2017/18 Oumar Niasse

Status
Not open for further replies.
JLW said:
Ban him for diving like he should be and move on! He won’t do it again and I’m sure more players will think twice about doing it.
Click to expand...



I’d agree with this 100%, as long as they review all the other incidents this season & charge them the same.



Still though, they need to address the cause. There’s nothing in the rule book that says a player has to fall over for it to be a foul. So start giving the fouls, then players wouldn’t think they have to go down to get justice.



****the ones who go down untouched or actively trail a leg (ala Suarez) should be banned for 12 games a pop. That’s real cheating.
 

Pabbers said:
I look forward to you following those exact rules for our players also....you know, because we all want consistance.
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing the point.

I think Niasse made the most of the situation, no doubt in my mind that that is the case. What I take issue with is the idea that he can be banned for 2 games for - by the letter of the law - being fouled. He was impeded by Dann, that is an indisputable fact. Regardless of whether he hit the deck or not, and regardless of how many people say it was soft or my old favourite 'the game's gone', I do not see how the FA can decide to ban somebody in these circumstances.

Just to be clear, if they'd banned Tom Davies for diving against City (?) I'd have been absolutely fine with it, because he dived. I'm just totally confused as to how this panel has come to the conclusion that the first person to be punished for this offence should be someone who was actually touched.
 

Rudolf Hucker said:
I’d agree with this 100%, as long as they review all the other incidents this season & charge them the same.



Still though, they need to address the cause. There’s nothing in the rule book that says a player has to fall over for it to be a foul. So start giving the fouls, then players wouldn’t think they have to go down to get justice.



****the ones who go down untouched or actively trail a leg (ala Suarez) should be banned for 12 games a pop. That’s real cheating.
Click to expand...
This is a good point but it’s in them now (to go to ground) there’s not many honest players about no more which is sad really because these farts are ruining the game!! I do hate the shout “there was contact” so ‘kin what! it’s a contact sport, contact doesn’t mean a foul..
 
Rudolf Hucker said:
I don’t see a single post defending Niasse’s exaggeration or anyone defending diving. I’d say we’re 100% against diving.

The issue is why has the FA allowed numerous other examples to go, but charged Niasse? The club would be neglecting it's duty to the player not to contest that.
Click to expand...

This rule should be there for the cut and dry dives, the ones where the player has started to go down before contact is made or deliberately moved a leg over to hit a part of the opposition player to initiate a trip. (Not to mention the ones that have had no contact at all and just hit the deck - although when that happens to the RS a penalty is awarded for attempted fouling...)

There are far too many questions after this type of incident. How can you guage how much contact from a block is the right amount before going down? Will players in the same position next week just stay up even though the opposition player has obstructed and made contact they feel is enough for a pen? If he has been penalised for over-elaborate falling, does that mean when someone gets fouled but does the superman and rolls over 78 times can be charged if proven that much contact should have only made him land 2 feet away from the point of contact? Doesn't trying to get someone sent off by holding their face after being hit in the arm by an elbow etc. constitute an equally pivotal game changing moment of trying cheat the referee?
 
Last edited:
Khalekan said:
Define “cheating” though.

Never a game goes by where we don’t see defenders at corners sneakily grabbing hold of an attacker’s shirt and what should be a penalty is not given, such is the “quality” of the deception.

Or how about an attacker claiming, and being awarded, a corner knowing he was the last man to touch the ball and a goal resulting from the set piece?

Are those players not guilty of cheating?

They sure are.

This tribunal will need revolving doors and an evening shift if it is to be true to its remit :Blink:
Click to expand...

You are right that yes that constitutes cheating as does aging a yard or two at a free kick or throw in and so on.

Cheating in this context is clear. If after the awarding of a penalty or a player being sent off video evidence then, in the opinion of a The FA shows the player exaggerated a fall then the powers that be are empowered to take a second view of the incident and if in the opinion of a tribunal they agree a two match ban then follows

I am not quite sure why how you can suggest that the tribunal will need a revolving door for the other sort of incidents you talk about quite simply aren’t reviewed. It’s a whole different debate as to should they be but as here and now they aren’t.

I am truly amazed people are fixated almost believing that there is some sort of conspiracy aimed at Everton.
 

Was this their first diving decision? They could at least have pinged someone who took a dive without being touched.

Suarez did that in almost every match he played and I don't remember him ever getting pulled up for it.

Niasse was actually fouled, FGS. Soft, but still fouled.

Edit. If exaggerating a foul is worthy of a ban clubs will have difficulty fielding a team.
 
JLW said:
This is a good point but it’s in them now (to go to ground) there’s not many honest players about no more which is sad really because these farts are ruining the game!! I do hate the shout “there was contact” so ‘kin what! it’s a contact sport, contact doesn’t mean a foul..
Click to expand...
Oft repeated but not really true.

Football is what is usually termed in modern times as a 'limited contact sport'. That means that contact is more an incidental part of the game rather than a key component. You can touch a player and come shoulder to shoulder etc, but contact with an opponent is absolutely not something which is encouraged within the laws of the game, and is generally discouraged (unlike rugby, hurling, American football etc). If a player was 'impeded' by contact then it actually does mean a foul.

Don't get me wrong, I like my football frenetic and full blooded, but technically, players have every right to go down if another player impedes them.
 
larrygobfiend said:
No.

There's clearly been more blatant diving incidents in the league this season so people are well within their rights to question the decision.

He did go down easily, no doubt about it, but I still think it's subjective. How can anyone prove that it didn't knock him off his stride?

What happens next weekend when a player goes down like a sack of crap and there's inevitably no punishment? Should we just "get on with it and move on"?
Click to expand...

See once you agree he went down easily that is simulation
 
JLW said:
This is a good point but it’s in them now (to go to ground) there’s not many honest players about no more which is sad really because these farts are ruining the game!! I do hate the shout “there was contact” so ‘kin what! it’s a contact sport, contact doesn’t mean a foul..
Click to expand...


Agree 100%. Diving is ruining the game. It needs stamping out.

Players who dive without contact or initiate the contact, should be banned from the game.

When players feel they need to go down to get awarded a genuine foul, yes, they need to stop it, but the issue needs to be addressed.

Peter Crouch comes across as an honest bloke. He’s a high profile, England player etc.. why is he not being listened to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLW

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top