2017/18 Oumar Niasse

[StreetEndBlue]

Dann steps across him, shoulder into the chest. Niasse carries on towards the ball as contact is made.

Answer me this; if Niasse continues running, does Dann's shoulder stop him running to the ball unimpeded?

If the answer is yes (which it is), then it's a foul.

Dann's arm is in front of the player, he has obstructed a movement to the ball. It's a penalty.

Rather than a "dive" or "embarrassing", I'd be more embarrassed if I hadn't gone down, as it's part of the game.

Dress it up whichever way you want but it's not a foul and not a penalty.

 

[sageyefc]

He’s lazy and can’t help lying prone. His bad first touch caused the penalty.

Oh wow

 

[bicycleheader]

Of course the 'why is this the first one?' argument is fair enough. I'd be amazed if they

If you lose balance because of it?? Of course!

Niasse could've easily turned around there and said that the shoulder barge from Dann was enough to knock him over and NO ONE could prove otherwise. The ref even agreed, hence why he awarded the pen in the first place!! To then say afterwards that he was 'deceived' is farcical - it's his mistake!

but that's a different point. that's contact hard enough to make you lose balance. and if you do that and don't get the ball first then yep you are open to conceding a penalty.

your actual point was, if there is contact then end of story, which is not true.

I think you are mistakenly thinking the Ref has asked for this review. I don't believe that is how it works. General footage of the games are reviewed by a panel first to check for incidents like this.

 

[gaino92]

He’s lazy and can’t help lying prone. His bad first touch caused the penalty.

Lukaku?

 

[billyblue80]

Next time Sterling dives if it is justified by contact then there is one rule for one...

 

[bicycleheader]

I can see a rule coming in whereby a goalie who having caught the ball whilst standing, then falls to the floor in order to waste time, can be retrospectively booked/banned. By the way who makes the decision to retrospectively look at incidents - SKY?

My understanding is theres a panel that does a general review of the weekends action to try and find incidents.

I'd imagine certain incidents being spoken about on Sky or BT or in the media will make sure they are not missed in that review.

 

[Shibbywiggles]

He falls over all the time for no reason tbh he's just a clumsy guy. The fact he didn't even appeal makes this very harsh, I've seen people dive and then throw their hands up in the air screaming at the referee and not get punished so this is harsh.

 

[Jacko93]

Pound to a penny that there is not another single instance of a player getting retrospective action on diving this season, and they will get off it with the 'there was contact' line.

We are actually being punished for the referees incompetence. If Niasse had jumped up and claimed the penalty, then maybe so.

 

[Lob]

Whether he went down easy or not, Everton have to appeal this pathetic cowardly decision by the FA. They are breaking their own rules by imposing it and it is very easy to prove so.

From the FA website - http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct

Introduction

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• spits at an opponent

There was contact made and the ref called it right and it was a penalty, albeit a soft one and it should be appealed.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

Seems a daft decision. Yes he made a meal of what was a foul but the decision of a pen was right in my eyes.
Need to stop all pundits encouraging players to go down when contact is made. Certainly a can of worms opened here and now every penalty has to be scrutinised to the full

Was saying earlier how Alan Shearer was defending Sterling and Aguero the other week, saying these players were entitled to go down, even if it was with minimal contact, the same fella was saying Niasse should be banned because there was only minimal contact!

 

[Jacko93]

The amount of times that this is the correct decision but the ref gives a penalty anyway is ridiculous. Convinced most refs don't know the rules well enough.

I think its just one of those rules that largely goes unused. Like the foul throw.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Are you a chronic stoner hence the poor memory ? We’ve had players diving for years. Barkley been done for it a few times, Del did it all the time, Mirallas has done plenty... and I’m blatantly forgetting countless more examples.

All utterly crap at diving. Niasse went down well. It wasn't even a dive really tbh.

 

[JLW]

That's a really crap definition of 'dive' mate, come on...

Also, in the present moment I'd 100% accept the fact that he earned us a draw away at Palace rather than lose every time regardless of the retrospective action.

Anyway, whether it's right or not the whole 'deception of a match official' line genuinely concerns me. It's open ended and open to interpretation solely based on the referee and the panel in question.

There's no way the FA are going to be consistent with this. Not a friggin chance.

Listen mate I hate diving even from our players and I believe that was a blatant dive, so in my opinion he deserves what punishment he gets. Yes the consistency is shambolic from the FA and officials but that won’t change.. if that incident was against us you would be fuming an rightly so.

We have to agree to disagree here I think.

 

[Kever10]

How Everton is it, that the 1st player to be retrospectively punished for Diving is an Everton player that didn't even dive?

All the people who dived consistently over the years and they decide to act now.

If he had actually dived, that would be one thing, like a real, blatant dive. I'd still be pissed off that we were the 1st team to be punished for it, after years of being cheated out of actual penalties that we shouldve been awarded but weren't.

But for the action to be taken for this incident is just typical of the FA, Everton, and football in general.

Disgracefully corrupt.

 

[DanB90]

All utterly crap at diving. Niasse went down well. It wasn't even a dive really tbh.

He literally throws himself on the floor.
There was contact, I’m sure. But he definitely simulated how much.