. Nothing cogent to say other than "Shut up"because you don't agree?

Classic debate material that, clearly words aren't your friends and the tired insult is years out of date.

Forums are bywords for debate, learn to see both sides and get a sharper game.

I'll leave you be as misery loves its own company.

Jamie Sweet
78 Posted 21/11/2017 at 02:10:14
Dann blatantly and intentionally played the man instead of the ball. Yes the resulting contact was minimal, but the first bit of cheating was from the Palace player and he got everything he deserved.

Oumar only did a teeny tiny bit of cheating in comparison, by exaggerating his fall a little (ok, a lot).

Lee Brownlie
79 Posted 21/11/2017 at 02:59:38
Kim Vivian (@64): 'The ref gave it, so it was a penalty...'

That's pretty much what even Roy Hodgson said in the tunnel, post-match, so end of chat all round, yeah?

Ajay Gopal
80 Posted 21/11/2017 at 05:06:45
I have looked at it a few times and think it is a penalty because he was deliberately impeded during a goal scoring opportunity inside the penalty box. Calls for banning him for diving are way off the mark. Stay strong, Oumar, brush it off and get on with your stellar work for Everton.

On the subject of diving, the biggest of them all this season is Richarlison of Watford. The guy falls over at every opportunity inside the box – even the famous Cleverley miss penalty which many people here claim we were very fortunate with, if you look at the incident leading to the penalty, you can easily see that he has conned the referee by falling over dramatically with almost no contact from Jags.

Some fans are quick to see when we get ‘lucky' but steadfastly don't see when it is the opposition getting the run of the green. Strange fans!

Darren Hind
81 Posted 21/11/2017 at 05:19:40
Rob (#58 + #66),

Get paid. On both points.

Ian Jones
82 Posted 21/11/2017 at 05:54:08
Ajay, I thought the penalty against Watford was for Pickford's trip.
Steven Astley
83 Posted 21/11/2017 at 07:15:05
John, ask for a new keyboard for Christmas pal, as no doubt your one is currently getting very tired.
Its drivel like yours that appear on these pages regularly that should be vetted.
Kim Vivian
84 Posted 21/11/2017 at 08:24:56
Lee 79 - Mmmm - there you go. Great(?) minds... and all that!

I don't tend to watch the post match interviews because 1) I shut my links down asap at the end of the match, and 2) They always spout the same thing anyway. Same words, different order, different mouths, and are hardly as gripping as a Lee Child novel, but good for Roy if he did say that. Presumably he accepted it then. No choice really eh?

Besides Dann's own statement has anything further been made of it by anyone at Palace? Not that I've heard so that's the end of it surely. That's football. It happens every week somewhere and I don't think the world is actually taking much interest in two bottom of the table clubs debating hardly the most controversial penalty decision.

For what it's worth, as I see it – if he stays up, it doesn't get given; if he goes down, it might (and was), so he went down – not very convincingly for sure, but down he went.

Does a fall or otherwise define the legality of the first contact? It shouldn't but these days it does. Whether he falls or not, Oumar was nudged/obstructed away from the ball so the penalty was right by the soft standards of contact definition these days.

I would be livid if the boot had been on the other foot but, as many have pointed out – it's nice to get the benefit for a change.

Mike Berry
85 Posted 21/11/2017 at 08:25:28
When there is contact, however small, against an opponent running at speed, one foot off the ground as in motion, they will fall. Same principle applies in martial arts to get your opponent off balance, it's just the law of gravity.

With this in mind, there was contact and defenders should expect their opponent to fall; they have to live with the consequences and stop moaning. I'm sick of these wimps trying to shift the blame when it is they who are in error.

Niasse deserves much credit for his tenacious display. I have no doubt he will bag well into double figures if staying sound.

Morris Kruger
86 Posted 21/11/2017 at 08:33:23
Niasse don't worry. There was contact and, had it been Man Utd or a Chelsea player who went down, it would have been a straight red. Proud of you, my man and ignore the sanctimonious crying. Tell them to tell that to someone who cares. I don't!!!
Brent Stephens
87 Posted 21/11/2017 at 08:56:41
Hugh (#67): "We might look back on this in May and say – that was the goal that keeps us in the Premier League. At that point, will we care?"

Kim (#84): "It's nice to get the benefit for a change".

Aye to that, Hugh and Kim!

James Marshall
88 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:03:38
It was a dive. There was contact. It was still a dive.

Pass me that storm-filled teacup, would you, Oumar...

Phil Greenough
90 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:33:10
If Oumar isn't phased about not having had a locker or an official EFC suit, do you think he's worried about what Carragher, Barton or anyone thinks about him?
Dave Abrahams
91 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:39:32
I was more than surprised when the referee awarded the penalty, but we got it and scored from it so I was happy.

I don't think it is the pundits remiss to bring all the "Was it? Wasn't it?" lark up. A couple of weeks ago Shearer said Wenger owed Sterling an apology for saying he dived. I didn't think either of the awards were penalties, but Shearer defends one and says the other is a dive – that is why I usually give little credence to pundits. They are paid a lot of money for sitting on their arses and giving their opinions. There is a lot wrong with football and these lot are a big part of it.

Andy McNabb
92 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:40:53
Of course it was a dive.

Ray Roche (#8), spot on.

Incidentally, in the A-League over here, players seem to fall over even more easily. Makes for very disjointed, frustrating matches and when I watch the Premier League and certainly the Championship, I am actually surprised at how much players stay on their feet.

Pundits, referees and players over here very much buy into the myth that football is a 'non-contact sport'. I think it comes from the fact that Aussie Rules is viewed in comparison as such a physical game, played by 'real men' but recently they have also had a few incidents of players feigning injury. There is generally uproar at this but I'm sure it will grow and eventually it will sadly become as prevalent as it is in our game. Then supporters will trot out rubbish like – "Cheating is such a big part of the game, I'm glad we do it too."

Seriously, listen to yourself.

Michael Williams
93 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:45:41
Here is the real lesson:

Whether it was a penalty or not, in this moment, like every other moment Oumar has played, he gave 100% for the club.

If everyone played as hard as Niasse does from the beginning we might be close to fulfilling our pre-season ambitions. Who would have thought in the spring after he arrived that he is the player that sets the example for the others to follow.
Sam Hoare
94 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:50:28
I think there are two types of dive in football:

A dive when there is no contact/obstruction. This is outright cheating and should be clamped down on harshly.

