Niasse ban for simulation upheld

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.

The reason I ask is, if there is no time limit (let us suppose that, in any event it can only apply to the current season), can Oumar (or his "legal representative(s)"), present the FA with some footage of glaringly obvious cases of simulation in the Premier League, this season that they have failed to act on, particularly seeing as there was clear contact in Oumar's case?

I wonder what the outcome of that would be?

That being said, the fact that there is minimal contact makes this a dangerous precedent for the FA.

I don't feel it is the most clear cut example I have ever seen on diving, but if I was looking at it impartially I would probably call it a dive. It is a ballsy decision for the FA to charge though. IF they are consistent with it, and it is a very big if, fair play. I somehow doubt they can be though.

We can certainly ask questions about FA consistency and how the charge system works, but that was a dive any day of the week and we'd have been screaming if a penalty had been awarded against us.

They say that slight contact when running at speed can throw a player off balance, although I suppose any rugby player would have a good laugh at the video.

"Incidents only resulting in a penalty being awarded or an opponent being sent off – whether that's through two yellow cards or one red – will be punished."

He went down to win a penalty. It should not have been a penalty as it should not have been a foul. This is designed to start to eliminate this from the game.

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 ot 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.

Firstly, why now? Everyone knows that their have been clear examples of simulation previously this season that have not been acted upon. What is so special about Oumar?

Secondly, as I would have accused players of diving if that had been given against us, I have no problem with them going after divers but what will happen the next time Rashford or Aguero wins a penalty by deceiving the referee through simulation? The first time a Sky darling gets away with it should be very interesting.

If this had been Gerrard running thru and brought down, the only retrospective action the FA would have taken would be to red card Dann...

The case is that Niasse – by Misconduct – 'successfully deceived' a match official (ref). So, the FA have to prove this to bring a charge against Niasse.

Niasse has to disprove the FA's case against him within 14 days. Niasse could take this to an FA tribunal arbitrator.

What about Calvert-Lewin getting pulled back when clear through? Is he getting an award for not going down when the Palace player was 5 yards behind him and still had hold of his shirt??

Constantly blowing the whistle for Palace players falling over!!!

There was clear contact with Niasse – okay he went down easy but the terms 'dive' and 'simulation' should be used when there is no contact.

Interesting, so that means you can dive just outside the area, not get a player booked and then the resulting team can score from the free kick and it goes unpunished, but if the ‘defender' gets sent off, the player can get banned after the game whether the team scores or not!

Think I'm right; quality ruling by our governing body – gobshites!

Someones cursed this fucking club... I blame Rooney... or Klaassen.

There should be habitual divers who will either stop diving or be found repeatedly guilty of deception, players who fall to the ground clutching their face and looking for a foul, players claiming the ball went out of play off an opposition player, etc.

If there aren't a lot of such cases, it will indicate that this particular case by the FA is a purely political act aimed at looking as if they are determined to crack down on cheating without actually cracking down on cheating, whilst choosing an easy target to do so.

I'll bet he gets done for 2 games to show they mean business but the next time Alli or Kane or Zlatan goes down like they've been shot; will they be done?

Doubt it.

It actually includes a free kick which leads to a goal as well mate.

Has this law been in place since the beginning of the season? If so, is this really the first time in all the games played that this has happened?

This smacks of the powers that be wanting to implement change but not wanting to upset a Sky favourite, big club or whatever.

Pick on a less favourable club, less noise but still get the message out. Interesting times ahead if this sticks, I will be amazed if there is consistency.

But this bollocks about it resulting in a pen or a sending off, words fail me. If the gobshites currently ruling (and ruining) our game are serious, then they'll use the same rule wherever a dive takes place.

As Paul Kelly says so accurately above, if a player dives and the team score from the free kick, why does that differ from a penalty? The answer is it doesn't... so make the rule count for the entire pitch, not just the penalty area.

I'd like them to take a really good luck at the feigning of injury too. All the screaming and banging the bloody pitch when you're clearly not hurt... FFS, grasp the nettle, FA, UEFA, FIFA and do something sensible (and not corrupt) for once.

I also think that in this case Niasse has been tried by dickhead pundits.

The Sky/FA mandarins have been inundated for years to clamp down on this, so what do they do? Wait until it isn't one of the powerful top 6 clubs, or an English player, then 'make an example' of a foreign player with hardly any experience in the Premier League.

Just a pity they failed to notice a guy called Suarez from across the park, who made it an art-form.

It's also ridiculous that this only applies to penalties and red cards. It's like saying you can go out with a gun and shoot it randomly no problem. However, if you happen to hit someone...

What a load of shite.

Another thing: Roy Hodgson, ex FA England manager, London-based club.

If we were playing against Burnley, there would be no review.

Yes, I was there, too, and although there was minimal contact, for the penalty, there was contact. At least in this respect the referee was consistent because he spent the rest of the match blowing up for the slightest physical contact.

This opens up Pandora's box for the FA not least in that if the referee had thought it was simulation Niasse would have received, at worst, a yellow card. If he's found guilty by this panel then he faces a ban.

I'm against diving and cheating but any action should be fair and consistent and this, patently, is neither.

I would hope Everton contest this charge all the way.

The fact that there was contact on Oumar opens up all sorts of problems for the FA.

Measuring the degree of contact and it's effects is going to be pretty damned controversial.

If there was no contact at all, it wouldn't be up for debate.

A penalty is a foul in the 18-yard box. Did I miss a rule change that said soft fouls aren't to be counted when giving penalties?

I can't stand this nonsense spouted by ex-players in their pundit roles, most of them defenders I might add, that has the world believing that it should only be a penalty if you get chopped down.

Anywhere else on the pitch that block would have resulted in a foul. The FA could get caught out here, especially with the amount of jostling and shirt-pulling at corners.

Sick of us being nice Everton, don't rock the boat just accept the hand we are dealt.

