Refree Taylor says he was not conned

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.

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.

That seems a major change from established practice, but it would be interesting to hear what ref's on ToffeeWeb have to say.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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"?

Question, if a player is clearly offside, plays on and then scores, has he conned the officials?

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?

Lukaku deceived both the linesman and referee by finger pointing to the corner flag when clearly the defender didn't 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 I'm guessing this won't be brought before the panel.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, we won't.

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?

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.