BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
Did the ref not "deal" with it by awarding the penalty?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oumar Niasse charged by FA
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,243
Absolutely agree. Very dangerous precedent.stinks, Everton accept the charge even though Niasse denied it. Seems Everton will get more favours and in turn it's set a very dubious precedent now for them to go after the kind of justified penalties we've been getting. Now 3 people in a room can overrule the referee even if there's contact, which should be the line drawn on such decisions. Only dives like Rashford v Swansea last season should be being targeted, not ones where there's a bit of contact so therefore it becomes subjective.
foggy1974
Well-Known Member
Have you not seen Hazard and Rose, the squeal as they go to groundDoes this only apply for a penalty? The worst I've ever seen is Busquets, who goes down all the time to try and get opponents yellow carded, but he's rarely in the penalty area.
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
because to me at least, it's perfectly "normal contact" if you miss the ball going in for a tackle because you're a fraction late, to then clatter into the attacker. It's what you'd expect to happen in that scenario.
So on that basis, what's a penalty? I can see if Bernardo's v Burnley happened this weekend they'd ban him, that's the only reason they've set such a dubious precedent. We've actually started appealing properly and in unison for decisions this season, and this rule seems set up to stop that and allow refs to get away with not giving them to us because we'd be "exaggerating" if we appeal like Bernardo to draw the refs attention that there's been clear contact.
So on that basis, what's a penalty? I can see if Bernardo's v Burnley happened this weekend they'd ban him, that's the only reason they've set such a dubious precedent. We've actually started appealing properly and in unison for decisions this season, and this rule seems set up to stop that and allow refs to get away with not giving them to us because we'd be "exaggerating" if we appeal like Bernardo to draw the refs attention that there's been clear contact.
foggy1974
Well-Known Member
The problem for me is although it was minimal contact and he made the most of it, does this not given defenders like shawcross to play right on the limits of the rules knowing that if this is the precedent (similar to holding at corners beginning of last season) that forwards can no longer make the most of contact, When you have the likes of Shearer and Savage saying that they have the right to go down, it muddys the waters.
Why do they not have the same procedures for defenders, Shawcross should get a retrospective ban for the foul against Murray at Brighton. This could possibly clean up the penalty debates. What is the difference between Naisses minimal contact and Calvert Lewin, other than it being against City
Why do they not have the same procedures for defenders, Shawcross should get a retrospective ban for the foul against Murray at Brighton. This could possibly clean up the penalty debates. What is the difference between Naisses minimal contact and Calvert Lewin, other than it being against City
M
M
manchester blue
Guest
Everything isn't done with the sole intention of "getting City". If they wanted to ban Bernardo they could have, or rather they could not have because pictures clearly showed his ankle wedged into the grass by the keeper's knee. This concept that contact means it's a penalty is flawed. It's a contact sport, contact does not make you fall to the floor when an flopping arm is put across your chest. It rarely makes you do it in the midfield areas so why the penalty area? It was a dive, he conned the referee and he has now paid the price.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,243
It’s a good point. We were told CL escaped punishment as it would only come in in cases with no contact at all.The problem for me is although it was minimal contact and he made the most of it, does this not given defenders like shawcross to play right on the limits of the rules knowing that if this is the precedent (similar to holding at corners beginning of last season) that forwards can no longer make the most of contact, When you have the likes of Shearer and Savage saying that they have the right to go down, it muddys the waters.
Why do they not have the same procedures for defenders, Shawcross should get a retrospective ban for the foul against Murray at Brighton. This could possibly clean up the penalty debates. What is the difference between Naisses minimal contact and Calvert Lewin, other than it being against City
kaz7
Well-Known Member
I hate diving in football more than anything else so this has to be done,my only gripe is that it doesn't help the team that has been robbed of the points on the day,i would like VARS,it could have the safeguard that the club can appeal it once they have looked a it after the game,there will be cockups but i think it would be fairer than now
Have you not seen Hazard and Rose, the squeal as they go to ground
This angers me greatly, it is so embarrassing, how they look real pro's like Zabs in the eye at training I will never know.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
The key is he didn't book the player for diving so they can review it,it's a loop hole that needs closingDid the ref not "deal" with it by awarding the penalty?