A player who goes down under contact/obstruction when he might well have stayed on his feet. This one is more tricky and harder to judge. Perhaps if being generous we might say it is gamesmanship rather than outright cheating. The fact is that defenders should not be able to make contact or obstruct the attacker unless they are making a tackle. It's annoying when we fall victim to it and glorious when we profit from it.

Oumar has obviously gone down easy but there was contact.

James Lauwervine
95 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:51:03
The groundwork is being laid by the media for Niasse now to get fuck all from refs. Same as what happened to Andy Johnson years back. Load of bollocks and as others have said, had it been a Liverpool or Man Utd player, it would never be mentioned again.
Shane Corcoran
96 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:53:36
Poor Everton. Won't the big bad media just leave them alone.
Phil Sammon
97 Posted 21/11/2017 at 09:57:21
Andy (#92),

I think you're wrong regarding the AFL going the same way. I certainly hope so anyway.

As a die-hard Evertonian of 32 years I have to say, hand on heart, I think football is absolute turd compared to Aussie Rules. Truly the best sport on earth. Already desperate for next season.

Abhishek Saha
98 Posted 21/11/2017 at 10:22:03
Niasse was a Martinez signing and I seriously believe that if Martinez was given the pot which Koeman had, we would be firmly nested in the top 4 now.
Rob Halligan
99 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:12:12
FFS, Niasse has now been charged by the FA for simulation. If he accepts, which he shouldn't, it's a two-match ban. If he appeals, which he should, and loses his appeal, it's probably a three-match ban.
Colin Glassar
100 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:17:10
Will the FA now charge any of their beloved top 6 teams players, who dive on a regular basis (see Liverpool) or will this rule only apply to the riffraff?
Derek Knox
101 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:17:45
Abhishek, I think a lot of what you have said is plausible, with regards to Martinez v Koeman, the latter seemed reluctant to a point of stubbornness, to involve any of Martinez signings having any roles to play.

He seemed hellbent on paying over the odds for players that nobody else was even after, with no game or positional strategy for that player within the team.

Having said all that, when Martinez first came he was like a breath of fresh air, which gradually became staler and staler, to the point he had to go, but yes, I can never remember being so disillusioned under Martinez, than I was with Koeman!

Jay Wood
102 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:19:27
Just seen that myself Rob.

A truly imbecilic decision by the FA. There is more than sufficient contact for Oumar to go to ground.

Just looked up the 'unlucky 13' who sit in judgement on this. It reads:

Eight former managers and players: Nigel Adkins, Rachel Brown-Finnis, Terry Butcher, Lee Dixon, Alex McLeish, Danny Murphy, Chris Powell and Trevor Sinclair.

Plues five ex-match officials: Keren Barratt, Steve Dunn, Mike Mullarkey, Alan Wiley and Eddie Wolstenholme.

This is persecution by popular media. Shocking call.

Dave Pritchard
103 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:26:59
I am sure there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this. There is no consistency is my main gripe. One week, it is said that there was contact so a penalty; the next week, the same people say there wasn't enough contact to go down.

The reality is that a 2- or 3-match ban for Niasse will be damaging to us as he is our only real goal threat.

John Hammond
104 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:30:27
Haven't seen it but it sounds like there was some contact, however minimal. We've had some blatant penalties turned down this season and these things even out.

The fact Niasse is getting in these positions and making things happen from nothing is what we've needed all season and let's just hope he can stay fit until January. The fact he's not eligible for the European games could be a blessing in disguise.

Colin Glassar
105 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:32:34
Last night, a Brighton player was chopped down in the box and fell on the ball. The ball didn't even go out of play so the ref, initially, gave Brighton a corner. I think he eventually gave Stoke a goal kick.

I mention this just to highlight how shite our match officials really are. Clive Thomas must be spinning in his grave.

Derek Knox
106 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:38:05
This is indeed a long running issue which has never been properly addressed.

I am old enough to remember Mickey Thomas, playing for Man U and going down (for a penalty in opposition box) and the Cameraman catching him winking, as if to say, "I fooled them there".

In fairness to referees (never imagined myself saying that), he has to make a decision in a split second, whilst at the same time, not appearing to be indecisive by running to his officials, for clarification.

To have a post mortem, controversially undermining the ref's decision, by a panel of ex-pros, seems ludicrous to me. As many have said, it's victimisation of a player, depending who he plays for.

They are never going to retrospectively reverse the decision, and deduct points, should it be the difference between a win or a draw either.

At least let's have some consistency if we are to carry on with this ruling.

Paul Mackie
107 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:38:53
If Niasse deserved a penalty for that, then I don't think I want to watch football anymore. This shit is getting ridiculous.
Rob Coles
108 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:44:56
Well, after all that's been said by the experts on MotD he must have dived because he now faces a two-match ban after the FA have decided to investigate...
Charlie Lloyd
109 Posted 21/11/2017 at 11:49:47

Absolute joke of a decision. He was blocked in his path in the area. Scott Dann made no attempt to play the ball.

If this had happened at our end, I'd have been very concerned and thought a penalty would have been given.

Dark forces at work here. Complete shite of a decision from a corrupt panel.

Mike Allen
110 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:07:44
Trial by TV... dreadful, why this one? How many incidents over the weekend and every weekend of players cheating – and in most cases the same players?
Liam Reilly
111 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:08:29
Just incredible – if he was playing in Red of for one of the other favourites, this wouldn't have progressed this far. Utter shambles.
Bill Watson
112 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:09:09
So, if the referee catches a player diving, it's a yellow card, at most, but if a retrospective panel finds him guilty, it's a two-match ban!
Ian Carter
113 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:12:27
Bill (#112)

That was my thought exactly. How can a yellow card offense be given a 2-match ban?! Doesn't make any sense to me either.

Liam Reilly
114 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:13:35
Phil Neville on MotD: "It was a dive. It was 100% a dive. There's a bit of contact but he goes down trying to win the penalty. It's a soft penalty."

He obviously doesn't remember his own pathetic dive against our neighbours!

If only he could've been banned for two games.

Ian Hollingworth
116 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:32:04
So the first Premier League footballer to be charged with this new rule is an Everton player.

In a league that is littered with cheats and almost a now accepted code of conduct that you try to get what you can, it is in November that the first player is charged?

You really could not make it up.

