Two days after Oumar Niasse was suspended for two matches having been found guilty of committing a ‘Successful Deception of a Match Official' in winning a fifth-minute penalty at Crystal Palace last weekend, it emerged Anthony Taylor had been satisfied he had not been conned.
The revelation, included in the written reasons for the verdict of the independent regulatory commission which sat in judgment on Niasse on Tuesday, raised questions about the application of a Football Association rule change predicated on match officials being deceived into incorrectly awarding a penalty or sending a player off.
Published on Friday, those written reasons of a three-strong panel, chaired by Blackburn Rovers' championship-winning winger Stuart Ripley and featuring fellow ex-players Paul Raven and Marvin Robinson, found Niasse had “exaggerated the effect of a normal contact in order to deceive the referee”.
Effectively branding Niasse a cheat, the commission deemed the 27-year-old's body movement when he and Palace defender Scott Dann had come into contact “were simply not consistent with the amount of force exerted upon him”.
The panel added: “The nature of the contact made by Dann was minimal and would not have thrown Niasse off balance and knock him down in the way he portrayed.”
Confirming Taylor had stood by his penalty award after watching replays of it following the game, Everton caretaker manager David Unsworth added: “When we find out the referee after the game has reviewed the incident again from several angles and he continues to state it is a penalty, that is where the problem is.
“I think it is very dangerous, not from the FA point of view, but for the game in general.”
» Read the full article at The Telegraph
Reader Comments (37)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:33:00
2 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:46:35
3 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:52:25
Can wait to see if this utter shite is applied to Hazard, Ali, Firmino, Sterling, Ozil etc... or if it's a rule just for the mere peasants of the game.
4 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:56:02
And if the ref says he wasn't conned...! Well, if that's true, then this case really is a shambles. I suspect the procedure might be amended in future to allow initial consultation with the ref after the game?
Other codes make good use of instant replays with TMOs, for critical incidents. And, by the way, use of the sin bin.
5 Posted 25/11/2017 at 09:02:04
6 Posted 25/11/2017 at 10:05:49
7 Posted 25/11/2017 at 10:41:32
That seems a major change from established practice, but it would be interesting to hear what ref's on ToffeeWeb have to say.
8 Posted 25/11/2017 at 10:52:14
Ayew's dive last night was worse as there was no contact and it was never a penalty. Will he be charged? Probably not, because the ref didn't give the pen and therefore wasn't deceived.
So Ayew gets off without punishment even though his intention was to deceive the ref? That's ridiculous. The whole situation has now become ridiculous.
How the hell have they punished Niasse when the ref has stated he wasn't conned?! Who the hell are the panel to say that he was conned if the ref says he wasn't?
This is mental. Absolutely bloody laughable. Except it isn't funny at all!!
9 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:05:08
10 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:09:00
11 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:25:33
Why the hell should three no mark players be adjudicating when we have a referee panel for reviews anyway? What was their opinion?
So now someone, please tell me, what is normal contact? An arm around the throat in the penalty box?
It's an absolute shambles and the problem is they are only applying it to offenders who conned the ref to win a penalty, so it wont stop it the simulation or exaggeration anywhere else on the field ( thinking about it, it's a law for defenders not attackers..) Licence to spill.
12 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:42:26
I have always hated the FA and for them to create a panel made up of non-officiating people makes them the biggest dickheads in world football.
13 Posted 25/11/2017 at 12:58:18
By the way, well done to Taylor for coming out and saying this. At least someone has some gonads and doesn't brown nose the media types and hypocritical self-elected.
14 Posted 25/11/2017 at 13:43:40
Who refers this to the FA?
Who makes the decision what to review and what not?
Who decides whether Ayew or others need reviewing?
How can it be fair if even the referee says he was not deceived?
15 Posted 25/11/2017 at 14:00:21
16 Posted 25/11/2017 at 14:41:52
17 Posted 25/11/2017 at 16:42:04
18 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:07:37
Nevertheless he was touched, and by the letter of the law (and according to the official, even after due reflection) a penalty it was.
This decision is going to cause the FA quite a few problems, I think.
Incidentally, a fascinating second-rate panel was formed to adjudicate on this. Does anyone know what the principal pie seller at United thinks? I'm sure the three card boys outside Selfridges will have a view. Had has anyone asked Mugabe? And what about that guy in the peaked cap and dirty raincoat who used to wander about central London with a placard saying, "More nuts, less meat, less passion"?
19 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:08:28
20 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:35:18
Seems to me these changes in rules create more confusion for the officials and although we Evertonians may be biased about this precedent setting incident and we can only hope the same will apply from now on to all such incidents but you just know the big clubs at the top will never be penalised for such things.
