2017/18 Oumar Niasse

[davek]

The panel was chaired by Stuart Ripley.
Plus:
"For a panel member to conclude that simulation has occurred they must conclude that there is clear and overwhelming evidence.

In judging these incidents, there are five key questions that should be considered in the decision-making process.

To identify whether an act of simulation has occurred, the following should be considered:

1. Is there contact between the players involved? Simulation is more likely in cases where a player attempts to deceive the referee when no contact occurred between the players.

2. Is there fair/normal contact between the players, resulting in no offence being committed?

3. Is a player legitimately avoiding contact with his opponent to prevent injury?

4. Has the player initiated the contact between his opponent and himself in order to deceive the referee?

5. Does the player exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee?"

So basically EVERY penalty can either be read as a dive or legitimate.

That's cleared that one up then.

FFS why dont these nobheads stick to what they're good at: racism and taking bungs.

 

[Khalekan]

Not even letting him eat with everyone else? Seems like fat head went specifically out of his way to embarrass and alienate the poor guy. Even if Koeman thought Niasse was the worst player he had ever set eyes on there's no need to actively bully someone who's just trying to succeed in what he wants to do

Mind you, his teammates should have stood up forbhim overvthat eating nonsense, particularly the club captain.

Jags should have called Gordon Taylor in.

 

[macst]

So basically EVERY penalty can either be read as a dive or legitimate.

That's cleared that one up then.

FFS why dont these nobheads stick to what they're good at: racism and taking bungs.

Yep, we're literally in a scenario now that whenever we (or any other team, one would hope...) wins a penalty, we/they could be hit with a charge two days later because three people decide that it wasn't "normal contact".

 

[Khalekan]

Yep, we're literally in a scenario now that whenever we (or any other team, one would hope...) wins a penalty, we/they could be hit with a charge two days later because three people decide that it wasn't "normal contact".

Yes.....there is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened here.

Say a fellow is not fouled and does not claim a penalty but the referee mistakenly blows and awards one anyway.

What happens then?

If the fellow whom was awarded the penalty just accepts it then is he to be deemed as having tried to "fool the referee" by not going over and telling the ref he is mistaken?

 

[Berenger]

The panel have cleared it up. It's about 'exaggerating normal contact'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42113397

So whenever anyone exaggerates normal contact, they will get a two-game ban.

Right?

 

[macst]

Yes.....there is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened here.

Say a fellow is not fouled and does not claim a penalty but the referee mistakenly blows and awards one anyway.

What happens then?

If the fellow whom was awarded the penalty just accepts it then is he to be deemed as having tried to "fool the referee" by not going over and telling the ref he is mistaken?

I may be wrong but that's pretty much what happened with Niasse, is it not? He hadn't even had time to appeal before Taylor blew for the penalty. Hardly like we had ten men surrounding the ref, like some teams do...

 

[MikeH72]

Mind you, his teammates should have stood up forbhim overvthat eating nonsense, particularly the club captain.

Jags should have called Gordon Taylor in.

LOL. Imagine that jellyfish standing up for anyone.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Yes.....there is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened here.

Say a fellow is not fouled and does not claim a penalty but the referee mistakenly blows and awards one anyway.

What happens then?

If the fellow whom was awarded the penalty just accepts it then is he to be deemed as having tried to "fool the referee" by not going over and telling the ref he is mistaken?

Robbie Fowler

 

[MikeH72]

Steven Gerrard would have only played 10 games a season if this exaggerated contact rule was around in the past.

 

[deipnosophist]

The panel have cleared it up. It's about 'exaggerating normal contact'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42113397

So whenever anyone exaggerates normal contact, they will get a two-game ban.

Right?

...that'll depend on who they play for

 

[Khalekan]

I may be wrong but that's pretty much what happened with Niasse, is it not? He hadn't even had time to appeal before Taylor blew for the penalty. Hardly like we had ten men surrounding the ref, like some teams do...

Well yes, pretty much....except he actually was fouled, however slightly

 

[Undisputed_blue]

Wrong analogy to make.

The direction of energy with both parties was in the same direction. Plus, Niasse isn't a piece of wood that is rebounding an elastic ball full of kinetic energy.

I find it amusing that with rugby players at full tilt, you need an act of god to get them to go to the floor, but put a football player in or around the penalty area and they suddenly go down when someone farts.

Niasse dived. End of story. He got caught and punished.

Move on.

Sorry, the actual analogy I was making was about how small forces can be magnified just like the Bruce Lee one inch punch. I remember injuring my neck while someone just gave me a small nudge in the back while playing football. I often used elements of Physics to improve my own sporting abilities while playing football and cricket. Perhaps this is the reason why I empathise more with Niasse and reject the simplistic notion that he actually dived. I looked at the video footage several times and there was nothing there to suggest he had dived.

Rugby players are different to footballers. They're physically more stouter compared to the more nimbler footballer with a lower centre of gravity. I'd say Niasse has a high centre of gravity as evidently he's unable to stay on his feet during play. And no both players was not heading in the same direction like you said in your previous post.

I won't move on as I feel Niasse is innocent and unfairly punished. He's become our most important player with his ability to score goals. As a true Everton support I'll defend him if he's been wronged, okay!

 

[davek]

Yep, we're literally in a scenario now that whenever we (or any other team, one would hope...) wins a penalty, we/they could be hit with a charge two days later because three people decide that it wasn't "normal contact".

Every decision can and will be skewed for the elite financially doped clubs.

What a step forward for the game.

Surely UEFA can step in here and slap this down as bringing the game into even more disrepute?

 

[terraloon]

The panel have cleared it up. It's about 'exaggerating normal contact'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42113397

So whenever anyone exaggerates normal contact, they will get a two-game ban.

Right?

No it’s only if a penalty is awarded.

 

[peteblue]

This weekend should be good with all blues fans identifying dives all over the shop and reporting them to the FA......