Phil Greenough
117 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:32:32
I think there's an agenda here, not just a persecution complex. Everton have got to be vocal over this matter and not lie down and take it. The other players have got to step up to the mark, if he does get a ban, and get the results until he's back in the team.
Dave Abrahams
118 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:36:29
Colin (#105), the referee in the end gave a free kick to Stoke, as the Brighton player fell he handled the ball!!!!

it looked a clear penalty to me.

Everton will probably not appeal to save Niasse getting a three-match ban instead of two, when you are down your luck is out. Niasse will be a big loss.

Peter Barry
119 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:36:46
Now that Niasse has been charged with diving, I will be extremely interested to see how many other notorious and repeated divers such as Kane and Alli at Spurs and Sanchez at Arsenal and the whole team at Man Utd are similarly charged in the coming weeks – my prediction NOT A SINGLE ONE of them!
Roy Noon
120 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:40:12
Nice bit of FA consistency (not). Banned for two games, subject to a potential appeal. Just what we needed, losing our most willing, whole-hearted performer when were in such a mess.

I expect that, adopting a completely consistent line, that the FA will apply their rigorous rules to all Premier League clubs, and, if that is the case I would expect that most clubs will be stripped of at least a couple of their players after the matches to be held this weekend.

Mal van Schaick
121 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:40:44
To the FA. There was contact, the player was impeded. It was a penalty. End of!

Any good lawyer will get him off, and then he sue the FA for defamation of character.

Wouldn't be anything to do with the 'old school tie' network and Woy Hodgson, would it?

Ray Jacques
122 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:43:24
Typical Everton, my paranoia increases.

Moving forward, I now expect retrospective bans on a weekly basis in the Premier League to be considered.

James Hughes
123 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:44:01
Absolute disgrace to charge him and I am fuming at the chutzpa shown by the panel. They'd best maintain consistency in the future.
Eugene Ruane
124 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:46:01
1914: "Everton's title winning side is rather good, they'll probably win a few more championshi... what's that you say, war?"

1939: "Everton's title winning side is rather good, they'll probably win a few more championshi... what's that you say, war?"

1985: "What a side, we'll clean up in Eur... Heysel? What's Heysel?"

2017: "Niasse going down looked iffy, still it's not like they do diving retrospectively. I mean there's been a thousand divers who've got off with it so it's hardly likely they'd pull up an Everton pla...y ou fucking WHAT!?"

And on it goes this thing of ours...

John Wilson
125 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:47:25
If I was Niasse I'd play the black card... and say it's discrimination.

I don't know the history of these diving charges. In criminal law, as a broad comparison, it need intention and the act, ie, mens rea and actus reus.

In tort (compensation law broadly), there are cases that suggest that sports played in real time, ie events which happen live are hard to control.

Niasse is like persona non grata by the media and I think this is fuelled by the media's interest. It is the Crystal Palace players who have likely started this charade. What about Costa's dives... what about Aguera's dives?

I would sue people if I were Niasse – as it's potentially defamation of his character.

I am saying these things in ignorance of the FA diving charging rules, of course. What I will add is that 'successfully deceiving a match official' should be down to the incompetent match official (or in tort, contributory negligence), as without which Niasse would not have been charged, potentially sanctioned (fined), or a good prospect of being banned. I hope this hits the courts as this rule is so controversial and in my view, it needs to be tested against the 'rule of law.'

Steve Hopkins
126 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:51:47
History-makers again, shame it couldn't have been for something positive this time.
Ray Jacques
128 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:54:15
The Kaiser, Hitler, they are all out to get us!!
James Stewart
129 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:54:46
It was a dive... but it WAS a pen. Obstruction and contact.

The fact that this has been the only charge in the league this season is an utter joke. Vardy dangles his leg when a goalkeeper comes in 5 yards of him. Dele goes down like he has been sniped every week.

None of these serial cheaters are ever pulled up. Makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Anthony Hawkins
130 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:55:35
There is NO WAY Niasse should be the first to be charged. There have been far worse and more influential dives which could have been charged but haven't.

The team are already down on their luck – what benefit is there in adding to it?

Andy Johnson's career was ruined by Wenger labelling him a diver – he never got a Ref's call after that.

James Hughes
131 Posted 21/11/2017 at 12:58:37
Ray (#128) everyone knows Hitler was a red, oh no that was the Russians, sorry!
Kim Vivian
132 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:03:34
He should dodge this hopefully. James is right at 129. I read that Bernado Silva (ManC) and Richarlison have both avoided bans and "Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge.", so hopefully at least one of them will see the foul.

However, since the offence alleged is successful deception of a match official rather than the attempt to win a penalty by diving he may be sent down simply due to the amateur nature of his theatrics. Clearly to me he could've stayed on his feet but then the borderline foul would definitely not have been picked up. Perhaps he should go to acting school.

Trouble is these days there is simply no continuity with the rulings and defenders are getting away with holding, shirt pulling, obstruction etc etc all the time.

Oumar does like to get in the record books, doesn't he, because this would be the first successful charge in the Premier League for this offence if he is called on it.

Tony Everan
133 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:04:11
We've been ripped off here, and victimised.

If it was Sterling or Dele or one of the other England Lions, they wouldn't bother even to review it.

Brian Harrison
134 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:08:21
Well they have certainly opened a hornets nest with this one, funny how its always non English players that fall foul of these decisions. I remember Neville Southall being the first to get a yellow card and a freekick against him for holding on to the ball for longer than I think it was 10 seconds. Earlier this season Deli Ali dived with no contact whatsoever, but no retrospective ruling – couldn't be because he was a current England International, playing for 1 of the top 6 sides.

So we won't need a panel to decide as the MotD panel will have already made judgement. I guess there was no retrospective punishment for the ref who disallowed Lennon's penalty against Leicester. Despite ex officials and the MotD pundits all agreeing it was definitely a penalty.

I think it will be very interesting to see which way this goes now, first is there a fine and a ban or both, and how many games will the player be banned for.

Steve Bird
135 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:11:08
Utter crap decision

Shame Rafa isn't our manager he would have a dossier 6 inches thick to take to the tribunal to show much worse incidents of diving this season, whilst the penalty was quite soft , Rafa and I believe the following .

There was contact – Fact!!
Referee was in no doubt – Fact!!
Niasse got up straight away – Fact!!
A top 6 player would never be charged retrospectively – Fact!!
We are so far from being a top 6 side – Fact!!
Rafa is not our manager – Fact!!
Phil Neville is a twat – Fact!!