Make a case of it, show videos of top six players diving and ask why they are not charged?

I cannot see how the FA can accuse Oumar of simulation after the incident has taken place. It's retrospective.

Does this mean that the FA are doing to go through the archives and charge players, ie, Suarez for one, for play acting after the fact.

FA are yet again a laughing stock.

Luis Suarez won the RS ten points that one season they finished 2nd, throwing himself around like he had nine lives and spent eight of them getting stabbed to death on the pitch.

And Vardy was even worse for Lester's championship, in fact they only won the goddamn thing because he cheated, nay deceived, them in to so many penalties.

But no, let's clean things up now, starting with poor effing Oumar Niasse for a play in which he was actually run into by a defender. One player moving in one direction runs into another player running in another direction with clear, irrefutable proof of contact.

This decision essentially says that he is unfit to be a top tier referee as he either: A) so easily deceived as to be a liability, or B) really bad at his job.

Or how about – just to get crazy here – C) he made a judgement call in his best discretion (from only a few feet away of the incident) as a fallible human being that is, at the worst, debatable.

He wasn't sent a dubious email from Nigeria with a link to steal his identity here, I mean – deception!?!? Give me a fucking break.

The false outrage and feigned disgust would simply pail away if a ban had come on the back of the winning goal at Mordor or an FA Cup Final. You would be lauding Niasse to the sky if that was the case, and at the same time whilst basking in the delight of it all patting him on the back for taking one for the team and serving his ban. Not frothing at the mouth at the inequity and injustice of it all.

He was been professional and managed to convince the referee. He got caught and fair dos, the ban is no more or less than other examples this season.

I just wish more of our players put this amount of effort into winning a game for Everton.

He was impeded by a defender who made no attempt to get to the ball. Small contact but it was a block and as a qualified ref I'd have given it any day. If that had happened at our end I'd have expected the worst.

So I disagree with your opinion.

Steve @ 6

Well made point regarding the dive by Zaha at the end which warranted no further action.

The panel who sat on this should be ashamed of themselves. This sets a high precedence I expect about a dozen players every week before this lot because Niasse was blocked, even if he was a bit theoretical in his action.

That's what they were saying on TalkSport, mate. They definitely said that it included a free kick which led directly to a goal. I'll see if I can check online anywhere though as TalkSport has been known to TalkShite!

Update: TalkSport were talking shite. It doesn't include free kicks which lead to goals. Penalties or sendings off only.

I was wrong. Apologies for the error lads.

The FA have opened a can of worms.

I don't normally do what if's!

Would Roy have complained if Baines had missed the penalty, I don't think so.

How many dives occur during a game? Who is going to police it?

A dive is a dive, wherever it is on the pitch.

10 PL fixtures a week x 90 minutes, who is going to review that amount of footage?

When one of the current elite get away with it, will Everton have grounds to appeal.

This is the start of a slippery slope.

With the money footballers earn, they can afford to employ lawyers to represent them against a charge of cheating, which labels them as a cheat. Slander and libels suits will follow.

Absolutely ridiculous situation they have put themselves in.

How would you feel if you were labelled a cheat, when your not. Defamation of character, and I can see the lawyers already lining up to represent mega rich footballers.

Check out the three penalty decisions in that video that went unpunished-joke this is.

Our very own Lennon in the very same match got back to Zaha and as soon as Aaron got his body between Zaha and the ball, he conveniently collapsed at a brush of Zaha's torso. Are not all of these instances attempts to deceive the ref?

Call it gamesmanship if you like – it happens in every sport. You play to the edge of the rules to gain any advantage.

I hate diving, but in this case, in my opinion, it was a foul, in the box... therefore it should be either a penalty or obstruction and an indirect free kick.

By all means cut out proper cheating, ie diving with no contact (Dele Alli ,Sanchez) or leg dangling, fishing for contact (Vardy, Aguero, Sanchez, etc).

This is simply not a clear enough example to pick to make some kind of mid-season statement. And, like someone else on the other Niasse thread, I wonder if Woy's old chums in the FA are taking his side here.

Or with your good self...?

If this was the first game of the season, I could (almost) understand the furore, but as we're almost a third of the way through it appears odd that they choose this incident to start off their Anti-Everton, sorry I meant to say anti-diving campaign.

If Palace had held on after going back in front, this would not have happened.

In any event, it's a yellow card for simulation so where does the two-game ban come from? This sucks of typical FA cock-ups and if it is to be the acid test, then the same criteria should be applied to video evidence of grabbing and shirt-pulling in the box for corner kicks when these referees miss them. Wouldn't that stop that kind of foul play as well?

There is so much of that nonsense going on the FA would be meeting all day every day to review it all. Come on, guys, get real!

Next time you walk down a busy street and someone ‘creates minimal contact' with you I'm sure you'll fall over dramatically and believe they did it deliberately to stop you getting to your destination. 😝

It continues without anything done. Where are the FA panel on these reviews when it has been proved that a player has been taken out inside the penalty box?

If this is the case and I cannot believe in November, this was the only time a player went down inside the box unchallenged and won a penalty. In this case, contact was made, very minimal, but contact all the same, but if this applies from the start of this season, then Vardy is a dead man walking for some of the penalties he's been awarded this season.

On a final note, let's hope this applies across the board for every player in the Premier League for the rest of the season.

In my opinion, that was a penalty. The defender appeared to play the man. Minimal or not, contact was made.

Given the headlines, I was expecting something really blatant (reminiscent of Suarez) but, while it may be slightly soft, I've seen far worse refereeing decisions than to blow up in this case.

Typically, we are on the receiving end again.

Secondly, you cannot have is both ways – if the FA have to retrospectively ban a player for conning an official, then what about the blatant foul play by every defender at corners?

Niasse is guilty of doing what every other forward in the Premier League does every game. He exaggerates a fall; how many times for Christ's sake do you see a defender shielding a ball out collapse when a hand touches his back... and a foul is given. That's simulation too...