Question, if a player is clearly offside, plays on and then scores, has he conned the officials?
21 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:46:53
22 Posted 26/11/2017 at 01:24:45
I remember Tim Cahill getting sent off on his Everton debut for a second yellow awarded at Man City when scoring a last minute winner and everyone agreeing it was wrong but the ban not being lifted because they couldn't agree a “form of words” that was acceptable to the referee.
And they wonder why we are bitter?
23 Posted 26/11/2017 at 01:48:23
24 Posted 26/11/2017 at 02:00:36
Lukaku deceived both the linesman and referee by finger pointing to the corner flag when clearly the defender didnt get the last touch. They scored from the resulting corner.
If the FA want to carry on this sham ruling then it has to be consistent but Im guessing this wont be brought before the panel.
25 Posted 26/11/2017 at 02:12:53
26 Posted 26/11/2017 at 09:28:14
Surely, the match officials' and both clubs' (including the players') views have to be taken into consideration otherwise all angles cannot possibly have been considered. Without disclosing the full evidence and "witness" statements, there is no case to answer is there?
Doesn't there have to be a complainant in such cases
So, how can any panel find Oumar guilty when no complaint has been made in the first place?
It won't happen I know but EFC should threaten the FA with formal legal action based upon this evidence. The whole situation is a complete farce and makes EFC seem like an immaculately run organisation when compared to the FA.
As n aside, can EFC or Oumar not refer this to UEFA or FIFA? May not not achieve anything but it would at least help highlight the total incompetence of the FA.
28 Posted 26/11/2017 at 12:25:50
29 Posted 26/11/2017 at 21:08:44
30 Posted 26/11/2017 at 22:55:54
Sort of keeps our eyes off 'their' ball so to speak.
Er good job I didn't mention the betting.
Imagine them having the nerve to brimg Man City players to book !!...What ? and have the Sheik/Saudis cancel their weapons contracts with us ????
I don't think so.
32 Posted 27/11/2017 at 07:07:09
If he had said, after watching it again, that he had even a modicum of doubt about his original penalty award, then that would have given some legitimacy to the FA holding a review of the behaviour of Niasse. We all know that Oumar is like Bambi on ice at times, and it is well known amongst the Everton faithful that he doesn't have the greatest balance in the world when running at speed. Add that to the fact that his run into the box was being impeded not just by Danny but by a second defender who was effectively sandwiching Niasse between two players, leaving him nowhere to go when contact was made.
Were the members of the panel holders of degrees in Applied Physics? Er... I thought not. Were they not aware that very little contact is needed to reflect a moving object travelling at speed? The simple fact is that if Dann had been a mere six inches closer to Niasse when the contact took place, Niasse would have been blocked off and a penalty would still have been awarded. If no contract had taken place, Niasse would have been past him and through on goal.
The FA, have, as I stated above, effectively called their own referee a liar, calling into question his integrity, his decision making and his veracity. Not to mention calling Niasse a cheat and also questioning his integrity and called him a liar too. Those who know what he went through under Ronald Koeman will I think agree that Niasse is a young man of high integrity and to brand him a cheat is way off the mark.
In my opinion the FA has allowed a bunch of rank amateurs to inflict an unjust punishment for no other reason than to satisfy a gang of media pundits, baying for blood.
33 Posted 27/11/2017 at 11:24:59
34 Posted 27/11/2017 at 15:45:53
35 Posted 28/11/2017 at 09:11:46
Rubbish decision even if he dived, the referee has made his decision period. This is what makes football special it all evens itself out over the course of a season.
36 Posted 29/11/2017 at 22:50:14
In the case of an alleged dive such as this, if the ref had seen it as a dive it would only have been a yellow card at most anyway so the ban is the wrong punishment. As others have said it also contradicts the logic of supporting the ref as in the above case.
Both cases have the drawback that the victim team gets no benefit from the retrospective action.
37 Posted 30/11/2017 at 21:31:42
No, we won't.
38 Posted 01/12/2017 at 20:36:26
If I was running into the box (I think that happened once) and was thus fouled, I would expect a penalty to be awarded.
The FA have just told one of their refs, closer to the incident than anyone, who pointed directly to the spot that he can't be trusted. Quite a step forward in the game?
39 Posted 05/12/2017 at 14:14:20
Do you see that happening? Absolutely no chance.
Will we see any other team being treated as Everton have been treated over this incident. Absolutely now chance, unless it is Everton (again) or another team with the potential to undermine the top 6.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.