Steve Carse
136 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:12:49
An astounding decision. On this basis Suarez would have missed every other game when with the RS.

If the criterion for the panel is that, as it now appears, if you overdo your reaction even if there has been contact you'll get charged, then fine. But I thought it was only going to be chargeable if there had been no contact.

Actually it would be great if the logic of all this was now applied to all incidents when the game is in play. That would mean that the game would be 'manned up' and free kicks/penalties only awarded if the contact had been sufficient to have stopped the player in possession from being able to do what he was seemingly intending to do – and not just because some contact had been made.

John Wilson
137 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:14:08
Kim, the panel are unanimous on Mr Niasse – not worth a suit or locker – Oumar. All of his predecessors for the charges have likely been secure Premier League in the top 6.

I would literally pull their case apart. Normally, the law in England & Wales has 2 years before the law can be implemented. Niasse can barely speak English and has been under so much pressure by the media and he is vilified by fans derogatory chanting. Perhaps, the FA should regulate the fans too.

I think there's a case for potentially indirect discrimination against Niasse and each company in England has to observe the laws which include discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 ('indirect discrimination' or 'detriment') under the Companies Act 2006.

Niasse can appeal within 14 days.. So hopefully Moshiri will get his legal team to make this go away. I could pull the FA's case apart just by some simple legal reasoning.

Jay Wood
138 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:18:25
Kim @ 132.

With respect Kim, I think you are interpreting that incorrectly, hoping one of the panel of three will not view it as simulation and so Oumar will get off.

I thought the same on first reading, but on reading it again, I conclude a panel of 3 has already sat down, reviewed and unanimously voted it was simulation and so brought the charge.

The full FA comment states:

"Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player.

"Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'Successful Deception of a Match Official'.

"Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge."

If my interpretation of that is correct, the only recourse open to Oumar and the club is whether to appeal or not.

Rob Halligan
139 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:18:47
Tony (#133). I remember a game a few weeks back Spurs at Huddersfield. Dele Alli threw himself to the ground in an attempt to win a penalty. The penalty wasn't given and I think Alli was booked for diving.

As he was booked I think that was the end of the matter, but surely he should have faced retrospective punishment as he still tried to deceive the referee in the same way the FA say Niasse has. Corrupt shower of Twats, every single one of them.

Also, if what Jay Wood says in 102, and Danny Murphy is on the panel to decide this charge, then we all know what he will say.

Simon Smith
140 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:21:54
How is it a 2-match ban??

Surely just a yellow card offence?

John Wilson
141 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:23:11
Jay, that's my interpretation also.
Steve Guy
142 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:25:27
Why do we need an FA panel when MotD pundits and average ex-referees writing for newspapers can do the job? Niasse is a victim of vicious OTT punditry. Shearer and Neville should hang their heads in shame for vilifying a fellow professional in this way.

Outcome? Everton penalised for something that happens every week. Niasse will never get a decision in his favour inside the box ever again. A precedent has been set by the FA that they will never be able to maintain.

Brian Harrison
143 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:40:13
Seems mad if the ref believes you have tried to con him, the player gets a yellow card, yet because neither the ref or the linesman spot it you will probably get a 2-game ban. Yet the FA won't have 4th officials using a video, which if they had it would have resulted in no penalty and a yellow card.

But they are now quite happy to use replays to deem if simulation has been committed. Then the player gets a 2 game ban.

About time the FA and FIFA got into the 21st century like all other sports who have been using video evidence in real time. Then no need for expensive panels to sit. I wonder if a panel has adjudicated on any other Premier League game where there might have been simulation or is this the first?

Kim Vivian
144 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:44:52
Yes, I may have misinterpreted the article. I thought the charge had been brought but the panel hadn't sat.

Brian - 143. Twice I believe.

It's fucking annoying but not the end of the world I guess. Oumar seems to respond when he comes back from not playing so depending when the suspension starts (assuming it does), maybe he'll be up for it against the Shite. Best to take the hit and get the two games out of the way in my view. When would they start, the suspensions?

He has, however, set a good example to Sandro how to harry and annoy opposing defenders so perhaps Sandro can step into Oumar's role for a couple of games. Would do him good as well.

Kevin Tully
145 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:48:54
Some of you sound like our persecuted cousins across the park. He went down like he's been shot, after an arm was literally brushed again his chest. He dived.

Two wrongs never make a right, so forget about the other incidents, he got caught and he'll get a two-match ban. Pointing out all the other injustices or incorrect decisions doesn't make Niasse any less guilty.

Slo-mo replay:

James Lauwervine
146 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:50:31
Unfuckingbelieveable! 'Successful deception of a match official'? Sorry but are these people totally deranged? How is a 'successful' deception' worse than an unsuccessful one?

So those who are shit at diving get away with it (sometimes a yellow card but rarely) but if you do it well then, oh dear, you're in big trouble. The intention and level of guilt is exactly the same, you fucking imbeciles!

For comparison, if you stole something from a shop but were stopped before you got out the door, should that elicit a different punishment from if you were spotted on camera later and the police turned up at your door?

Anyway, the defender has admitted contact. Yes, Niasse made a meal of it to try to win a penalty but he was fouled. Every week we hear the phrase 'entitled to go down' about someone doing exactly what Niasse did.

The FA should be totally ashamed of themselves, they are a fucking shambles and a disgrace. I can't help but agree with the idea of Niasse playing the race card. Why not when countless players have got away with diving all season and he gets chosen as the first to be charged? Why play by the rules when those fuckers don't. I can't help but think they've chosen us because as a club we are weak and an easy target.

Eric Paul
147 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:56:02
Scott Dann impeded him by putting his arm and shoulder across him so it was a foul. Yes, he went to ground easily. Are there different levels of foul now???
Colin Davidson
148 Posted 21/11/2017 at 13:57:01
The FA wording is not entirely clear but, as Niasse has until 6pm today to respond to the charge, the Panel have not yet reviewed the incident. Presumably they will decide tomorrow. Hopefully at least one of the three will not uphold the charge.
Rob Halligan
149 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:07:36
Colin, the panel have sat and decided Niasse conned the referee.
Tom Bowers
150 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:08:13
This was one of those subtle fouls that go on in the box all the time and are not spotted by many referees.

