Niasse Dive
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
chateauferret  21 Nov 17 11.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
I can't see how three experts could look at that and say he didn't dive. Are they allowed to take his remarks into account? The attitude they betray is surely deserving of a ban. Pity they don't have the powers to make an example of him.
============ |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Den1923 21 Nov 17 11.39am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Bullhorn76
Good !! Cheating little get has been done , so really now the penalty should be stricken from the record hence us being awarded all three points ....... of course it won’t happen but it bloody well should ! yes I agree, its all well and good that he has been charged and will get a ban if proven, but the fact is we have been robbed of two points, there should be some mechanism that allows the goal to be be cancelled or match to be replayed!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
MikeCrete  Crete 21 Nov 17 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Sue the cheat,& the FA; forcing the authorities to be liable to a financial penalty when the ref makes a really wrong decision will bring about video assistance for ref's far sooner than anything else. Palace don't get anything out of his being charged, should award us the match 2-1.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Lyons550  Shirley 21 Nov 17 11.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
How long before calls for goals to be chalked off in these specific instances? 3 points please FA!! NOW
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| lefty27 ipswich 21 Nov 17 12.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Whilst I am happy he has been charged I cannot see how it benefits us. We still dropped 2 points due to the penalty and his ban will be served against teams that we are close to...West Ham and Southampton, not really compensation for us.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Southampton_Eagle At the after party 21 Nov 17 12.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by lefty27
Whilst I am happy he has been charged I cannot see how it benefits us. We still dropped 2 points due to the penalty and his ban will be served against teams that we are close to...West Ham and Southampton, not really compensation for us. Apart from he won't be on the pitch to win penalties and score goals? Everton are as close to us as they arw. Edited by Southampton_Eagle (21 Nov 2017 12.23pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Southampton_Eagle At the after party 21 Nov 17 12.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Den1923
yes I agree, its all well and good that he has been charged and will get a ban if proven, but the fact is we have been robbed of two points, there should be some mechanism that allows the goal to be be cancelled or match to be replayed! How would you feel if we lost the replayed game?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chateauferret 21 Nov 17 12.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Southampton_Eagle
How would you feel if we lost the replayed game? Money makes little difference to these people and suspending someone for a couple of games only makes a difference to clubs with less squad depth, i.e. less money. Guess who benefits from that arrangement. My own view is that a cheat should forfeit the game, i.e. the result is declared 3 - 0 against the cheating side (unless they actually lost by more than that), as if they hadn't turned up. That would put a stop to it pretty damn fast. Won't happen of course because nobody really wants results being open to question after the final whistle has gone. Anyway it would have affected the game in progress: if we all thought Niasse was going to forfeit the match for a dive he committed in the sixth minute, why would either side bother to play football for the remaining eighty-four minutes? So the only practicable answer is to make sure these decisions are given correctly on the field at the time and that means VAR with bells on. As for the existing arrangements, if they find him guilty (as they should) he will be suspended from matches against Wet Spam and Southampton, which is actually further to our detriment. Ridiculous. Edited by chateauferret (21 Nov 2017 12.38pm)
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Nobbybm Dartford 21 Nov 17 1.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chateauferret
Money makes little difference to these people and suspending someone for a couple of games only makes a difference to clubs with less squad depth, i.e. less money. Guess who benefits from that arrangement. My own view is that a cheat should forfeit the game, i.e. the result is declared 3 - 0 against the cheating side (unless they actually lost by more than that), as if they hadn't turned up. That would put a stop to it pretty damn fast. Won't happen of course because nobody really wants results being open to question after the final whistle has gone. Anyway it would have affected the game in progress: if we all thought Niasse was going to forfeit the match for a dive he committed in the sixth minute, why would either side bother to play football for the remaining eighty-four minutes? So the only practicable answer is to make sure these decisions are given correctly on the field at the time and that means VAR with bells on. As for the existing arrangements, if they find him guilty (as they should) he will be suspended from matches against Wet Spam and Southampton, which is actually further to our detriment. Ridiculous. Edited by chateauferret (21 Nov 2017 12.38pm) And therein lies the problem with the new rule. I think it was , like many others, intended to stop players diving as there were now consequences to their actions (unlike perviously). The issue is the potential punishment seems insufficient and, as you say, potentially to the detriment of the side on the receiving end. It needs to be more punitive & fines don't seem to work (the bigger clubs would barely notice & the players seem unbothered) so maybe a points deduction would be better. I reckon if there was a a single point deduction from the offending team it would make a difference at both ends of the table & if that point was then awarded to the other team it would be a double whammy. Then again, would the FA have the bottle to even try it....
Will this be five? It's gonna be five! It IS five! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| PA Bedfordshire 21 Nov 17 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The only ones to benefit from him being charged will be West Ham and Southampton as Everton will be weakened against them if he gets a ban. Kind of a double penalty for Palace really!! We suffer the consequences of the crime and our rivals benefit from the punishment given out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 21 Nov 17 1.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
So when do Everton get a point deducted and we get the other two we should've had? and get the +2 on our goal difference.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Aolcpfc Finchley, London 21 Nov 17 1.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Would it work better if he were banned from his next two Premier League games against us? Obviously that wouldn't work if he were sold before his next two games against us, but it could work better for us than his being banned for his next two prem. games, especially if W Ham were to beat Everton in Niasse's absence Would a two game ban be a ban from premiership games only, or does it include FA Cup and League Cup games? If it's the latter types of game (i.e. not prem. games), then a two game ban could be of minimal impact to Everton's (top six?) aspirations.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.