|
|
Post by cousindupree on Jan 17, 2017 12:44:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 12:59:45 GMT
'Burnley boss Sean Dyche believes diving would be eradicated from football "in six months" with retrospective bans'.
What he really means is 'Arsenal would be eradicated from football "in six months" with retrospective bans'.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheshirepotter on Jan 17, 2017 13:12:58 GMT
I really cant believe it's taken this long for them to consider this. The bans shouldn't be for the odd game either, for repeat offenders. Two games for a first offence, then keep doubling it to four for a second, then eight... The clubs will soon sort the players out.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Jan 17, 2017 13:14:41 GMT
Danny Rose must be cacking his pants
|
|
|
|
Post by BuzzB on Jan 17, 2017 13:18:46 GMT
I really cant believe it's taken this long for them to consider this. The bans shouldn't be for the odd game either, for repeat offenders. Two games for a first offence, then keep doubling it to four for a second, then eight... The clubs will soon sort the players out. ...just as Shaq was hitting some form too  ...... |
|
|
|
Post by tomcmod on Jan 17, 2017 13:19:20 GMT
Odds on a Stoke player being the first? Seeing as we are usually the guinea pigs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 13:21:13 GMT
With the BBC commentators screaming "Ooooooh there was contact!" at the slightest touch as if this was in any way relevant, it would just turn into the usual case of whoever the media favoured (the big 6 plus Everton) as to which players got banned.
Here's a little quiz : Think Frank Lampard playing for Chelsea, then think Victor Moses in a Stoke shirt, then put these sayings against the respective players name:
1. He Dived!
2. He had every right to go down.
If Tom Daley was wearing a United shirt they'd deny he was diving.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Jan 17, 2017 13:22:06 GMT
I would take the Bojan money and quick!!!!!! ideally before Karanka gets wind of this
|
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Jan 17, 2017 13:25:14 GMT
Odds on a Stoke player being the first? Seeing as we are usually the guinea pigs. No that wont be the case, they never announce it when they spring a rule change on us, they just do it and point the finger at Dirty, long ball, bad for the premier League Stoke, who deserve everything they get.......They then drop the rule change/experiment for the next game when Ashley Young dives in the box, citing it was a bad idea  |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 17, 2017 14:01:13 GMT
Officials will go on a fact-finding trip to Scotland, where retrospective bans are already used.
Why?
Have they not heard of telephones or video conferences or receiving reports by email
About time, can't remember the match at the weekend but there were 2 blatant dives which were waved away by the referee and no yellows were given at all
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 14:01:25 GMT
This is nothing new. The premier league was offered this a few seasons ago and it was turned down by the premier league managers.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiedan17 on Jan 17, 2017 15:57:46 GMT
It's all well and good until you have players who get contact go down and managers are saying he dived that is then scrutinesd and then you get into the debate of was there enough contact for him to go down ? It will turn into a shambles very quickly in my opinion.
Also will this be taking in to account bookings for simulation if it wasn't simulation ??
Let's say bojan is tripped by a player. Referee doesn't see it that clearly linesman is no help. Decides to book the player for simulation. With there being clear contact on the play from video evidence would that allow the yellow card to be retracted due to false allegation of simulation ??
|
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Jan 17, 2017 16:03:28 GMT
It's all well and good until you have players who get contact go down and managers are saying he dived that is then scrutinesd and then you get into the debate of was there enough contact for him to go down ? It will turn into a shambles very quickly in my opinion. If there is contact it shouldn't be considered a dive if they do a proper micah richards dolphin however |
|
|
|
Post by stokiedan17 on Jan 17, 2017 16:04:53 GMT
It's all well and good until you have players who get contact go down and managers are saying he dived that is then scrutinesd and then you get into the debate of was there enough contact for him to go down ? It will turn into a shambles very quickly in my opinion. If there is contact it shouldn't be considered a dive if they do a proper micah richards dolphin however I agree but will those making the rules?? Unless they leave as clear cut as no contact simulation has bans the rest is to be judged by the referee Just added some to the original post as well. |
|
|
|
Post by block23 on Jan 17, 2017 16:17:06 GMT
Officials will go on a fact-finding trip to Scotland, where retrospective bans are already used. Why? Have they not heard of telephones or video conferences or receiving reports by email About time, can't remember the match at the weekend but there were 2 blatant dives which were waved away by the referee and no yellows were given at all Shaq did a shocker on Saturday! |
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Jan 17, 2017 16:18:24 GMT
Very difficult to enforce and judge.