In the wet conditions it's easy to go down under pressure as it is harder to stop as most of us who have played the game for many years well know.

Does this mean that, even after the referee has made the call, that all such incidents will be reviewed – even those involving teams in the top six? Sure as hell they won't.

If it wasn't spotted and Niasse got carded for simulation, would they bother to review it and if they adjudge it to be a dive, will they punish the referee? I don't think so.

Phil Walling
151 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:08:27
Idiots on TalkShite suggesting that if Niasse is guilty, the penalty goal should be disregarded and all three points awarded to Palace.

Had we been playing one of the Sacred Six, I've no doubt that could have happened!

Raymond Fox
152 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:08:48
So Oumar is getting charged, bloody typical!

He did go down too easily but the experts(!!) on the box have always argued, if there was contact the player was entitled to go down and claim a penalty – so they have suddenly changed their minds have they?

There's even been cases this season where the player has blatantly gone down when there's been no contact whatsoever. I'm thinking Ali and Sterling for two.

Can the FA not watch those incidents again? Oh, I forgot – they play for the favoured top six teams.

Two wrongs don't make a right but let's have it fair.

Brent Stephens
153 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:09:39
I don't think Niasse made much of it. There was a hefty (though I think legal) shoulder charge on Niasse who was running at speed – it was bound to knock him sideways at least.

3-man panel. Independent judgments. Fingers crossed.

Steve Cotton
154 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:10:47
We should appeal this and threaten the FA with legal action at the highest possible level. He cannot possibly be given more than yellow card because that is the regulation punishment for simulation. They cannot possibly conclude that it was simulation if there was indeed contact, and from all angles it shows there was.

The other downside from this is that EFC wont get another penalty all season, and Niasse will be booked every time he gets fouled for over-egging the foul...

If we take it to a higher authority, it will open the floodgates for similar miscarriages which will leave the FA open to litigation on numerous issue going forward... It is a complete cock-up.

Matt Traynor
155 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:11:46
First time in the Premier League, another "First" for Everton...
Brent Stephens
156 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:14:39
Charlie (#109) – "Scott Dann made no attempt to play the ball".

Charlie, I might not be up-to-date on the laws of the game but if a shoulder charge is still legal, as it used to be (subject to certain conditions), then Dann doesn't have to attempt to play the ball? I might be wrong on the laws of the game so happy to be referred to the relevant law.

Jackie Barry
157 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:20:00
The hypocrisy of the FA exposed once again so it should come as no surprise. If Niasse is successfully charged for this, they are setting a dangerous precedent that is based on how much contact is there being made and when is enough, enough?

Yes it was a soft penalty but there is contact and Dann does not make an attempt to get the ball, he blocks with an arm, which in many cases would be given as a free-kick elsewhere on the pitch.

I see Dann's elbow contacting Niasse in the upper chest area at which point he is running at full speed. Everton should appeal this.

Don Alexander
158 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:24:39
The wording used by the Sweet FA now presumably means every player who makes an appeal for a throw-in or corner will now be subject to retrospective punishment providing three FA selected appointees deem it to have been unfeasible. What a load of bollocks.
Colin Davidson
159 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:26:43
Rob @149 – reading it in The Guardian, the Panel will only review it sometime after 6pm tonight as Niasse has to be given the chance to respond to the charge.

(The wording on the FA website is ambiguous but there is an example re the Carlisle United player who was charged on 19th October and given until 6pm on that date to respond. The Panel then sat on 20th and presumably reviewed the evidence and then banned him for 2 matches.)

Jay Wood
160 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:28:52
Kevin @ 145:

"Some of you sound like our persecuted cousins across the park."

Whilst I agree some posters do like a good conspiracy theory and are too quick to play the 'poor Everton, why is it always us?' card, I think on this one there are reasonable grounds to question why this particular incident merits the first time the FA has triggered this ruling against a Premier League player.

I say that not because it is an Everton player, but because there is sufficient reasonable doubt. Unlike other examples of simulation from this season (which went unpunished) when there was no physical contact whatsover, there clearly was a coming together of Oumar and Dann.

Defenders at this level are very, very cute. If I may say so, Dann 'simulated' a challenge on Oumar. It was designed to impede Niasse from continuing his run with the ball, without the defender getting anywhere near the ball.

I 'get' what you say about 'two wrongs never make a right' by referring to other examples from this season of very, very clear cut simulation.

Unquestionably, there was contact by Dann. Unquestionably, the talking heads in the meedjah have created a furore over this. I continue to think, as stated, it is not unquestionable or incontestable that Oumar did simulate a foul. And that, like many on here, is with the benefit of countless replays from all manner of angles.

The review panel, if the FA intends to be consistent on this issue, is going to be very, very busy if from here on in they review each and every similar challenge as the one between Dann and Niasse.

John Wilson
161 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:29:05
Niasse has to reply by Wednesday 6pm. There seems to be no guide for these apparent rules. In addition, the terms say Misconduct, so 'Misconduct' has to be defined too. If the Misconduct and 'Successful deception' are not defined, FA rules are not clear and could be subject to judicial review. There has to be some guidance for the law normally ie statutory guidance so there should be for FA rules but there doesn't appear to be.

I don't think I would be too impressed by the cognitive prowess of an 'ex-player;' ex-manager (who is an ex-player), and an ex-match official (linesman or ref?). I don't think these idiots would understand the complex rules of 'causation.' The term 'clear' is also used so this would be subject to court rules of statutory interpretation (legal rules). 'Clear' means it is so obvious that a reasonable inference is that X caused Y to happen.

The facts: On the video, It would appear Niasse may not have dived. Niasse appears to get into the defender's area and interacted with at least or more than one defender. There was contact but the question is, does Niasse cause the problem to be the culprit? It could be said that the defender acted as an obstacle which the laws of physics suggests that Niasse natural course is to fall off a defender owing to Niasse forward propelling force and pace... ie, as Niasse says, 'dribbling'. It is reasonable to defend. Is it Misconduct at this stage?

The other variable is that the defender potentially moving or positioning himself in such a way that Niasse fell owing to momentum and the forces of gravity. Would it be Misconduct at this latter stage? If Niasse were the 'diver' type, he likely would have done it several times before.

I just think this is scapegoating and in my view, the video is too subjective to determine whether Niasse knew he was committing misconduct to amount to a 'clear' attempt at 'successfully deceiving a match official'. I do not think this would stand up in any court of law as misconduct. In court, the test is subjective: Niasse view, and objective: someone else judging Niasse.

