FA to approve retrospective action for diving

[McTavish]

it's the he was touched/ there was contact brigade that do my head in.... therefore its a pen or a foul.... bloody rubbish.

Yep.."he's entitled to go down." NO HE'S NOT!
or the Alan Shearer special: "Well if the ref hasn't given a foul he has to book him for diving." UTTER BOLLOCKS!

 

[perseus]

Cheese Rolls

When clogged by a defender, you could be punished for diving out of the way. The FA acts;

A panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player will be asked to review all available video footage of the incident independently of one another and then advise The FA as to whether they believe it was an offence of ‘Successful Deception of a Match Official’. Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would The FA charge the individual concerned.

http://www.thefa.com/news/2017/may/18/fa-to-punish-simulation-retrospectively-180517

 

[Triggaaar]

Totally agree with Sam here, to be honest.

Funny that.

Palace have been penalized for diving on a few occasions in recent months and all of them have been incorrect decisions.

If you're correct then there'd be no retrospective action.

 

[ThePaddy]

If you're correct then there'd be no retrospective action.

They still get the yellow card though, as Sam says. If we're going to have punishments dished out retrospectively (which is fine) they should also remove incorrectly awarded yellow cards.

 

[Triggaaar]

They still get the yellow card though, as Sam says. If we're going to have punishments dished out retrospectively (which is fine) they should also remove incorrectly awarded yellow cards.

I'd actually like to see video replays for decisions as big as penalty appeals. But if we don't have those, it doesn't make it bad to separately try and stop diving. Both would be a good thing, whether brought in together, or one before the other.

Look at the video of Forestieri cheating, do you really not want things like that to be punished? Just having the rule in should stop things like that in most cases:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8INWgyWPGM

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I guess AK needs to watch out, as does Skalak.

We can't exactly talk when we have Knockaert.......

Skalak is worse for going to ground than Knockaert.

Well, indeed.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Totally agree with Sam here, to be honest. Palace have been penalized for diving on a few occasions in recent months and all of them have been incorrect decisions. Meanwhile, Andros Townsend dived against Arsenal and won the penalty which we scored to put the game to bed at 3-0. If we're going to have retrospective action, it should work both ways. If we had video referees for penalty decisions last season, Zaha would've won half a dozen more penalties than he actually did.



Referees were not kind at all to Palace in terms of awarding penalties last season. The amount of penalties mistakenly not awarded far outweighs the amount of penalties that shouldn't have been given. Fouls on Zaha in particular were constantly missed, see the 2-1 defeat at home to Swansea, the 4-2 defeat to Liverpool, or the 3-2 defeat to West Brom in which we were denied not one but two penalties in each. Games against Middlesborough, Burnley, Watford, etc. off the top of my head were also games in which referees missed blatant fouls in the box.

My only problem is I don't give a s##t what you think

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Where there is clear and overwhelming evidence to suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation, and as a direct result, the offending player’s team has been awarded a penalty and/or an opposing player has been dismissed, The FA will be able to act retrospectively under its Fast Track system.

I can entirely understand Big Sam's frustrations. There are more holes in this stupid scheme than your average colander. If it was a dive that won the free kick for Pocognoli to beautifully score at QPR, it wouldn't be reviewed retrospectively. How is that even close to fair? Either you review all incidents of deceiving the match official or none. Fed up with all this picking and choosing.

 

[drew]

Where there is clear and overwhelming evidence to suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation, and as a direct result, the offending player’s team has been awarded a penalty and/or an opposing player has been dismissed, The FA will be able to act retrospectively under its Fast Track system.

I can entirely understand Big Sam's frustrations. There are more holes in this stupid scheme than your average colander. If it was a dive that won the free kick for Pocognoli to beautifully score at QPR, it wouldn't be reviewed retrospectively. How is that even close to fair? Either you review all incidents of deceiving the match official or none. Fed up with all this picking and choosing.

SA is talking crap. There is nothing wrong with retrospective punishment for diving, it is far from utter rubbish. His beef is that there aren't other rules. One step at a time.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Just look at the examples from Scotland on the Beeb's website of players who were punished retrospectively for what is, to give it its proper name, cheating. If it helps get rid of that, then I don't see how it can be anything but a good thing. Even if it doesn't get rid of it, it at least metes out some kind of justice to the perpetrators. Allardyce against it? What a surprise from a man who acted as he did almost as soon as he became England manager.