Can of worms? Absolutely! Niasse and Everton are being made scapegoats for a corrupt and incompetent FA.

As I said, who makes a complaint who verifies a case to answer? Start with the top six first... no balls.

Somebody has decided that they need to protect the interests of "the game" by picking on a man who has bounced back from poor treatment from Koeman to become a bit of a cult hero for us.

Isn't it a shame that the focus couldn't have been put on the likes of Sanchez (a supremely gifted player, playing in a huge London stadium, for a top 6 team). Or Aguero (a supremely gifted international player, playing for the Champions elect).

Perhaps Dele Alli (another fancy player playing for a London team, gracing Wembley every fortnight, and a key component of the England team).

No, the FA take it out on Oumar, a lad trying to carve out a career for a team up North, a team in a bit of trouble to boot.

Now it is time for David Unsworth to speak up for his player and the club to back him to the hilt. Come on Everton let's create a siege mentality... no one likes us – we don't care!

Niasse was impeded, not once but twice, no doubt about that. However, had Niasse just stopped, stayed on his feet and flung his arms in the air complaining he had been fouled, would the referee have given the penalty, or would that be considered as obstruction?

In my opinion, it was a definite penalty, just that the way Niasse down was a bit soft.

Goodison Park looks after its own. Niasse is no cheat.

Note to any opposing club visiting Goodison: You're going to get nothing,

Note to any referee visiting Goodison, you'd better think before you do or don't blow that whistle because the FA has just made your job 39,989 times harder.

If this had been Aguero, there's no fuss but to be honest if we see penalties given like that every week, it would be awful.

Niasse is one strong character though. One of the unluckiest men I have known at Everton and still smiles like a kid at Christmas.

As I type this, I just thought shouldn't the ref be charged too? His view was perfect and Niasse didn't have a whistle.

Hence my frustrated posts... but hey ho.

2 game ban and lose his locker again.

Oumar, by fate rather than design is slowly etching himself into Everton folklore.

I therefore don't believe he necessarily fell deliberately. He may not have been "centred" in terms of his balance through no fault of his own, unfortunately for Dann.

I expect the FA will seek to punish him though, on the lesser civil-law "reasonable probability" threshold of proof, on the say-so of the "completely independent" panel they appoint and pay, rather than the higher criminal-law threshold of "beyond all reasonable doubt".

If so, then they must review all matches from the time this rule was started because John Daly, the Olympic diver, may get a decent pairs partner from one of the matches as there seems to be plenty of players that could qualify.

For the record, I think that under current views (TV pundits opinions which have somehow become refereeing interpretations) this was a penalty and the king of pundits, Alan Shearer ("There was contact, he was entitled to go down, it was a penalty") should be called as a defence witness!

From what we've witnessed so far, it will make him bloody well more determined to stuff it up them.

Although it looks to be two defenders so maybe it's a penalty?

However, the referees are not consistent and cheating goes unpunished in too many games. I admire Niasse, his effort, his dignity and his attitude. His dive was laughable, though.

Niasse is an easy target, as is Unsworth. No way would this have happened to Kane (or Beckham in his day), for example.

If it was a case of him moaning on the ground, holding his face, feigning injury, I'd be all for it because I hate that. In this case, however, there was clear contact.

Niasse himself comes across as a genuinely good lad, honest as the day is long, very untypical of him to 'dive'.

In any case, there is almost an unwritten rule in football that if you are impeded in any way, you as good as have licence to go down.

Watching again (and again, and again) – I think Oumar's reaction to the arm across him is reminiscent of like anticipating a hit to the throat. I honestly think he might have been expecting that and reacted accordingly.

I dare say many strikers (no names mentioned) would make a right song and dance, writhing around to get the double whammy of a pen and a sending off for Dann but Oumar's honesty had him back up on his feet, no harm done.

One man in charge of the game and his decision was a penalty, correct.

The so-called Sky expert said he thought it was a trip from the referee's angle but from the front angle it was evident it wasn't a trip. The referee got it wrong the trial by TV.

The referee got it wrong, the player got it right by saying he was not tripped but hindered by the defender's arm, evidence shows upper body contact was made by two defenders.

Andy @ 86 – I'd be interested to read your description of exactly what you saw from both parties in the incident.

And Niasse gets done.

Sorry, am I disturbing you during the Sevilla game?

One of the reasons both Niasse and Lennon have given their all for us is because we have let them know we are behind them.

If the club or Niasse do appeal it, he should get our total support.

Oumar is being used as a scapegoat. Have a look at James Vardy's technique, and the penalties he's earned.

This lot today would end up in a psychiatric ward if they had to face men like those fellas.

Careful, Mick – political correctness alert. We're all the same now, haven't you heard?

Niasse was obstructed so we should have had a indirect free kick, so the ref's interpretation was incorrect, it was the referee's mistake.

Dann deliberately stopped Niasse from getting the ball, a clear foul for all to see, and Niasse didn't ask for a penalty, unlike the divers I've previously mentioned.

Anyone watching Sevilla? Madhouse atmosphere. Great from the crowd.

Clattenberg should have kept the fuck out of it, too!

UEFA should pass on their reports to our FA for them to take retrospective action against them for simulation.

Also, what really irritates me is that smug bastard Shearer on MotD. He really believes he is the mouth-piece for the Premier League, and what he says is doctrine. He rubbishes any fellow guests who disagree with his 'philosophy'. I'm just waiting for the time when he gets really shafted on that program.

So has Linda Lovelace.

Shawcross then live on air at the end admitted that he did make contact and smiled about it. He should definitely get done for deceiving the ref.

I hope that if Niasse gets found guilty, someone at the club makes another video of all of the simulations against us. This could be a disaster for the FA. As others have stated in the thread, there have been some shocking dives or feigning of injuries this season. What about simulation of cramp or injuries to run down the clock?

