|
Post by thegift on Dec 18, 2017 21:11:22 GMT
The punishment for diving in the game should be a red, player might risk it, if punishment is only a yellow. They may still risk a red. How about a yellow and a months fine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 21:14:09 GMT
Dive hammered. No doubt, but you still would have won, no doubt. Lanzini, along with the rest of the cheats at the weekend should be punished. No doubt at all.
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Dec 18, 2017 22:11:23 GMT
Dive hammered. No doubt, but you still would have won, no doubt. Lanzini, along with the rest of the cheats at the weekend should be punished. No doubt at all. Just watching Everton win two penalties to beat Swansea. The 2nd so "not a penalty" that Lanzini's theatrics seem benign - wins on style though I hope there's the same retrospective action against Everton's Kenny - but I doubt it. Let's see how much noise they make about Everton's cheating? Cheating all over the pitch (which players mainly get away with) is why it won't stop and why there will always be the response that it evens itself out over a season. Does it? IMO it seems to hurt those that need a bit of good fortune (Swansea) and WHU have been on the wrong end of plenty of dodgy decisions down the years..I more than know how it feels.
|
|
|
Post by britvic72 on Dec 18, 2017 22:11:34 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? Dust settled and fairly balanced. Could argue a couple of points but fair play as you never come on here giving it the big one just good Football knowledge and honest assessments. Hughes was a man walking the tight rope and put his effort into ensuring the extended deal was made 12 months before Arnie then wanted to leave, smack in the face really. Shawcross would hate the goading of his own fans, pity he didn’t show more fight with a crunching challenge on Arnie as he got an easy ride from the players.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 22:31:02 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? A fair summary and West Ham were indeed worthy winners in the end but you can't say the penalty changed nothing as it was nip and tuck at the time and a very close game. It was actually the penalty and Pieters going off injured, young Tymon at full back was bullied by Arnautovic, the game was stretched and to be honest from that point it could have been 5 or 6......
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 18, 2017 22:41:20 GMT
The best (maybe the only way) to cut out diving, is to fine the player two weeks wages and dock the team points. That would put a stop to it pretty damn quick.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Dec 18, 2017 22:55:36 GMT
Dive hammered. No doubt, but you still would have won, no doubt. Lanzini, along with the rest of the cheats at the weekend should be punished. No doubt at all. Just watching Everton win two penalties to beat Swansea. The 2nd so "not a penalty" that Lanzini's theatrics seem benign - wins on style though I hope there's the same retrospective action against Everton's Kenny - but I doubt it. Let's see how much noise they make about Everton's cheating? Cheating all over the pitch (which players mainly get away with) is why it won't stop and why there will always be the response that it evens itself out over a season. Does it? IMO it seems to hurt those that need a bit of good fortune (Swansea) and WHU have been on the wrong end of plenty of dodgy decisions down the years..I more than know how it feels. You've been on the right end of a couple as well - you got given a new stadium and weren't relegated when you broke the rules. Evens out in the end though I guess.
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Dec 19, 2017 0:34:56 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? Why do you think pal?
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Dec 19, 2017 0:58:28 GMT
I feel like my house got broken into, and when the police caught the burglar they decided to make him pay compensation to some tosser down the road instead of me.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 19, 2017 1:16:24 GMT
I feel like my house got broken into, and when the police caught the burglar they decided to make him pay compensation to some tosser down the road instead of me. That’s right. Suspending the offending player only helps our competitors. It doesn’t help us at all.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Dec 19, 2017 16:10:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scfcwebby on Dec 19, 2017 16:15:45 GMT
I can't believe the cheeky bastard's tried to appeal it... Should be increased to 3!!
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Dec 19, 2017 16:21:46 GMT
I can't believe the cheeky bastard's tried to appeal it... Should be increased to 3!! isn't that normally the case when they appeal and lose?
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Dec 19, 2017 16:28:58 GMT
I can't believe the cheeky bastard's tried to appeal it... Should be increased to 3!! I can believe it - idiot Moyes started it off and that little wanker Lanzini thought he might give it a whirl. The cheating twat should have had it doubled.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 17:10:08 GMT
Agreed, but it's Wetsham! Bent, comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 19, 2017 17:19:57 GMT
If he played for Stoke you'd send him off.
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on Dec 19, 2017 17:23:36 GMT
Deserved ban. Sadly not every cheat is charged, Zaha who dived similarly last week, but perhaps the TV camera angle was not shown to prove that cheat dived.
The panel though are so inconsistent in whom they charge, as Man City have gained the odd dodgy penalty.
Every team has to defend their own player however naive it looks.
The referees have to give what they see, sadly for us Mr Scott appeared to have claret and blue glasses on for the game as he certainly in consistent with decisions.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Dec 19, 2017 18:15:13 GMT
Let's not kid ourselves, the dive didn't affect the result.
