Niasse rejects accusations of 'diving'

And I love you for it. 😂

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

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?

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.

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".

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

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!

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!

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.

Glad it was given though...

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!

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?!

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.

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.

But as a Blue, hallelujah!

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

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.

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!)

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Link

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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

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

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!

Get paid. On both points.

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.

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.

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

Aye to that, Hugh and Kim!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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...

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

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.

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.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/rules-of-the-association

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.

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.

Surely just a yellow card offence?

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.

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?

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.

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rq5pIsWqXA

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.

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.

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

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.

3-man panel. Independent judgments. Fingers crossed.

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.

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.

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.

(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.)

"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.

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.

"DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS - SCHEDULE A TO D 2017-2018 349

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."

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.

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!

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!!!

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!

"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.

E. CONDUCT

MISCONDUCT:
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)).

GENERAL BEHAVIOUR:
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."

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

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

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.