Also, I find it funny that this complaint, amongst many, is fast-tracked after an ex-England manager complains. This isn't me looking through blue-tinted glasses either.

Will the ref in the Leicester - Man City match be retrospectively punished? Will Ashley Young ask 500 previous dives be taken into consideration?

Depending upon the psychological make-up of any given player, he may want to take some form of movement away from the oncoming lunge of the defender to protect himself from injury. Especially if there is contact from the lunge.

As there was contact, Oumar has no case to answer and the ruling should be overturned.

None of this is premeditated, it is blink-of-the-eye stuff.

I'm just saying that the panel have been very harsh on what is clearly not a black-and-white situation.

To be fair, this new law is a good idea – Niasse has just been unlucky in being first up to bat. There will be others to follow, you can count on it.

Had it happened at the other end, we'd all be furious about the penalty, and delighted the player was being pulled up for it retrospectively. We're just pissed-off because it's our player.

He dived, the new rules state he can be banned for 2 games for it, the panel of 3 people will decide and we'll all move on. Next.

Say for example a team thinks a player had dived no matter what the situation, then the team captain can ask the ref to look at it straight away and the punishment can be instant.

In this case, there would be no penalty, Niasse gets sent off for diving, and we probably lose the game. All fair in my book.

Then watch all managers tell their players to stop diving, faking injury and we can rid the game of this blatant cheating which is called 'part of the game' now...

I fucking despair, I really do with comments like this! Obviously never seen the incident have you? Surely? Please explain to me how Dann hitting Niasse's body (as clear as bottled water) is not a foul? Have you watched it? Did you not see the contact? Jumping on the bandwagon of our club's poor showing lately (guess).

If he didn't see it, then why did he give it? Oh not the old one, he was unsighted?

So is the ref saying he didn't see Dan's arm across Niasse's chest? Or is he saying he simply went on how Niasse was falling?

How can anyone other than Niasse say how rigid Dann's arm was across his chest, making him fall?

If this is allowed, he will be a marked man with all refs.

On the weekend, I thought it was a penalty. But, after taking off my blue-tinted glasses and watching the replay again, it was a dive. He felt contact and threw himself down, like we've seen before from others, but still – I think it deserved a yellow and I don't think it was a penalty. If, say, Aguero did it to us, we'd be raging at the ref.

But where the rule breaks down is now we'll have a player serving a two-game ban for a yellow card offence. A player caught diving during a game gets a yellow... caught after gets two games. Same offence, different penalty.

However, thinking optimistically, could this be to our advantage? Yes, Oumar might find it hard eliciting a penalty shout from a ref. But by the same token, any player going down theatrically against us this season will be met by the howls of over 39,000 rabid Evertonians baying for justice.

Will a ref err on the side of caution when Sanchez or Alli somersaults into the box where before he'd give it? We might get less penalty decisions for us, but maybe we'll get less given against us too...

And now, having set this precedent, surely this spells the end of Sterling's career which would make a lot of us very happy.

I think not as they are the so-called Sky big fucking clubs. The FA are two-faced.

I know it was a soft penalty so what happened to fair play and consistency?

Who said the ref wasn't deceiving the FA – he's the one who made the decision?

I too was watching the Sevilla game hoping for an LFC loss (or am I bitter?) to make the day seem a bit better. It didn't happen but the way Sevilla came back made me think I feel a little warmer inside.

As we disagree about the Niasse incident, let's move on. I saw contact from Dann, you didn't!!

This has all the hallmarks of the powers that be actually wanting us to be relegated. We can, I'm sure, think of multiple examples of simulation over the years, but how many of these incidents result in a retrospective ban? It would never happen to some of the media darling names (Suarez, Gerrard, Sanchez, Sterling, Aguero etc).

For years on this forum we have complained about the stupid "there was contact so he had the right to go down" comments and rightly so. Don't become hypocritical now because it is one of our own.

Oumar's ban isn't the important one. It's what happens to the next player caught clearly diving that is important now. Especially if he plays for a big club (or Newcastle). If this ban is the first step in stopping the divers, then I for one, can live it.

It's a new rule people are simply going to have to get used to, and should in the future, stop people diving quite so much - which is surely a good thing.

The problem is that Niasse knows that referees are unlikely to spot this type of cynical foul, and unless the recipient makes the contact obvious, the official is liable to pass on the decision. To get this kind of decision away from home is unusual.

Yesterday, the "legendary" Jim White was hanging our lad out to dry although Bob Mills defended him to a point. Mills did say though that we don't have any bent refs.

We may not have bent refs, but they are swayed by the home crowds, and certainly favour the so-called top 5.

The FA also steer clear of upsetting the big boys wherever possible. LFC never did get charged for tapping-up Van Djke. If we, or Stoke had done it, I wonder if the FA would have overlooked it?

As far as I can tell, managers want the players to go down under contact and there was clear contact. I'm sure if I studied fifteen camera angles, frame by frame, I could make a case for simulation, but at normal speed, with a normal view, Dann looks like he commits a foul and Niasse goes down.

It was my understanding that this new rule was to catch blatant dives. This does not look like a blatant dive to me, there is too much of a grey area in the decision. I await further clarification with interest as this sort of sanitisation of football is going to take a big part of the game away, that of controversy. I mean, what would we have to moan about here? (emoji winking)

For me it was a stone wall penalty which the ref gave without hesitation.

Stewart – I think the point the FA are making is that they take greater offence at the success of the con rather than the attempt at the con in the first place, and the fact that the perp has gained a benefit from it (ie, a successful pen in our case).

I agree with you though that it was a minor foul, but sadly Oumar's theatrical skills let him down.

But Dann made contact... caught him with his forearm and shoulder, that ladies and gentleman, is a foul, and if it's in the penalty box, its a penalty.

Now it's rare they are given, to be fair, and Oumar made the most of it... but ref was yards away, so he could not be conning the ref, as the ref could see it.