Rick Pattinson
162 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:29:44
Well done, Oumar... fuck 'em all!
John Wilson
163 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:38:26
Here is FA rules:


Schedule D – Successful Deception of a Match Official Standard Directions for incidents relating to the successful deception of a Match Official. For Players of Clubs of The FA Premier League, EFL, National League and The FA WSL competing in First Team Competitive Matches (FTCM).

(a) General Principles

These Standard Directions will apply where The Association charges a Player with Misconduct under the Rules of The Association for incidents relating to the successful deception of a Match Official by way of a clear act of simulation which leads either to a penalty being awarded or the dismissal of an opposing Player."

Tim Wardrop
164 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:42:50
My personal view is the same as when I first saw it at Selhurst Park on Saturday: it's a dive and he conned the ref. For the good of the game I believe the right thing is to ban these actions retrospectively, so I think justice has been served.

The only mitigation I'd offer is that there's arguably enough doubt that he should have got away with it. But it was a dive and he's getting the punishment he deserves.

Am I glad he did it? In the short-term: yes, because he helped Everton get a point. But in the long-term: no, because it's bad for the game, his reputation as a player and our reputation as a club.

Paul Kossoff
165 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:44:09
Well he's been charged by the FA and he's got until 6 pm to appeal against it.

Seems this new rule will only apply to anyone outside of the Sky top six, in other words, if you play for the RedShite, you won't get bothered. If you play for West Ham, you can go round elbowing people in the face. If you're Dele Alli, you're okay to dive.

An Everton player first to be charged with cheating with this new rule, surely not! You couldn't write the script!

Paul Kossoff
166 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:46:41
Tim (#164), bloody good job you don't support the dark side. If you did, you would be beside yourself with shame the cheating that lot do!
Alex Short
167 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:48:09
That was never a dive!!!

He was knocked out of his stride by a deliberate act by a Palace defender, therefore it's a free kick, whether it was a penalty or a free kick for obstruction is entirely up to the referee.

Now is the time for Everton's Legal team to show it's teeth.

We can always dream!!!

Hywel Owen
168 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:49:33
I am getting long in the tooth maybe I am increasingly disillusioned by everyone trusted to be in charge of anything from Brexit down. The FA are at the top of my list of organisations run by idiots and their continued refusal to move with the times beggars belief.

Technically, if Niasse dived ("there was contact but he dived" – the gospel according to the cretins on MotD) then the penalty should disallowed and the match result amended.

Niasse does not have much finesse in that his game is to hustle and bustle in the box. He will fall at the slightest contact, as do a host of other players. We all know who they are but they play for certain teams so they are immune.

The FA really need to look again at the "obstruction" rules (sorry shielding) where defenders put themselves between the forward and the ball, make no attempt to play, and fall over at the first sign of halitosis (bad breath, Man Utd and Reds fans). These are as guilty of diving as anyone else.

Football is really dying the death... I despair!

Kevin Tully
169 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:53:52
John W - That's an important paragraph which people need to understand:

"Deception of a Match Official by way of a clear act of simulation which leads either to a penalty being awarded or the dismissal of an opposing Player."

So, if you take tumble and go over easily, in the centre circle for instance, the ref will wave play on, or give a free-kick, and that decision will not be revisited. If this new rule only applies to penalties and dismissals, then there will be very few of these retrospective actions taken over the course of a season.

John Wilson
170 Posted 21/11/2017 at 14:54:43
Rules and Regulations of The Association Season 2016-2017, ( at page 112)


1 The Association may act against a Participant in respect of any “Misconduct”, which is defined as being a breach of the following:
(a) the Laws of the Game;
(b) the Rules and regulations of The Association and in particular Rules E3 to E28 below;
(c) the statutes and regulations of UEFA;
(d) the statutes and regulations of FIFA;
(e) the rules or regulations of an Affiliated Association or Competition; and (f) an order, requirement, direction or instruction of The Association;
2 The same facts or matters may constitute a breach of more than one rule, regulation, statute or law referred to above, The Association may bring a charge or such charges as it sees fit (ie, subjective discretion (J.W. (TW-er) words)).

3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour;

(2) A breach of Rule E3(1) is an “Aggravated Breach” where it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following:- ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual
orientation or disability;

(3) Subject to sub-paragraphs E3(4) -E3(6) below –
(i) Where a Participant commits an Aggravated Breach of Rule E3(1) for the first time, a Regulatory Commission shall impose an immediate suspension of at least five matches on that Participant. The Regulatory Commission may increase this suspension depending on any additional aggravating factors present;

(ii) Where a Participant commits a second or further Aggravated Breach of Rule E3(1), a Regulatory Commission shall impose an immediate suspension of more than five matches, taking into consideration an entry point of an immediate suspension of ten matches, and any aggravating or mitigating factors present."

Rob Halligan
171 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:00:08
I have sent an email to Martin Glenn, voicing my outrage at this decision. Others should also consider sending an email to him. Let the FA know what us fans really think of this.
Eddie Dunn
172 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:01:16
For me, the annoying aspect of this whole issue is the role of the media. MotD set their two pundits up as judge and jury, with the over-serious Shearer and hypocrite Neville all too willing to decide it is a dive, whilst acknowledging reluctantly that there was contact.

This morning, I listened to our old friend Jim White on TalkShite, talking as if Oumar had already been tired and sentenced – no "innocent until proven guilty" at all. So the FA only decide to charge a player if MotD pundits heap enough pressure on them to do it.

The very annoying detail is that this incident is far from the most obvious one of it's kind during the season so far. I can remember Fabregas diving against us with no contact at all – it wasn't in the box and the ref waved it away, so there would have been grounds for a panel to look at it, as the ref had either missed it or bottled out of giving him a yellow card. The incident was not shown on the highlights on MotD and thus no comments were made by pundits.

I am sure there have been many a leg dangled invitingly this season and if this does help to eradicate the problem, then good, but why not be strict about it from week one, and why pick on Niasse, where real contact has been made in an effort to knock him out of his stride to prevent him getting his shot off?

Niasse's mistake is to admit that he went down easily to make sure he got the foul. If he was smart, he would have just said he was bumped and he lost his balance.

John Keating
173 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:04:31
If we were well up the league and cruising then it was a dive and he should be shot at dawn.

