Lower West Stander
Well-known member
Quite good for Wilf.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hasn't stopped the first wide-eyed double teapot though.
To be fair... he hasn't touched the ball yet.
Hasn't stopped the first wide-eyed double teapot though.
How did palace do by the way...?
He’s clever I’ll give him that. Goes down easily but rarely appeals so not to be booked. Gives the referee a marginal decision to make without asking for it
Should be banned from professional football now - it’s just silly. How did palace do by the way...? I was told when they beat Cardiff Boxing Day they’ll be above us in the table.......?
The problem is, every time you have pundits like those on MOTD saying there was only minimal contact and therefore the player has the right to go down / exaggerate it, and not condemning the player for exaggeration / cheating, then this will always continue.
In a physical sport where there will always be contact, we now have people and rules seeming saying any contact is now a foul and it's fine to fall over to highlight any (slight) contact even when they could easily have carry on without having lost possession from the (slight) contact they had received. Players are even being taught how to make the most of any contact and exaggerate this to try to win decisions from officials (which is why they are already falling before contact, dragging or sticking out a leg to create contact, etc)
It doesn't seem to matter to the Pundits / FA if the player was already falling over before the contact, or if the player deliberately left their leg there and looked to engineer the contact themselves, it's just that there is some contact and therefore a foul and that's the only part they seem interested in.
When we played Leicester and Maddison went down in the area and got red carded for a dive (2nd yellow) and he then justified the dive by saying that he anticipated contact which didn't come, but had there been even the slightest contact with a player, then they would have been awarded a penalty and the FA and the pundits will all have been saying that yes it was one because of that contact
The FA / PL don't help themselves either, for example, Salah's dive on Boxing day against Newcastle, where he is touched on the arm, yet falls over despite taking another step after being free of contact before even starting to fall - justifying why they are taking no action over this dive as well there was contact, so that's the important bit (not how they act afterwards) so no ban.
The only player i can recall being retrospectively banned was Evertons Niasse, who was pulled back more than Salah was and he won a penalty as he went to ground too but (i think) still under the same contact, where as Salah was free of contact when he started to fall down (both had the same sort of contact, both went to ground very easily, both's response to the contact was exaggerated and only one (a lesser name in the division playing for a less favourable club) gets a ban for their action
What they can't really come out and say is (but are probably thinking when deciding if it's acceptable for them to have done that or not is) that they are unwilling to call out a cheat or call for a ban to a 'star' player for cheating - most likely because they fear weakening the appeal for their product which is producing their revenue and has a large audience who are following these star players and losing them to a ban will lessen the appeal of their product and therefore affect their own income streams (hence why there is more of a big club bias in the outcome in a lot of their decisions) which is why rather than looking for the proper enforcement of the rules and preventing cheating in the sport, we have this instead where cheats are allowed to prosper
Some players will be remembered primarily for their footballing skills, some will be remembered primarily as a sicknote....
The problem is, every time you have pundits like those on MOTD saying there was only minimal contact and therefore the player has the right to go down / exaggerate it, and not condemning the player for exaggeration / cheating, then this will always continue.
In a physical sport where there will always be contact, we now have people and rules seeming saying any contact is now a foul and it's fine to fall over to highlight any (slight) contact even when they could easily have carry on without having lost possession from the (slight) contact they had received. Players are even being taught how to make the most of any contact and exaggerate this to try to win decisions from officials (which is why they are already falling before contact, dragging or sticking out a leg to create contact, etc)
It doesn't seem to matter to the Pundits / FA if the player was already falling over before the contact, or if the player deliberately left their leg there and looked to engineer the contact themselves, it's just that there is some contact and therefore a foul and that's the only part they seem interested in.
When we played Leicester and Maddison went down in the area and got red carded for a dive (2nd yellow) and he then justified the dive by saying that he anticipated contact which didn't come, but had there been even the slightest contact with a player, then they would have been awarded a penalty and the FA and the pundits will all have been saying that yes it was one because of that contact
The FA / PL don't help themselves either, for example, Salah's dive on Boxing day against Newcastle, where he is touched on the arm, yet falls over despite taking another step after being free of contact before even starting to fall - justifying why they are taking no action over this dive as well there was contact, so that's the important bit (not how they act afterwards) so no ban.
The only player i can recall being retrospectively banned was Evertons Niasse, who was pulled back more than Salah was and he won a penalty as he went to ground too but (i think) still under the same contact, where as Salah was free of contact when he started to fall down (both had the same sort of contact, both went to ground very easily, both's response to the contact was exaggerated and only one (a lesser name in the division playing for a less favourable club) gets a ban for their action
What they can't really come out and say is (but are probably thinking when deciding if it's acceptable for them to have done that or not is) that they are unwilling to call out a cheat or call for a ban to a 'star' player for cheating - most likely because they fear weakening the appeal for their product which is producing their revenue and has a large audience who are following these star players and losing them to a ban will lessen the appeal of their product and therefore affect their own income streams (hence why there is more of a big club bias in the outcome in a lot of their decisions) which is why rather than looking for the proper enforcement of the rules and preventing cheating in the sport, we have this instead where cheats are allowed to prosper
The problem is, every time you have pundits like those on MOTD saying there was only minimal contact and therefore the player has the right to go down / exaggerate it, and not condemning the player for exaggeration / cheating, then this will always continue.
In a physical sport where there will always be contact, we now have people and rules seeming saying any contact is now a foul and it's fine to fall over to highlight any (slight) contact even when they could easily have carry on without having lost possession from the (slight) contact they had received. Players are even being taught how to make the most of any contact and exaggerate this to try to win decisions from officials (which is why they are already falling before contact, dragging or sticking out a leg to create contact, etc)
It doesn't seem to matter to the Pundits / FA if the player was already falling over before the contact, or if the player deliberately left their leg there and looked to engineer the contact themselves, it's just that there is some contact and therefore a foul and that's the only part they seem interested in.
When we played Leicester and Maddison went down in the area and got red carded for a dive (2nd yellow) and he then justified the dive by saying that he anticipated contact which didn't come, but had there been even the slightest contact with a player, then they would have been awarded a penalty and the FA and the pundits will all have been saying that yes it was one because of that contact
The FA / PL don't help themselves either, for example, Salah's dive on Boxing day against Newcastle, where he is touched on the arm, yet falls over despite taking another step after being free of contact before even starting to fall - justifying why they are taking no action over this dive as well there was contact, so that's the important bit (not how they act afterwards) so no ban.
The only player i can recall being retrospectively banned was Evertons Niasse, who was pulled back more than Salah was and he won a penalty as he went to ground too but (i think) still under the same contact, where as Salah was free of contact when he started to fall down (both had the same sort of contact, both went to ground very easily, both's response to the contact was exaggerated and only one (a lesser name in the division playing for a less favourable club) gets a ban for their action
What they can't really come out and say is (but are probably thinking when deciding if it's acceptable for them to have done that or not is) that they are unwilling to call out a cheat or call for a ban to a 'star' player for cheating - most likely because they fear weakening the appeal for their product which is producing their revenue and has a large audience who are following these star players and losing them to a ban will lessen the appeal of their product and therefore affect their own income streams (hence why there is more of a big club bias in the outcome in a lot of their decisions) which is why rather than looking for the proper enforcement of the rules and preventing cheating in the sport, we have this instead where cheats are allowed to prosper