The video evidence Moyes sent to the refs association was of 12 incidents in the first half of a season. The head of the refs said 10 were penalties... none were awarded.

The law itself is an initiative I support. Any genuine lover of football considers simulation a nauseous aspect of the game.

That said, I am genuinely surprised they have picked out this example above many other clearer examples of simulation from this Premier League season alone.

And like others, I wonder at the decision-making process by which an incident is referred to the panel that sits in judgement. Do they have a team of grunts, studying every minute of every game, flagging up possible simulation and referring it to a higher authority who then make the call to proceed with a charge or not?

Or rather, is it determined by the noise the media makes in the aftermath of a game? Not being UK-based I cannot say for certain, but reading between the lines on TW, I understand there was quite a furore by the talking heads of football punditry.

If the latter, this calls the decision making process into question and leaves one wondering at the integrity of those sitting in judgement.

I say that not because it was an Everton player and my club charged on this, but because it is a far from clear cut case as there is clearly contact between the 2 players.

And as I also said yesterday, defenders at this level are very, very cute. Dann 'simulated' a tackle. Oumar got half a yard on him, was in front of him and so Dann knew a regular tackle with the feet was high risk, so he attempted to impede him, put him off balance, whatever it took, to disadvantage Oumar from getting off a clean shot.

It was a foul. It was a penalty. It was a soft one. Oumar went down, but even then not over-dramatically.

The club apparently has said it will contest the charge. I say 'apparently' because even on the official club site the only reference I found to the charge was in the 'What the papers' say round up for today, quoting papers saying the same.

I really hope the club does contest this fiercely, with video evidence of the incident, contrasted with clear cut examples of obvious simulation from this Premier League season in which no charges were brought.

I am just annoyed by those too lazy to at least scan what's gone on before.

Once an idea has been implanted into the subconscious self (ie, subliminal), it would be very difficult to believe anything else.

So, if the media or someone who allegedly knows what they're talking about in football said Niasse dives... then other influential outlets confirm it, what you're left is you who may feel that it was not a dive but the overwhelming evidence against you may suggest that you're best to conform.

The last statement is easier to say than to implement, simply because every referee is different, may be in a different position when 'foul occurs, getting line of sight blocked by a player etc, but surely that is why there are two assistants, allegedly working as a team.

It's the inconsistency too that really gets people's backs up, and yes, it does seem to happen more to the non-elite, and not the media darlings!

I do however take offence at being accused of being only interested in venting my own spleen. I gave an explanation to someone else's question and then gave my own opinion on the incident – how's that different from what everybody else has done?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/bundesliga/german-video-assistant-referee-chief-hellmut-krug-sacked-over-matchfixing-allegations/news-story/a1aba5229112b57fe0580d3b702d013e

It's almost as if, wait for it, if you are one of the Sky Darlings... you get special treatment..

I hate diving but having Poachers turned Gamekeepers pontificating on the very thing they were so adept at and have advocated is a disgrace.

And I say again – if he had stayed on his feet, sure as x = x that pen would not have been given.

Surely the only difference in the two scenarios is the ability of the ref so the punishment for the player should be the same in both and the referee in the second instance should be retrained, or sacked.

And as I also said, it's not the end of the world. Sandro can do a job and we may (as Christine Foster said yesterday somewhere) get some longer term spin off from it.

Silver linings and so on.

All this begs the question 'When is a foul not a foul?', or maybe even 'When does a foul become a foul?'

But in answer to my own (first) question...

When the ref's a turkey, I suppose!

Sorry, my point was meant to be a general gripe – it happens a lot. Then there is the odd one who says "Oh, I've just come on and haven't had time to read the other comments" (meaning, that they can't be arsed to).

Anyway, we both agree about the penalty and the injustice in the panel system.

Agreed.

"But this bollocks about it resulting in a penalty or a sending off, words fail me. If the gobshites currently ruling (and ruining) our game are serious, then they'll use the same rule wherever a dive takes place.

As Paul Kelly says so accurately above, if a player dives and the team score from the free kick, why does that differ from a penalty?"

It has to be everywhere any time. If they're serious about tackling this issue, they need to change culture. Culture does not change selectively.

Yeah, I get that but surely the evidence in this case is tangible, or in 'black and white' at least. I try to put myself in the opposite camp, as it were, as though it was Williams with the tackle and say Mane in the dock and I would probably be screaming "...send him down/off with his head, deport him..." etc., or worse.

However, the evidence would be there for me to view, and I would come to the conclusion that the law has become an ass in our game, stemming from the "if you get a touch you're entitled to go down" brigade (which is most pundits who are like fucking sheep following the lead of each other) and tbh innocuous touches like Dann's on Niasse (or my hypothetical Williams on Mane) should be allowed to go. But the law is the law as it stands today and one would have to concur that there was a foul but that the player made a meal of it.

In my hypothetical, I would not expect Mane to get a ban however much I wanted it because of the foul as evidenced on video, and my screaming would change to "Fuck me – top six/ RS favoritism ... etc etc."

I am truly surprised the verdict has gone against Oumar but the FA are probably champing at the bit to show this rule applied and looking for an example and we caught the short straw, not because of who we are, but because of who we aren't.

What's the latest on our "apparent" appeal? Anyone know? I feel we should make a noise even if it means losing Oumar for another game – assuming that is set in stone as well if we fail.
"RS / top-six favoritism etc, etc."

In my view, it would need a frame-by-frame sequence of shots in several screens in super slow motion, so that sequence A, B, C, D, E etc determines if Niasse did dive or not.

The next stage, in my view, would then answer the legal question which is, did Niasse in fact by his act or omission cause such 1) an offence 2) sufficiently serious for Misconduct; and 3) 'successful deception of a match official' (the ref) and in so doing; 4) it led to a penalty.