Unfortunately we are in deep shit and desperate for every point so Scott Dann is a dirty bastard and should have been sent off for hacking down our boy.

John Wilson
174 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:05:20

“Match Officials” means referees and assistant referees and includes reserve officials and fourth officials (p.96)

Rob Halligan
175 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:05:29
Colin (#159). I don't know who or what to believe anymore. This is an extract taken from the BBC football website, which says to me the decision has already been made by the panel.

An FA statement read: "Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player.

"Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'Successful Deception of a Match Official'.

"Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge."

Jay Harris
176 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:06:46
I was told that Danny Murphy was the ex-player on the panel. No surprises there then.
John Pierce
177 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:08:10
Those saying it was ‘deffo a pen lad', or ‘what does it matter, Stonewall that' forgot to close the stable door.

I referenced diving as being as professional as pulling someone down clean through. Its part of football and comes with a ban if penalised.

You'd all be praising Kenny if we were one-nil up with seconds left and he hauled down a player clean through.

It would be a price worth paying to preserve the scoreline. Diving is no different.

Someone posted at least Niasse was giving 100% for his team and he was. An example many others might do well to follow.

The ban's appropriate. Time to take the blue specs off for a second or two.

Brian Harrison
178 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:12:20
I know it was a long time ago but when I played the one fact everybody understood was the referees decision was final, but now it isn't. And for me unless the FA introduce a video ref at every game then that should always be the case. There is no retrospective decision when a goal has been scored from an offside position which happens weekly, but a video ref would disallow it.

Also when was the rule changed from the whole of the ball being inside the quadrant changed to as long as some part is touching the outside of the quadrant. And if someone knows when it was changed then why was it changed. Also seems if a ball is looking like it might roll out of play, when was the law changed to allow a defender to be 4 to 5 yards away from the ball yet obstruct the opposing player from trying to get to the ball. Again when and why was it changed. I would be interested to hear if any refs could enlighten me.

Dennis Stevens
179 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:12:25
Has the match official stated that, in retrospect, he believes he was deceived & would not have awarded the penalty? If the referee still stands by his decision, then we have a process that is undermining the authority of the referee.

Surely the starting point for such a process should be for the match official concerned to review the evidence & refer it to the panel if he is not happy about the way the incident unfolded on the day.

John Wilson
180 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:13:08
Those Everton supporters who say Niasse should be banned. Do you have any qualifications above GCSE or at GCSE standard? Do you know how to reason; do you know how to analyse evidence? If none of the above applies, are you really qualified to comment?
Sean Patton
181 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:13:52
Absolutely outrageous – it is trial by media plain and simple. There was contact, it does not how minimal it was. Dann put his arm across and Oumar goes down so it's a penalty – a soft one but still a penalty.
Mike Allen
182 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:17:58
Say it again, do they think he was the only player diving on the weekend? No matter who it is, this not right. Fucking time-fillers on Sky showing the incident god knows how many times and the expert says from the refs angle it looks like a penalty, so he has seen enough contact but then says from the other angles he wouldn't give a penalty.

If he thinks there was contact, you can't say he dived. How can he get a fair hearing, or anyone else for that matter, when TV have debated the incident and given their interpretation on it before the hearing takes place? It can not be a fair hearing.

John Wilson
183 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:18:47
Putting players on a panel is like putting children on a panel for complaints against teachers. I would be surprised if an average footballer has an IQ beyond 120. 100 IQ is middle average IQ. I can see this going to an arbitration, tribunal and then the courts.
Jackie Barry
184 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:20:31
In the end, who even cares? With Niasse, we were seriously lucky to get a point, we were beyond crap and have to be the worst team in the Premier League right now. We have to get a manager in now, I see no points in the next two Premier League games.
Steve Cotton
185 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:22:00
I have been told that the FA have agreed to have it reviewed by another 3 panelists, so far they have agreed on John Aldridge, Phil Thompson and Alan Hansen. (Please free to substitute any name with an alternative one.)
Paul Kelly
186 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:25:45
Absolute joke of a decision! I thought it was a wind-up when I first read about it!

Fucking corrupt media-driven FA bullshit. Surely the club should use its yellow tie-wearing Sky mouthpiece to counteract such claims by putting together a ‘tape' of other such incidents that have gone unpunished, send it to all in Sundry in the media...

Fuck me, they definitely have the resources and it wouldn't take long, now would it!

Hugh Jenkins
187 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:26:37
I trust that never again will I hear Shearer, or any of the other, so called "pundits" on MotD, give voice to the oxymoron " there was contact, so he was entitled to go down".

Surely, no one is denying that there was contact between Dann and Oumar – so now the critical point of judgement must become, " there was contact, but was it hard enough / serious enough / fast enough / robust enough / slow enough, for him to go down".

The referee is now being asked to interpret the laws of physics at the same time as the laws of association football.

This retrospective simulation judgment is abject nonsense.

If a player commits a serious foul, the ref sees it and awards a yellow card, not a red, the FA are unable to award a retrospective red and ban, because the official saw the incident and acted on it at the time.

Surely the award of a penalty is exactly the same criteria?

If the FA are going to reserve the right to make retrospective judgements on these things from video evidence, why not go the whole hog and allow instant video replays for the referee to assist him in his judgement – because all they are doing now, is undermining the ref's on field authority.

Paul Kossoff
188 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:30:19
Steve (#185), Rather, Shitler, Noballs and Atilla the Hun than those three! 😁
Tim Wardrop
189 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:31:03
John Wilson. You say:

"Those Everton supporters who say Niasse should be banned. Do you have any qualifications above GCSE or at GCSE standard? Do you know how to reason; do you know how to analyse evidence? If none of the above applies, are you really qualified to comment?"

This is a laughable statement. This isn't a court of law where you need an intrinsic knowledge of criminal law. All you need to do is judge whether you think he cheated or not.

Your comments about footballers' IQs are almost as ridiculous.

Brian Harrison
190 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:34:49
Jackie Berry,

We are factually not the worst team in the league there are currently 4 worse teams. We have scored 5 league goals in our last 2 games, which suggests that Unsworth has at least got us going forward unlike his predecessor who if the opposition scored it was game over.

John Wilson
191 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:35:40
Tim Wardrop, how is a person qualified to judge (make a rational decision based on sounding reasoning, ie, deductive reasoning), if this person may not have thinking skills through not having attained at secondary school level? I think it is a fair point.

