2017/18 Oumar Niasse

[YorkshireBlue877]

It doesn’t really matter whether there was any contact or even whether Oumar was actually fouled; he’s been charged with deception of an official. If he deliberately went to ground, even under contact, with the aim of deceiving the ref then he’s guilty. As much as I like Oumar he clearly went to ground when he didn’t need to (unless he’s made of paper) and his purpose must’ve been to ‘win’ a penalty. Guilty in my view.

 

[tim cahill]

See once you agree he went down easily that is simulation

He was just trying to help the referee make the right decision.

 

[Lanolin]

It doesn’t really matter whether there was any contact or even whether Oumar was actually fouled; he’s been charged with deception of an official. If he deliberately went to ground, even under contact, with the aim of deceiving the ref then he’s guilty. As much as I like Oumar he clearly went to ground when he didn’t need to (unless he’s made of paper) and his purpose must’ve been to ‘win’ a penalty. Guilty in my view.

But what is the deception there? The foul would be the contact, therefore the fall would be incidental and irrelevant to the decision. We know it doesn't work like that, but the laws say it should, therefore it is not possible to prove deception. It's really very simple.

 

[JLW]

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.

So when a defender is shielding the ball from an attacker to slowly run out for a goal kick that’s a foul?
Or when defenders are blocking runs or slightly tugging shirts during a corner that’s a foul??

I don’t see how you separate contact and impeded?? Too many grey areas which leads to inconsistency

 

[YorkshireBlue877]

But what is the deception there? The foul would be the contact, therefore the fall would be incidental and irrelevant to the decision. We know it doesn't work like that, but the laws say it should, therefore it is not possible to prove deception. It's really very simple.

The deception is Oumar deliberately falling over. If we accept that because of the defender’s arm across his chest he was unavoidably forced to the ground (or I suppose that he genuinely tripped over his own gangly legs) then clearly there is no deception. However that arm lightly grazed his chest and I can’t accept that he genuinely tripped. Oumar therefore deliberately went to ground in order to gain an advantage, hence the deception. Matters not whether an actual foul occurred - you can be fouled AND deceive the ref at the same time.

 

[Khalekan]

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.


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.

And that is the point in a nutshell.

Conning the referee into awarding a penalty (which Omar most assuredly did not do anyway) is every bit as potentially game changing as conning a referee into not awarding one.

I hope you agree with that.

So if these “anti-conning the ref” rules are to be applied rigidly then not only will the F.A. need a revolving door and round the clock shifts, they will need to take on more staff.

I agree with you about Everton not being the victim of a conspiracy though.

Even if I am wondering why they have chosen the Oumar incident to start the EPL ball rolling when there have been much more blatant cases recently because it mystifies me

 

[Blues Harp]

I blame koeman....

 

[Lanolin]

So when a defender is shielding the ball from an attacker to slowly run out for a goal kick that’s a foul?
Or when defenders are blocking runs or slightly tugging shirts during a corner that’s a foul??

I don’t see how you separate contact and impeded?? Too many grey areas which leads to inconsistency

Yes! Indisputably, unequivocally, yes.

They don't get given, but by the laws of the game they are fouls. People get confused between what they want the laws to be and what they actually are. The first one there is actually a real pet hate of mine, I would blow every time as an official, but it's become an accepted part of the game, along with going down with minimal contact and foul throws.

 

[JLW]

Yes! Indisputably, unequivocally, yes.

They don't get given, but by the laws of the game they are fouls. People get confused between what they want the laws to be and what they actually are. The first one there is actually a real pet hate of mine, I would blow every time as an official, but it's become an accepted part of the game, along with going down with minimal contact and foul throws.

Yes my first point does my head in as well!

 

[SiEdmo]

isn't it amazing after everything, and testament to Oumar, that we are furious he is potentially going to miss 2 games, a year ago this would be celebrated, but now we have like 50 pages of people furious (at the situation aswell, not just because its Oumar, but still)

 

[terraloon]

Yes! Indisputably, unequivocally, yes.

They don't get given, but by the laws of the game they are fouls. People get confused between what they want the laws to be and what they actually are. The first one there is actually a real pet hate of mine, I would blow every time as an official, but it's become an accepted part of the game, along with going down with minimal contact and foul throws.

The first isn’t a foul if he shields a ball which is within playing distance.

The second isn’t a foul either until the corner is taken. The laws and FIFA directives make mention of these situations

 

[Prevenger17]

What alternate dimension are we in that GOT is almost unanimously going to bat for Oumar Niasse

 

[billyblue80]

You know he's getting the ban. The FA driven by pundits who justify exaggerated falls due to 'contact', every week. This wasnt the worst example by a long chalk he was contacted and blocked he went down quite easily but he didn't appeal. It's madness that this is the incident they chose and probably due to a combination of Palace moaning and MOTD/Sky witch hunt. There's no consistency or rhyme or reason to him being the first to be charged, Mane dives, Ali dives and Aguero all more blatantly but I guarantee the Prince is the first and last this season.

 

[billyblue80]

It doesn’t really matter whether there was any contact or even whether Oumar was actually fouled; he’s been charged with deception of an official. If he deliberately went to ground, even under contact, with the aim of deceiving the ref then he’s guilty. As much as I like Oumar he clearly went to ground when he didn’t need to (unless he’s made of paper) and his purpose must’ve been to ‘win’ a penalty. Guilty in my view.

How many are 'guilty' every week then?

 

[Lanolin]

The first isn’t a foul if he shields a ball which is within playing distance.

The second isn’t a foul either until the corner is taken. The laws and FIFA directives make mention of these situations

1. With three important caveats; firstly that the player does not hold off the opponent with their body (ie you can stand over the ball and not play it, but you can't do what most defenders do and put your arms out to make yourself a bigger barrier while simultaneously leaning backwards to hold off the opponent), secondly that you can only hold your position (so you can't do what most defenders do and initially run across the attacker's path before then changing direction to hold them off) and thirdly that the attacking player has the right to 'charge' the defender by using their body to remove the barrier (which always gets given as a foul).

2. Obviously, I thought that was a given.