2017/18 Oumar Niasse

[terraloon]

Sound. It's not a dive.

Not quite sure how you come to that conclusion but hey all irrelevant

 

[gerryandtheRedhaters]

Who was on the panel?

 

[Efcjake]

Not quite sure how you come to that conclusion but hey all irrelevant

See the picture I've posted above mate. That's a foul. Contact with the player and no contact on the ball impeding the opposition.

 

[YorkshireBlue877]

How many are 'guilty' every week then?

Loads! Why poor Oumar is getting the firing squad after months of the rule being in place is a mystery.

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

That’s not what I said I said contact doesn’t constitute a foul.



What you are conviently ignoring or perhaps not factoring in is that from the penalty Everton equalised and Palace were denied two points.

What you are conveniently ignoring is reality. Say, for example, a penalty hadn't been given. Palace were only 1 goal up at the time, so what's to say that Everton couldn't have scored 2 goals and Palace no more, which would mean Everton get 3 points and Palace none. In a football match anything can happen.

 

[YorkshireBlue877]

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]
I don’t think that’s quite right. The charge relates to Niasse, not the ref; did Oumar try and deceive the Official? I my view yes - he was not pushed to the ground, he chose to fall over, with the intention of gaining a pen.

 

[terraloon]

See the picture I've posted above mate. That's a foul. Contact with the player and no contact on the ball impeding the opposition.

I’ve seen the picture and it does indeed show contact between players but for me there is without doubt exaggeration and by that definition constitutes simulation.

 

[blulouie]

What for?

The referee in his judgement thought it was a yellow, no penalty was given , no opposition player was dismissed.

2nd minute of the game !
If that was the 62nd minute
straight red the fella.
Vardy was away , Kompany last man.
Red all day long.

 

[Toffee Carl]

It was a dive. Simple as that and we’d be pissing ourselves if the kopites were trying to defend it. The problem for me is the lack of consistency with the rule.

 

[YorkshireBlue877]

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

True! To take an extreme and ridiculous example, say the ball rolled out and Oumar and Dann squared up to each other. Dann shoves Oumar in the chest, which would make him stumble - clearly a foul by Dann. Oumar then leaps gracefully five feet in the air and rolls 25 yards into the dugout, somehow deceiving the ref into giving Dann a red card. Oumar has been fouled, but his reaction comprises a deception. Obviously a ridiculous scenario, but the same principle.

 

[terraloon]

What you are conveniently ignoring is reality. Say, for example, a penalty hadn't been given. Palace were only 1 goal up at the time, so what's to say that Everton couldn't have scored 2 goals and Palace no more, which would mean Everton get 3 points and Palace none. In a football match anything can happen.

Ignoring reality?
The reality is a penalty was given and Everton equalised we know that for a fact. Everything you suggest we know didn’t happen

 

[Stuartisitc1878]

To date three have been punished under the rule change.

but banned?

 

[YorkshireBlue877]

Anyone saying he dived can put their apologies below. Ta x.

Definitely contact there - and if Oumar’s legs were made out of al dente spaghetti I could understand the tumble. However there’s no way he should be going down because some bloke touched him, therefore a dive.

 

[terraloon]

2nd minute of the game !
If that was the 62nd minute
straight red the fella.
Vardy was away , Kompany last man.
Red all day long.

Hey I agree he should have been given a straight red but the op was talking about retrospective action being taken my point was there are no grounds under current laws for such action to be considered

 

[gerryandtheRedhaters]

People are forgetting this is just a cop out for the premier league refs.

They will give more peno's for SKY6 knowing full well there buddies wont change the decision at the tribunal