"74. In English law, the right of access to the courts has long been recognised. The central idea is expressed in chapter 40 of the Magna Carta of 1215 (“Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam”), which remains on the statute book in the closing words of Chapter 29 of the version issued by Edward I in 1297:

“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Those words are not a prohibition on the charging of court fees, but they are a guarantee of access to courts which administer justice promptly and fairly:" Lord Reed (at paragraph 74 (page 22)), in R v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0233-judgment.pdf

I am unsure of which site of the fence you sit on, John, with this. I think you believe the evidence is sufficient to absolve Oumar but will carry insufficient clout to make the difference. Would I be right?

I find it hard to believe that two previous players who had no contact when going down get away Scot free, yet a player who had contact, had a ref in a perfect position, gets a two-match ban.

One rule for everyone even if it's one of our favourite untouchable teams.

They have put themselves firmly in the spotlight and every contentious decision will need justifying. Failure to implement the rule fairly for all – rich and poor, Sky 6 or no Sky 6, England players and foreign, ex England managers and the rest, London clubs or the rest, 75,000 fans or 11,000 fans – will render the FA not fit for purpose.

It's the beginning of the end for this organisation.

Obviously not only should the Club ask the FA to review every further "dive", the three arseholes who unanimously agreed this decision should be individually put on the spot every single time. What's good for one is good for all.

How on earth is that reasonable? I mean, he did dive in my view, but just because the ref didn't notice, the player then gets a 2-match ban because the officials didn't spot it? Surely it's the referee who should be getting the 2-match ban, and Niasse should get a retrospective yellow card!

Managers talk about intelligent players 'drawing' the foul. Pundits say he 'had a right to go to ground there'. For too long there has been seriously mixed messages.

Personally I have no major issues with the ban – but only if this form of severe punishment is upheld with consistency across the league from here on in.

The disciplinary panel better be prepared to work overtime though, because consistency means that we should start seeing dozens of these bans each and every week.

Does anyone believe that will happen?

I fully expect there to be about 10 players banned over the next few weekends. If they are consistent.

The FA better reserve a hotel for the numerous 3-man panels they will need.

As I say, it's only because of the penalty award and being scored that he's been banned. Would have been interesting to know what would have happened had the penalty been missed? Would there have been such an uproar over this?

Alex – he did dive but the offence is deception, not diving. Deception is the manufacturing of something that doesn't exist and Dann's contact on Niasse was evident.

As for the incident, perhaps his conduct throughout the match played a part? I read in one report he had 3 dubious actions in the game, the final resulting in a booking. Haven't seen them all to judge on their individual efforts but if it is the case then he made himself an easy target

I also wonder, if you watch it slowed down, does it look worse? I mean does he pull up his legs before the contact with Dann's shoulder? I have just watched it about 5 times and to me it still looks a penalty at normal speed!!

It's not a rough challenge, and Niasse makes a meal of it, but Dann steps across him. If he runs full pelt at him, Niasse will be knocked off-line. There will be more black-and-white dives this season. We are not looking at a Stevie G number here...

Can we complain, anyone complain for that matter, about any decision since the beginning of the season?

Any slight foul can be enough to put a player off from scoring or stop them getting onto a through ball, but it may not be enough to put them over. If they stay on their feet they won't get the free kick. That's when they get called 'too honest'.

This is a ridiculous ruling and the FA have well and truly messed up. They have had opportunities this season to apply this rule to players who have dived without contact. Why the hell do they decide to apply it for the first time in the Premier League for an incident which is far less cut and dry? It makes no sense whatsoever.

They had to make an example and they did. Can't wait to see Alli, Aguero or Zlatan in the chair. Will never fucking happen.

Shocking.

Of course that won't happen, the cowardly FA will always favour the top teams, my guess is this is a forerunner to complete video control of the whole 90 minutes, with a bias towards the Sky 6.

As Lyndon Lloyd wrote on a separate thread, the FA seems to have made a rod for its own back. That said, this potential problem for the FA could be reduced if referees now err decisions towards not awarding a penalty following an incident that might previously have led to a dubious penalty award.

I think the FA would have been wiser to stick to cases where there was clearly no contact between the players, rather than this sort of case which is clearly a grey area, as can be seen from the comments on this thread.

Anyway, players are simulating left right and centre. How many times does a player go down shrieking in agony after a challenge, trying to con the ref that he has been seriously hurt? How many times do they fall down in the box at a corner claiming a shirt pull? The whole game is semi-crooked and has been for years. I remember Franny Lee winning about 12 penalties in a season for Man City.

He will now be approaching Superhero Status!

It was interesting too, the interview by Granada Reports/SSN, with Unsy, who is a creditable person in his own right, publicly defending Oumar and reiterating the player's honesty, as part of his character.

It's the same, just the other way around – they conned the ref into believing it was fair and no foul...

Who's on this review panel anyway? Carra, Jamie Redknapp and Stevie Me? I wouldn't be surprised. This bullshit is really putting me off football.

And as experts, I do not believe they can claim to more 'in-the-know' than fans.

He didn't have to as the ref, immediately on seeing what happened, blew for a penalty. Let's begin a petition – Justice for Oumar – this decision and the media trial stinks to high heaven. I'm so angry about this, it's untrue. The lad is as honest as the day is long. Fuck 'em all.

It really is a strange and very disappointing outcome and as others have stated already, one which I am sure they will come to regret. The FA's time IMO would be far better spent perfecting the use of in-game video evidence and a proper review of the offside rule.

Does anyone know how UEFA and FIFA view this ruling or is this where the original directive has come from?

Look at Northern Ireland's World Cup Qualifier against Switzerland, a crucial game for the Irish where they had a chance, okay a slim one, and the referee gave the Swiss a penalty for what was clearly not a handball (shoulder, proved by video evidence) and the rest is history, as their aspirations were.

Like you say, mate, apart from the ridiculous money in today's game, accentuated by the likes of Sky, it does put you off watching, especially if it's not an even playing field to start with.