If suspensions are given out it can only be if the Official has issued a caution for diving (urgent conduct).
But then that is to the advantage of future opponents and not the team who have been offended against on the day.
The player or club could and should have the right to appeal. This could then end up becoming a farce.
On MOD last week end a Swansea player was cautioned for diving. After several viewings I am not sure if it was a penalty or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 17, 2017 16:40:01 GMT
This is the kind of thing that I can see really benefiting the big clubs. Wait for that top quality big club Greg Dyke logic (yes I know he's gone but he's still a great example), something along the lines of
"wellllllllllllllllllll" (sorry, Greg Dyke starts every sentence with welllllllllllllll)
"welllllllll, why would Alexis Sanchez dive, he's the best player in the Premier League and plays for a big club like Arsenal who don't need to cheat, no ban for Alexis. Well of course Diouf would take a dive to gain an advantage"
Promise you, if it's introduced, something similar to above will happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jan 17, 2017 16:47:25 GMT
Will players from the top clubs get treated the same has players who don't play for the top clubs?  |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 17, 2017 16:50:11 GMT
This is nothing new. The premier league was offered this a few seasons ago and it was turned down by the premier league managers. Turkeys being asked to vote for Christmas springs to mind. Fuck all to do with anybody but the rule makers imo. I would like to see more than retrospective punishment tbh. If a player has cheated and resulting free kick/ peno results directly in a goal scored then the goal should be scrubbed off. It would cause mayhem yes but what about a team that suffers relegation or elimination from a cup competition as a result of the goal. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 17, 2017 16:52:22 GMT
There needs to be a better definition of diving - the present one is too vague.
Obviously if a player throws himself on the floor without any contact, it's a dive. But what about when there is the slightest of contacts, when the game has always been a contact sport. I've heard Lineker say on MOTD that if a player is touched he is "entitled" to go down.
What about the clever trick of a player leaving a trailing leg to catch the late tacklers outstretched leg, so as to cause himself to "trip"? (Charlie does it all the time.) In such a case the "fouled" player has created the contact himself, like the very common trick of deliberately running into a player and claiming a foul, which I suspect Johnson did on Saturday.
My initial reaction to the proposal is it's a good thing, but the more I think about it I can see all sorts of problems. For example are refs going to let dives go and leave it to retrospective action? I think it is also another opportunity for bias towards the big clubs, like a lot of the "establishment" pundits said Vardy's red card wasn't a red card, and I can see the judging panel not determining dives against the likes of Rooney, Stirling, Alli, etc. "We can't be besmirching the stars of the game." Look how Rooney's disgraceful foul was not shown on MOTD. So I'm now in a quandary about the proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyonesirstan on Jan 17, 2017 17:10:15 GMT
What about pogba round the neck he other day? I know it's not diving, but it's just as serious
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 17, 2017 17:37:21 GMT
'Burnley boss Sean Dyche believes diving would be eradicated from football "in six months" with retrospective bans'. What he really means is 'Arsenal would be eradicated from football "in six months" with retrospective bans'. When is Dyche going to put a leash on that thug Barnes? |
|
|
|
Post by modfather on Jan 17, 2017 17:59:43 GMT
You all know what will happen.
The rule will come out, a stoke player will be the first to get done by it, (probably someone like shawcross!!) Then it'll get fazed out just like the grappling in the box has.