 

[Weststander]

Bad news for Rashford and Zaha, and therefore a blow to their complicit managers.

Good for football.

Over time the blatant cheating will diminish and bans will be rare.

 

[Reagulls]

it's the he was touched/ there was contact brigade that do my head in.... therefore its a pen or a foul.... bloody rubbish.

put that with the infuriating " he had every right to go down then" w@ankers!

 

[Dick Head]

We can't exactly talk when we have Knockaert.......

I just don't think you understand.

 

[Weststander]

I just don't think you understand.

He only cost 2 mill.

 

[maltaseagull]

Totally agree with Sam here, to be honest. Palace have been penalized for diving on a few occasions in recent months and all of them have been incorrect decisions. Meanwhile, Andros Townsend dived against Arsenal and won the penalty which we scored to put the game to bed at 3-0. If we're going to have retrospective action, it should work both ways. If we had video referees for penalty decisions last season, Zaha would've won half a dozen more penalties than he actually did.



Referees were not kind at all to Palace in terms of awarding penalties last season. The amount of penalties mistakenly not awarded far outweighs the amount of penalties that shouldn't have been given. Fouls on Zaha in particular were constantly missed, see the 2-1 defeat at home to Swansea, the 4-2 defeat to Liverpool, or the 3-2 defeat to West Brom in which we were denied not one but two penalties in each. Games against Middlesborough, Burnley, Watford, etc. off the top of my head were also games in which referees missed blatant fouls in the box.

What goes around comes around then?

 

[dejavuatbtn]

This is a load of tosh.
If someone is found guilty of cheating retrospectively, fining/suspending them does nothing to help the aggrieved team. If the cheating resulted in the player's club gaining points, then they should forfeit these to the other side. This would then cause chaos.
The only way to deal with this is instatnt video replays and immediate action to identify if the player cheated or not. If they are guilty then it is an immediate sending off.
What does need sorting out though is "whatconstitutes cheating". I have seen loads of examples where players have jumped to avoid being clattered, or have slipped over, or tripped over there own feet when it was clear that it was accidental.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

If we're going to have retrospective action, it should work both ways.

Be nice if it applied both ways to the cheats who don't pay their bills and, at the expense of other teams who are not benefiting by going into administration every couple of years, attaining higher league status than that which is deserved. But I expect that you only approve of justice if it benefits your appalling club.

 

[Berty23]

I'd actually like to see video replays for decisions as big as penalty appeals. But if we don't have those, it doesn't make it bad to separately try and stop diving. Both would be a good thing, whether brought in together, or one before the other.

Look at the video of Forestieri cheating, do you really not want things like that to be punished? Just having the rule in should stop things like that in most cases:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8INWgyWPGM

That clip should have led to a 10 game ban. He fouled him and then pushed him and got him sent off when all he did was get up. Amazing.

 

[drew]

This is a load of tosh.
If someone is found guilty of cheating retrospectively, fining/suspending them does nothing to help the aggrieved team. If the cheating resulted in the player's club gaining points, then they should forfeit these to the other side. This would then cause chaos.
The only way to deal with this is instatnt video replays and immediate action to identify if the player cheated or not. If they are guilty then it is an immediate sending off.
What does need sorting out though is "whatconstitutes cheating". I have seen loads of examples where players have jumped to avoid being clattered, or have slipped over, or tripped over there own feet when it was clear that it was accidental.

It probably will never be perfect but what I think the FA should do is ban players for at least 5 games, possibly more. Then, in time, players will not be inclined to do it. As for you last sentence, if a player goes down to avoid a tackle or has slipped then surely a simple gesture to the ref to confirm they are not seeking an advantage then problem solved.

 

[rocker959]

It probably will never be perfect but what I think the FA should do is ban players for at least 5 games, possibly more. Then, in time, players will not be inclined to do it. As for you last sentence, if a player goes down to avoid a tackle or has slipped then surely a simple gesture to the ref to confirm they are not seeking an advantage then problem solved.

Agreed