2017/18 Oumar Niasse

macdog · November 22, 2017

Oumar should sue the FA for defamation.

Hibbo · November 22, 2017

ilikecheese · November 22, 2017

It's an easy defense...walking upright is hard. Running upright is harder.

jonnyboy316 · November 22, 2017

So we lose our only player that has shown any form this season

Pabbers · November 22, 2017

Had that been an RS player getting done we would be loving it.

It was a dive, we got a pen...lets just get on with it and move on.

Lord Buckethead · November 22, 2017

Pabbers said:
Had that been an RS player getting done we would be loving it.

It was a dive, we got a pen...lets just get on with it and move on.

I'd actually prefer not to have to watch two games without with even less of a goal threat up front.

Pabbers · November 22, 2017

Lord Buckethead said:
I'd actually prefer not to have to watch two games without with even less of a goal threat up front.

Its not about that, its about accepting his cheating gained us an advantage. It did.

twoblue · November 22, 2017

Surely we can show his clips from his first seasonas evidence that he capable of falling to ground whenever the ball is at his feet...
How times have changed

Lord Buckethead · November 22, 2017

Pabbers said:
Its not about that, its about accepting his cheating gained us an advantage. It did.

Not saying he didn't.
Other teams do it every week, they score offside goals every week too. They aren't effectively banned from having an attacking threat for two matches.

Yet we are chosen to test the FA's new rules. Any other team would have a reserve striker chomping at the bit to take advantage and bang some in (not the FA's fault, but they will be aware of it).

The FA have just nullified whatever slim chance we had of getting some points for two games. Hardly a fitting punishment for testing for a new law that only seems to apply to us.

Florin · November 22, 2017

At least someone is defending him in the media; https://deadspin.com/oumar-niasse-hit-with-bullshit-diving-charge-1820641799

Mikey_Fitzgerald · November 22, 2017

Hopefully the appeal will buy him time so he can at least play on Sunday

We can't afford to lose that with them being just a point above us

CRIMHEAD · November 22, 2017

It's not a dive and I'm not sure why this is even a debate. There was clear obstruction. There was contact. Should it have been a penalty? Maybe not. But he didn't dive. Going down easily and even embellishing contact is not a dive. Not something anyone should be proud of either, but not a dive.

Going down with no contact is a dive. It happens at least 4 or 5 times every week in the EPL. To single out Oumar is just gutless.

Sy- · November 22, 2017

Lord Buckethead said:
Not saying he didn't.
Other teams do it every week, they score offside goals every week too. They aren't effectively banned from having an attacking threat for two matches.

Yet we are chosen to test the FA's new rules. Any other team would have a reserve striker chomping at the bit to take advantage and bang some in (not the FA's fault, but they will be aware of it).

The FA have just nullified whatever slim chance we had of getting some points for two games. Hardly a fitting punishment for testing for a new law that only seems to apply to us.

Let's not forget the BS set of fixtures we were given to start the season knowing full well we had Europa qualifying and group stage to contend with.

Sorry to get all tin foil hat, but things are starting to stink.

Tree13 · November 22, 2017

CRIMHEAD said:
It's not a dive and I'm not sure why this is even a debate. There was clear obstruction. There was contact. Should it have been a penalty? Maybe not. But he didn't dive. Going down easily and even embellishing contact is not a dive. Not something anyone should be proud of either, but not a dive.

Going down with no contact is a dive. It happens at least 4 or 5 times every week in the EPL. To single out Oumar is just gutless.

This, 100%.

The contact is clear and beyond any argument.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see if this sets a benchmark for acceptable contact by defenders from now on.

Lord Buckethead · November 22, 2017

CRIMHEAD said:
It's not a dive and I'm not sure why this is even a debate. There was clear obstruction. There was contact. Should it have been a penalty? Maybe not. But he didn't dive. Going down easily and even embellishing contact is not a dive. Not something anyone should be proud of either, but not a dive.

Going down with no contact is a dive. It happens at least 4 or 5 times every week in the EPL. To single out Oumar is just gutless.

The only thing against that would be they have stated there is a camera angle that shows categorically that there is no contact.
I'm sure we'd all like to see that.