Wankers
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Jan 17, 2017 18:13:20 GMT
The modern day footballer and fans are to blame,you only have to hear Pepole in the Boothen shouting for a foul every time there is a tackle.When has contact become a foul,referees will not book players anymore if this comes in,as they will wait for a panel looking at different angles drinking coffee to make the decisions,but unless you have the same panel which would be impossible you will get differant views.Would it not be easier for the players to cut it out.But as fans if Arnie goes down soft on Saturday and we win then will we give a shit,but if Rooney did the same we would be up in arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Jan 17, 2017 18:14:42 GMT
I've always thought there should be retrospective yellow cards for diving as it's only a yellow card offence, if a player had received a yellow card in the match for another offence then that would in turn then be a red card. Gouranga.  |
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jan 17, 2017 18:22:19 GMT
There needs to be a better definition of diving - the present one is too vague. Obviously if a player throws himself on the floor without any contact, it's a dive. But what about when there is the slightest of contacts, when the game has always been a contact sport. I've heard Lineker say on MOTD that if a player is touched he is "entitled" to go down. What about the clever trick of a player leaving a trailing leg to catch the late tacklers outstretched leg, so as to cause himself to "trip"? (Charlie does it all the time.) In such a case the "fouled" player has created the contact himself, like the very common trick of deliberately running into a player and claiming a foul, which I suspect Johnson did on Saturday. My initial reaction to the proposal is it's a good thing, but the more I think about it I can see all sorts of problems. For example are refs going to let dives go and leave it to retrospective action? I think it is also another opportunity for bias towards the big clubs, like a lot of the "establishment" pundits said Vardy's red card wasn't a red card, and I can see the judging panel not determining dives against the likes of Rooney, Stirling, Alli, etc. "We can't be besmirching the stars of the game." Look how Rooney's disgraceful foul was not shown on MOTD. So I'm now in a quandary about the proposal. Agree. I still think that even though it's difficult, it needs to be implemented. Perhaps "benefit of the doubt" type logic. It's not really that much different to red card appeals. The panel look at the video and make a decision. One "improvement" I'd make to the rule is to have "cheating" as a red card offence. What's the point of retrospectively banning a player for 2 games for a sneaky dive when the resulting penalty costs the opponents the game? I think that each captain should be given 1 right of appeal where at a break in play, they can request the referee and assistants to review an egregious incident. (Cheating, uncaught handball, goal disallowed for offside, etc.) Ultra-difficult to implement, but in my opinion it would go a long way to eradicating cheating. But hey, I also think that a player should be given a yellow for any cheating including trying to get another player sent off, claiming a throw-in is your ball when you clearly know it's not, etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by tcdobinghoff on Jan 17, 2017 19:04:03 GMT
There needs to be a better definition of diving - the present one is too vague. Obviously if a player throws himself on the floor without any contact, it's a dive. But what about when there is the slightest of contacts, when the game has always been a contact sport. I've heard Lineker say on MOTD that if a player is touched he is "entitled" to go down. What about the clever trick of a player leaving a trailing leg to catch the late tacklers outstretched leg, so as to cause himself to "trip"? (Charlie does it all the time.) In such a case the "fouled" player has created the contact himself, like the very common trick of deliberately running into a player and claiming a foul, which I suspect Johnson did on Saturday. My initial reaction to the proposal is it's a good thing, but the more I think about it I can see all sorts of problems. For example are refs going to let dives go and leave it to retrospective action? I think it is also another opportunity for bias towards the big clubs, like a lot of the "establishment" pundits said Vardy's red card wasn't a red card, and I can see the judging panel not determining dives against the likes of Rooney, Stirling, Alli, etc. "We can't be besmirching the stars of the game." Look how Rooney's disgraceful foul was not shown on MOTD. So I'm now in a quandary about the proposal. Agree. I still think that even though it's difficult, it needs to be implemented. Perhaps "benefit of the doubt" type logic. It's not really that much different to red card appeals. The panel look at the video and make a decision. One "improvement" I'd make to the rule is to have "cheating" as a red card offence. What's the point of retrospectively banning a player for 2 games for a sneaky dive when the resulting penalty costs the opponents the game? I think that each captain should be given 1 right of appeal where at a break in play, they can request the referee and assistants to review an egregious incident. (Cheating, uncaught handball, goal disallowed for offside, etc.) Ultra-difficult to implement, but in my opinion it would go a long way to eradicating cheating. But hey, I also think that a player should be given a yellow for any cheating including trying to get another player sent off, claiming a throw-in is your ball when you clearly know it's not, etc etc. Not sure your ideas are pratical but I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your post. Cheating is endemic in the game, as you point out claiming throw-ins, influencing the ref, shirt pulling, happen continuously as well as more high profile acts like diving, over-reacting to get players sent off. Referees get a lot of stick but many decisions they are asked to make are judgements about intent etc - very difficult when pundits, referees can't agree often even with endless repeats of the action from different camera angles.A change in the mindset of the people who play the game is needed but don't hold your breath. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 17, 2017 19:05:59 GMT
Life time bans and nothing less for repeat offenders.
I would soon sort out football.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 20:31:51 GMT
Tom Daley, Jacques Cousteau and Johnny Weissmuller are the judging standard With Len Goodman giving marks for heel leads and artistic presentation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jan 17, 2017 20:35:40 GMT
Any player banned for cheating,should have their wages stopped for the length of the ban,why should they keep getting paid for been cheating scum.
|
|
......