John Wilson
192 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:40:00
The fact is, Niasse appears to be on course to score, the first Crystal Palace defender put his arm out and the second one appears to have made contact too. This is two players, not one, who have made contact. Yet, Niasse is charged.

This is outrageous. The ref is more than qualified to make a decision. In his reasonable belief, the contact made suggested that Niasse was not only impeded from scoring, but the dual contact by two players led to Niasse falling.

Stan Schofield
193 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:41:25
Even assuming it was deception and should not have been a penalty, the media treatment seems to have become political. Everton is an easy target, and it's frustrating that this is the case given repeated flouting of the laws of the game, especially diving, by other sides who seem more favoured by the broadcast media.

Let's face it, the media depends on easy targets for its lurid stories and gossip. This is why the reporting on Hillsborough happened, and why phones were tapped. It's also why various riff-raff elements in the media have jobs there and do what they do, whether it's comments relating to a player's lineage, or personal comments about a caretaker manager.

Diving is not acceptable, but dealing with it should be a case of treating root causes, not of focusing on an individual case when the problem is rife in the game.

Franny Porter
194 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:45:15
What really annoys me about this, is the fact that it just had to happen to us.

I think there is no denying he dived, but I have seen much much worse go unpunished before.

It seems we are being punished unfairly when you compare it for example to the antics of Ashley Young, Luis Suarez etc. Some of the worst most blatant cheats to grace the Premier League.

I mean FFS, it wasn't even that bad a dive, there was contact so how they can decide this is stonewall and ban him seems deeply unjust to me.

PS: I also heard it was Danny Murphy on the panel, he is an absolutely obnoxious prick, listen to him on the radio with his bad false laugh and his constant disagreeing with every caller.

Paul Kelly
195 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:49:18
Hugh “If a player commits a serious foul, the ref sees it and awards a yellow card, not a red, the FA are unable to award a retrospective red and ban, because the official saw the incident and acted on it at the time.

Surely the award of a penalty is exactly the same criteria?”

I'd go one step further and add he doesn't have to give a card, just acknowledge the incident? Obviously we're wrong or we wouldn't be in this situation. But it's a farce no matter what the rules say, one for us and one for the rest.

Anyone know of any other incidents this weekend which contradicts the FA/media driven witch hunt against Niasse? The worst thing is, THERE IS CONTACT!

John Wilson
196 Posted 21/11/2017 at 15:51:01
Stan, I also have a problem with the term 'deception' – "the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false." dictionary definition.

How can you 'cause' a ref to believe there was Misconduct to result in 'successfully deceiving said ref... when the Ref was present?

The ref was right behind Niasse so the ref could be said to have expected a penalty was foreseeable. Niasse never petitioned for a penalty. The ref automatically pointed to the spot. That cannot be successfully deceiving the match official (ref).

The ref decided it was a penalty and he was so close in proximity, ie, right behind.

Paul Kelly
197 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:00:56
What becomes of the ref who was only a few yards from the decision? Is he banned? Sacked for being a numpty? Relegated to the Zingari league? Does he get an input into the hearing? Doubt he’s going to say he got it wrong and undermine himself!
Danny Broderick
198 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:01:28
For me, Niasse didn't dive. There was contact – Dann's shoulder appeared to come into contact with Niasse's shoulder. Could he have stayed on his feet? Probably. But then again, where does it say that a player has to stay on his feet?

For me, cheating is when there is clearly no contact. Going down easily when there is contact – that is being streetwise, and giving the referee a decision to make. Referees often wouldn't give a foul if the striker doesn't go down, so you can't have it both ways.

Massive can of worms this...

Alan J Thompson
199 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:02:03
I've only seen the incident once but did Niasse actually appeal for a penalty?

There was contact, he did fall... but if he didn't appeal, can he be accused/convicted of deliberate deception?

And if the ball was not within playing distance, is that not obstruction anyway? I suppose the referee will now be dropped a grade for being in the wrong position.

Niasse has never struck me as being that good an actor. I now wonder if Jagielka sticking a leg out backwards last season or Lucas Neil against Italy in the World Cup quarter final weren't deliberate attempts to deceive a referee.

A stupid decision to take further action on this when there have been so many other examples. Justice being seen to be done?

Rob Halligan
200 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:07:40
Anyone remember the Robbie Fowler dive at Arsenal when he got up and waved to the referee saying it wasn't a penalty. The ref still gave it and the RS still scored the penalty. Might have been Fowler himself who scored but can't remember.

Anyway my point being if a penalty has been awarded, and a player thinks he might get a retrospective ban for diving then get up and say to the ref it wasn't a penalty. Ref won't change his mind about the penalty and the diver gets off Scott free!!

Would have to be PDQ to think about this however.

Kevin Tully
201 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:09:27
John Wilson, calling people out as "not having attained at secondary school level" because they do not agree with you is very poor indeed. And it also makes you look to be a bit of a cock. This a football forum, not a debating society.

(Apologies for starting a sentence with 'And'...)

Colin Glassar
202 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:10:42
Liam (#114), he should've been banned for life.
Tony J Williams
204 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:33:16
He was body/shoulder checked and then dived to make it more obvious that he had been fouled.

Once the foul occurred, what happened after with the dramatic dive is irrelevant.

Colin Glassar
205 Posted 21/11/2017 at 16:35:56
Exactly Tony. Contact was made. A dive, imo, is when no contact is made and the player goes down.
Terry Underwood
207 Posted 21/11/2017 at 18:03:27
Amongst other things, I use to play basketball, as with any other game, if you are running at speed, trying to dribble and body swerve you are always on the edge as far as balance goes, even a slight contact can knock you over.

Yes, it did look a softish penalty but you can see similar every week. Mancs, Chelsea or RS, nothing gets said. How many times have the so-called "expert" pundits said, "He felt a slight contact and was entitled to go down"? Twats.

John Wilson
208 Posted 21/11/2017 at 22:24:01
Tully, K, at above, I just wanted to see if there was a link between a person's education or therein lack of and their ability to reason effectively. I never said I agree with that as a premise, but merely to see if evidence supports a hypothesis for it.
John Keating
209 Posted 26/11/2017 at 17:18:39
That little shit Sterling went over with less contact than Niasse and did a better dive. What say these bastards about that?

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

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.

About these ads