2017/18 Oumar Niasse

[kenada_blue]

Can't see it stopping diving to be fair.

If it's a must win game, you either dive in the box and win a pen. Score. Win the game. Or dive, get booked.

You'd take a 2 game ban if your team won on the back if it wouldn't you?

 

[Lanolin]

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.

Not really. The deception can only be applied to the job the referee has to do, not his personal feelings - his job is to decide whether you have been fouled, not to decide how hurt you were by it. If you were fouled, he gives the penalty/free kick and hasn't been deceived. He might feel like a mug when he realises there was less contact than he thought, but the supposed deception is immaterial to whether or not the correct decision was reached.

Again, I don't dispute at all that Niasse made the most of the contact and 9/10 times you don't get the pen. But by the letter of the law, it's not an incorrect decision.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jeff Jones]

See once you agree he went down easily that is simulation

That'd be OK if the referees always interpreted it that way and applied it, but they don't. We're constantly told that if there
is contact a player is entitled to go down. In Niasse's situation the ref' couldn't have seen the arm across his chest and wouldn't
have given the foul/penalty. The fact that he exaggerated the effect of the foul meant that the correct decision was made.

Again, to the naysayers, it was a foul. Soft, but still a foul.

 

[Jeff Jones]

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

It's far from unanimous.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Yet referees were advising that players go down under contact not so long back. Make your minds up.

 

[d34noj]

I think Kenwright has packed his AK47, ready for the meeting !

I thought we only had knives for gunfights?

 

[Khalekan]

Matters not whether an actual foul occurred - you can be fouled AND deceive the ref at the same time.

So how does that work, then?

You "deceive" him and that means he makes the correct decision?

Sounds like Kumar actually helped the ref there

 

[billyblue80]

A yellow card if it's seen a two match ban if it isn't or the supposed wrong decision is?Total balls of a rule

 

[jceverton]

Not really. The deception can only be applied to the job the referee has to do, not his personal feelings - his job is to decide whether you have been fouled, not to decide how hurt you were by it. If you were fouled, he gives the penalty/free kick and hasn't been deceived. He might feel like a mug when he realises there was less contact than he thought, but the supposed deception is immaterial to whether or not the correct decision was reached.

Again, I don't dispute at all that Niasse made the most of the contact and 9/10 times you don't get the pen. But by the letter of the law, it's not an incorrect decision.

My understanding is that a foul can be committed by either:-

1. Impeding an opponent with contact. If this is in the penalty box then its a penalty.
2. Impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made. In which case this is an indirect free kick.

Either one of these is a foul. The wording given by the FA on their site says cautions for unsporting behaviour are given if the player attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation).

So we are in very murky waters here, a foul has been committed but the FA are effectively stating that no foul has been committed because by their own words they are saying you can only deceive a referee by pretending to have been fouled. Logically you would think that they have to start from the basis that has a foul been committed i.e. has Niasee been impeded by an opponent. Hard to argue that he has wasn't impeded if you look at the video.

 

[jceverton]

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.

I don't think that is correct the you have to deceive the referee by pretending to have been fouled when you haven't. In other words if there was no foul then you have deceived the ref, if there was a foul then no deception.

 

[Khalekan]

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.

Not only that.....the F.A. is becoming increasingly overshadowed by the Premier League so they are trying hard to say “look at us, look at us” in an attempt to seem still relevant.

As others have pointed out, players in the Championship have already been cited and suspended under this rule from the F.A.

But hardly anyone outside the clubs concerned either knew about it or cared about it

Different matter when an EPL club is involved, though.

 

[Brendan Janus]

I thought we only had knives for gunfights?

Kenwright has printed off his route the The O.K. Corral

 

[terraloon]

How many are 'guilty' every week then?

On the basis that on average only two penalties are awarded in the PL each weekend not many

That'd be OK if the referees always interpreted it that way and applied it, but they don't. We're constantly told that if there
is contact a player is entitled to go down. In Niasse's situation the ref' couldn't have seen the arm across his chest and wouldn't
have given the foul/penalty. The fact that he exaggerated the effect of the foul meant that the correct decision was made.

Again, to the naysayers, it was a foul. Soft, but still a foul.

Ex pros do indeed talk about being entitled to go down but my point is that poster after poster on here have said he went down easily that suggests to me that most agree he made a meal of it or in your words exaggerated the effect and that falls full and squarely in the simulation box.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

That'd be OK if the referees always interpreted it that way and applied it, but they don't. We're constantly told that if there
is contact a player is entitled to go down. In Niasse's situation the ref' couldn't have seen the arm across his chest and wouldn't
have given the foul/penalty. The fact that he exaggerated the effect of the foul meant that the correct decision was made.

Again, to the naysayers, it was a foul. Soft, but still a foul.

This. 100%.

If you are fouled at any time, you pretty much have a choice to try and stay up and maintain the advantage or go down and accept the kick. He could've fought through the obstruction, instead he went down. He wanted the kick. Did he exaggerate the contact? Sure.

But again, that's not what simulation is or what a dive is. He didn't fake the obstruction. He was indeed obstructed.

Look, if we are seriously going to not just punish simulation, but punish guys going to ground and rolling around like they are dead from minor contact, that's terrific. Would love it. Not sure how, as it's pretty subjective, but that's AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. That's not a dive or simulation.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

On the basis that on average only two penalties are awarded in the PL each weekend not many


Ex pros do indeed talk about being entitled to go down but my point is that poster after poster on here have said he went down easily that suggests to me that most agree he made a meal of it or in your words exaggerated the effect and that falls full and squarely in the simulation box.

No. That's not simulation. FIFA defines simulation as "feigning injury" or "pretending to have been fouled". FA language is almost exactly the same.

So again, he didn't feign injury, he didn't pretend to be fouled. He fell to ground. Even under the FIFA rules it clearly states the proper response for a ref if the player falls is "NO ACTION". So even the FIFA rules say it's FINE to fall.