I actually think that's quite harsh. He went down easily but he was blocked off and there was contact with his chest. Feels like the decision was made to show that the new committee has teeth, but if we're going to start banning players for making a meal of a dodgy challenge then there's going to be about four players not suspended every game.
I actually think that's quite harsh. He went down easily but he was blocked off and there was contact with his chest. Feels like the decision was made to show that the new committee has teeth, but if we're going to start banning players for making a meal of a dodgy challenge then there's going to be about four players not suspended every game.
If that is a two game ban then multiple players for every single team in every single game this weekend should get banned too as it is not as if there is no contact at all, Niasse just does what hundreds of other players do, makes the most of a situation to give the ref a decision to make.
Either deal with the problem or don't but this half hearted we will ban a player when one "dive" is chosen by the press every so many games to make a bigger deal of then all the other similar incidents up and down the country makes the entire process laughable.
If the ref had seen it as a dive he would have got a yellow card. But because the ref wasn't able to spot it he gets a two match ban. Much as I hate diving that doesn't seem fair.
If the ref had seen it as a dive he would have got a yellow card. But because the ref wasn't able to spot it he gets a two match ban. Much as I hate diving that doesn't seem fair.
That's not quite how the rule is supposed to be perceived, I think. If you get caught in the act, it's a yellow (and the end of that player's diving antics for the rest of the game, presumably).
On this occasion, the player successfully conned the ref and earned his team a goal, which affected the result. If his comeuppance was to get a retrospective yellow, his manager would probably pay the £20 quid fine and buy the player a new house. So in order to try and stop players from successfully conning the ref, they need to be banned for at least a game.
Where retrospective action could be taken: Where an alleged act leads to a penalty Where an alleged act leads to a straight red card for an opponent Where an alleged act leads to a dismissal of an opponent [where the alleged act led to the opponent receiving either one of the two cautions]
Just seen this on the BBC , I wonder, who could Woy possibly be looking to protect from future action???
We have already mentioned about Roy Hodgson's reaction to Everton striker Oumar Niasse's two-game ban for diving, but the ex-England boss is cautious about banning people for 'simulation'.
"You have to be very careful of diving as there are situations where the dive is less pronounced than others," said the Palace manager.
"There are ones when players lose their balance but it is not a penalty and the player has not dived so we have to be careful. The sympathy has to be with the referee."
Comments
2 match ban, will miss matches against Soton and West Ham
didnt he used to manage Andy Johnson? Did he close his fucking eyes during their matches?
Either deal with the problem or don't but this half hearted we will ban a player when one "dive" is chosen by the press every so many games to make a bigger deal of then all the other similar incidents up and down the country makes the entire process laughable.
On this occasion, the player successfully conned the ref and earned his team a goal, which affected the result. If his comeuppance was to get a retrospective yellow, his manager would probably pay the £20 quid fine and buy the player a new house. So in order to try and stop players from successfully conning the ref, they need to be banned for at least a game.
Where an alleged act leads to a penalty
Where an alleged act leads to a straight red card for an opponent
Where an alleged act leads to a dismissal of an opponent [where the alleged act led to the opponent receiving either one of the two cautions]