Just waiting to see the serial offenders get accused & done, ie, Aguero, Silva & Sterling.

Arrogant big-mouths like Shearer employed by the BBC & paid ridiculous salary funded by us tax-payers need to learn the laws of the game – they're mouthing off on MotD is far too influential.

Dubious, yes... but not as clear-cut as Gerard's tackles against us in particular. Stamp it out by all means but let it be consistent. No witch hunt.

As it is only applied postumously to those who have conned the ref, the FA will not want to set up these kangaroo courts all of the time so surely the refs will be advised to watch out for it.

Of course, the same happened with shirt-holding in the box, but after a couple of months they all seemed to stop penalising it.

Has the referee not dealt with the award of a penalty? Surely (and I know this doesn't help our plight) the only justice in this instance is to strike the goal from the match result and award Palace a 2-1 victory.

If by banning Niasse we lose to Southampton and West Ham (no goal threat) it doesn't help Palace. The very team deemed to have been cheated. I am aware that red card incidents don't help the offended team either.

The authorities have once again not thought this one through. None of us want to see blatant cheating in the game but until it can be dealt with during the course of the game then retrospective action will never be fair for the offended club.

Years of players flinging themselves on deck, rolling about, going down like Gillian Taylforth and the worst punishment - a booking.

Meanwhile, 2017, we are practically striker-free, but have this unusual character in Niasse who, despite being told to fuck off, loaned out, had no locker etc, finds his way back, into the first team and actually scoring.

A miracle!

Cue the FA who have watched years of cheating - "let's do THIS feller."

As I say, dead Everton.

How can 3 independent people agree on this? Dan probably can't get out of the way but he turns his arse into Niasse. There is clear contact with both turso and leg. There has no dive, there is no change of direction going into Dan.

Could Niasse have stayed on his feet? Probably. Therefore got can't argue he went down easily. It was a soft penalty but still a definite penalty.

There has been and will be 3 or 4 more clear cut 'con's' in every game. Niasse is not the first cheat this season.

Don not accept it!!!! That's has annoyed me. Fight it simply because their decision is wrong. There is clear evidence.

Like you, I very much doubt we will see any change this week, which I wasn't really expecting anyway, but would be good to have some news from the club.

Jack, Blue Nose Brothers maybe?

Does this mean that an unsuccessful decption is not an offence?

Bit, like Kuyt's lunge years ago, he got away with it by failing to maim Phil Neville!

Mind you, that could have been because the ref was brown-nosing Stephanie Gerrard!

Was Niasse fouled inside the box, yes unless my eyes are deceiving me, so that does not count? Where do you draw the line on deceiving the officials.

Why I keep watching this sport that is becoming more ridiculous each year financially, I don't know. Success is almost exclusively controlled by how big the club's bank balance is.

Maybe its because I'm bored shitless most of time! No I can't be, because I'm bored shitless when I watch most matches most of the time also.

If nothing else it should make the administrators hold back from the introduction of video technology on incidents which are not black and white.

The suspension seems strangely harsh and I guess the powers that be were looking for an opportunity to send a warning to bigger names. Retrospective action is usually a mistake and this will create more trouble than it resolves.

Do they now suspend the ref and send him on new training course? Of course not and shouldn't be so but neither should Niasse have even been brought up on the charge. A bunch of utter pricks with no ffucking brain between the lot of them.

I suppose Crystal Palace will now also have grounds for a civil action against Everton at the end of the season if they too are relegated due to an illegal action which cost them 2 points. That was some time ago so I expect if found guilty Everton will be liable for something in the region of maybe double that amount. There goes a decent striker.

I hope Everton are employing lawyers right now to discuss the probable outcome of a civil case against the FA for defamation character by Niasse.

Do we give Anthony Taylor a rousing reception when next he is at Goodison Park?

The defender dives to handle the ball on its way in to the net and pushes it around the post. Ref awards the penalty! Defender says "I tripped over" (no red card) Blues win 1-0. FA says – clear case of tripping on a long blade of the GP turf so we'll make a new rule – Replay the game! Everton to start 0-2 down as punishment!

They're fuckwits!

Do I appear angry? FA is either corrupt or, at best, completely incompetent.

Nothing about stats – how much possession etc – just bloody football. It's about 11 v 11 and who scores the most goals wins – simples. I could be so happy.

Furthermore, unless the rule has been changed it cannot be 'simulation' if there is contact. Even if the Ref deemed it to be a dive, surely that is a yellow card, not a red & therefore not a 2 match ban. If the FA Panel think the Ref was wrong to award a penalty, surely it's the Ref that should be suspended & not Niasse.

Different channel, different comp but if anyone can justify a significant difference between this and the Niasse reaction to Dann barging across his direction of travel, I'd be very interested to hear it.

Defenders get away with murder in the penalty box, yet never given, ever. Forwards make a meal out of every contact and rightly so because otherwise unless you cripple a guy and take his legs off at the hip, a ref won't give it.

referees being spineless has made the situation worse. I would say one thing to the FA, if it's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, then it's a foul in the penalty area.

Diving when clearly not touched is simulation, making a meal of contact is exaggeration, the first is cheating, the second is attention seeking.

One final point, referees now regularly book a player for tackling even if there is no contact, because of the intent. It follows on if the intent of the defender is to impede a forward then at the very least it's obstruction, if there is deliberate contact of any description it's a direct free kick.

Apply the law properly in the first place and all of this would go away. Idiots.

Rivaldo's shameless and disgraceful acting for Brazil v Turkey in the 2002 World Cup was a watershed for me. And to think, its gotten worse. The FA, UEFA and FIFA are inept and spineless and it seems, corrupt.

Sorry you cannot divine intent. You can only process what opportunity has been taken away by any attempted challenge.

Contact is permissible, doesn't mean its a foul. That doesn't preclude diving either or exaggerating after contact not significant enough to warrant a free kick.

They are the same. Which I have no problem with, diving is no worse or better than hauling a man down clean through. Both morally repugnant as they are the epitome of professionalism and outside the spirit of the game.

But within the framework of a game its fair dos, thats the state of the game we watch today.

Niasse chanced his arm and was caught out.

The uproar would be vanquished if the ban came off the back of a fa cup winner or derby. Many wouldn't care less, so we have to be careful the line we tread.

Happy as a sand boy he won the penalty, but it was a dive and he/we have to pay the penalty.

Ironically it hurts Palace more as both Southampton & West Ham have a better chance v Everton without Niasse.

A foul should have been called for under the laws of the game. The referee decides if it was intentional or not, whether an attempt was made to play the ball, whether the ball was within playing distance. In this case the defender played the man. That's a foul.

Secondly, as I said in my first post, the intent was to impede and prevent a goalscoring opportunity. Clear foul, yellow card.

Because it was a goal scoring opportunity and intentional action by the defender it was a penalty under the laws of the game. The referee correctly applied the law.

Niasse made the most of the impediment because if he hadn't the defender would have gotten away with a professional foul.

that's the game as it stands today. That should be the defence based on the law of the game itself – not on pundit power.

If a player dives causing an opponent to get booked and later in the game that opponent picks up a second yellow card and is thus sent off; is the dive contributing to the sending off?

In this case, the game would no longer be worth watching. I've watched it increasingly less in the last decade, not because of an active determination to avoid watching, but because things like cheating (particularly from repeat offenders who go unpunished), getting in the face of referees, and touchline histrionics from managers, have made enthusiasm wane. To a point where I often don't watch games because I just can't be arsed.

If systematic bias and corruption are confirmed, I can see myself not watching it at all.

The big question is when will the obstruction rule ever come back into being? If it wasn't a penalty it certainly was a indirect free kick, will Niasse ever get a penalty again? Upwards and onwards! COYB.

All done covertly so the ref and linesman cannot see .surely this is a premeditated deception of the match officials, in order to stop a player scoring.

A 2-match ban for cheating the ref?

This was a media trial and it won't be applicable to all teams on all occasions. I hate what Sky have done to football over the years and this weekend I fully expect Jeff Stelling & Co to go all out on demanding Niasse is crucified on pay-per-view.

In truth I reckon the number of other bans this season will be able to be counted on one hand if not one finger.

Niasse has become the one player in the squad that substantially weakens our chance of winning the two games when not playing.

Anyone running, I don't care who they are, unless they are superstrong, and even then, if you get a push or even lose your footing slightly (not applicable here, but still relevant) you will, because of the impetus, go down, or off track!

Ironically, Woy has just been on Sky Sports News and endorsed that it was definitely a dive, but also said, that a player can lose his balance and therefore should not be booked for simulation.

We all know how honest Oumar is both as a person and as a player, and it really hurts and annoys when you have all these so called experts, declaring, basically that he is a cheat!

I have to disagree with you who are saying that it wasn't a dive, but it is easy to see why the situation is so frustrating. Nothing will change though so might as well get on with it.

The FA decision-makers shouldn't be siding with anybody, they should be impartial and make a judgement based on the evidence presented to them. If as has been rumoured Danny Murphy was one of the trio that decided there was a case to answer doesn't he have a conflict of interest seeing as he played under Hodgson at Fulham not to mention that he also played for local rivals Liverpool.

What's happened is water under the bridge now, but surely a better system can be produced than the current one. If any manager feels so aggrieved about a 'cheat' having duped the officials by diving then wouldn't it be an improvement if that manager had to make an official complaint within an hour of the final whistle and the panel could then be asked to adjudicate as to whether it is a legitimate claim or not.

All very transparent and not at all dependent on the talking heads making a fuss which then spooks the Football Association into action.

Some hope. Like holding in the box it will be quietly forgotten in a few months.

It's different if the ref misses something, but Taylor had a good view... leave these contentious football matters on the pitch, they'll always exist, and we thrive on them, and then move on to the next match.

The reason I feel and would never award that penalty is Dann despite trying to ‘failed' to take away Niasse's opportunity to play the ball.

His touch was too far away from him to retain possession and going out of play. Even if Dann didn't touch him, he was never getting the ball. It requires a player to be within playing distance, the ball had gone, Niasse knew that and chanced his arm and when down to exaggerate the contact. The contact was incidental. A dive, or whatever name you give it.

The fact that Scott Dann said after the game, 'If there was contact it was minimal'. The fact that he used the words 'if' means that there was contact – otherwise, he would have said that he didn't touch him. The whole things stinks of top 6 bias.

I have never been so angry with the FA and football.

Correct me if I'm wrong, relates to previous incidents from the outset of the study?

Therefore why start with Oumar when you have a plethora of incidents to populate your study.

I know it won't happen, but why not start at the beginning and retrospectively punish everybody. Not sure how long the new rule has been in, but what's good for one is good for all.

See the top 6 duck and dive if it ever happened.

Once you have cleared the plethora (which won't be particularly long) retrospective decisions can be handed out quite quickly.

The one thing it won't change is the result!

Pike position can be performed with the hands extending out from the body in an open pike position, touching the feet as used in voluntary dives, or with the arms wrapping around the legs in a closed pike position.

I personally gave Oumar a 5 out of 10...if he had wrapped his arms around his legs, that would have increased to a 9!

Unbelievable and completely pointless having a ref at the game.

A right can of worms. This weekend might be havoc, to say the least, all over the pitch. Idiots.

Didn't hear any clamour from the three wise men on MotD for retrospective action. Why is that?

Pure and utter bullshit that The FA are not even looking at it. Well said Mr Hislop! even up against the shouting down of that dickhead on the panel whose name I can't even recall – but let's just call him biased dumb fxck.

It's a clear as daylight that Lukaku has lashed out at the Defender and no punishment is given, but in Niasse's case, it is not clear cut so we'll ban him.