However, as others have said, video technology could have sorted that out in no time at all. Then the team who suffers get the benefit, rather than the cheats next 2 opponents.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Dec 19, 2017 19:51:38 GMT
Deeney appealed his red card and his ban is now 4 games, Lanzini sticks at 2 whilst Kane and Alli get away scot free with what were arguably the worst offences of the entire weekend...guess it all comes down to who you play for Moyes should get a ban / fine too for the shite he came out with trying to defend a CHEAT
|
|
|
Post by pb1863 on Dec 19, 2017 19:54:28 GMT
The voice of reason! I can’t believe the complete lack in logic of this rule. I’m all for diving bans but it needs to really punish the team and player who committed it. Its to discourage doing it in the 1st place, but in the heat of the moment if he think he can win a penalty by cheating he’ll do it 10/10 times. Next time we play then we start the game 1-0 up.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 19, 2017 21:02:21 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? Pleased to see that you are big enough to admit it was a dive. West Ham deserved to win easily, Stoke were shocking. Regarding the anger with Arni which is general with Stoke fans; his career was shot, his reputation was shot, Mourinho called him a child, and he was in disciplinary trouble at Werder Bremmen. Hughes took him in and gave him a chance to get his career back on track. To start with he was poor and defending was none existent. He was coached hard (which he was co-operative with to be fair) and his game improved in the second half of his first season. The second season he was again very inconsistent to start with but had a better second half to the season. The next season he was encouraged to go for goal more and scored more goals; by now he was clearly a very useful and talented player. But he next action was to try and get away for more money. He tried to get a deal with Everton but they would not agree to his financial demands, so in the end after a long delay he signed a new contract with Stoke, saying "I am proud and thrilled to finally let you know that I am going to stay a Potter and will continue playing with my team and for my fantastic fans." "I suppose some times it takes a bit longer to make the right decision and this one comes from my heart." www.transfermarkt.co.uk/arnautovic-commits-to-stoke-by-signing-new-long-term-deal/view/news/244356Those of us who liked Arni (not everyone did) breathed a sigh of relief that we had kept "our man". After one season it became clear he wanted more money again and after a bid from WHU for him was rejected he put in a transfer request, saying (via agent?) the club lacked ambition. He then celebrates scoring against the club that rebuilt his career and gave him chance after chance. If you were Shawcross or Hughes I think you would be pretty angry.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 20, 2017 5:53:33 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? Pleased to see that you are big enough to admit it was a dive. West Ham deserved to win easily, Stoke were shocking. Regarding the anger with Arni which is general with Stoke fans; his career was shot, his reputation was shot, Mourinho called him a child, and he was in disciplinary trouble at Werder Bremmen. Hughes took him in and gave him a chance to get his career back on track. To start with he was poor and defending was none existent. He was coached hard (which he was co-operative with to be fair) and his game improved in the second half of his first season. The second season he was again very inconsistent to start with but had a better second half to the season. The next season he was encouraged to go for goal more and scored more goals; by now he was clearly a very useful and talented player. But he next action was to try and get away for more money. He tried to get a deal with Everton but they would not agree to his financial demands, so in the end after a long delay he signed a new contract with Stoke, saying "I am proud and thrilled to finally let you know that I am going to stay a Potter and will continue playing with my team and for my fantastic fans." "I suppose some times it takes a bit longer to make the right decision and this one comes from my heart." www.transfermarkt.co.uk/arnautovic-commits-to-stoke-by-signing-new-long-term-deal/view/news/244356Those of us who liked Arni (not everyone did) breathed a sigh of relief that we had kept "our man". After one season it became clear he wanted more money again and after a bid from WHU for him was rejected he put in a transfer request, saying (via agent?) the club lacked ambition. He then celebrates scoring against the club that rebuilt his career and gave him chance after chance. If you were Shawcross or Hughes I think you would be pretty angry. All down to 3 words - Lack of class. For all his money, he'll never have any.
|
|
|
Post by britvic72 on Dec 20, 2017 7:31:30 GMT
Deeney appealed his red card and his ban is now 4 games, Lanzini sticks at 2 whilst Kane and Alli get away scot free with what were arguably the worst offences of the entire weekend...guess it all comes down to who you play for Moyes should get a ban / fine too for the shite he came out with trying to defend a CHEAT Not really as that’s the rules. Alli & Kane were booked so no further action can be given.
|
|
|
Post by pb1863 on Dec 24, 2017 11:03:05 GMT
Is retrospective action working? Lanzini misses crucial games Inc against Newcastle ... what benefit did Stoke get??? Charlie Austin kicks the Huddersfield keeper in the face and faces a 3 game ban. What benefit do Huddersfield get? I’m not sure what the answer is....
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 24, 2017 11:21:40 GMT
Is retrospective action working? Lanzini misses crucial games Inc against Newcastle ... what benefit did Stoke get??? Charlie Austin kicks the Huddersfield keeper in the face and faces a 3 game ban. What benefit do Huddersfield get? I’m not sure what the answer is.... You're right. It is no real deterrant is it? If Alli gets charged (unlikely I know) it isn't going to help Burnley one jot. Yet once again that was the crucial 1st goal. They either need TV officials, now, or, make the bans longer, punitive fines, points deductions or all 3.
|
|
|
Post by RF10 on Dec 24, 2017 11:58:36 GMT
Trouble is would never be able to make a difference to the team affected during the game. Only option is to deduct points but unless the incident occurs right at the end of the game there is still time to play therefore anything can happen. Any points deductions I feel would be unfair although most certainly stamp it out.
It's a starting point what they have done this season although a 5 game ban and two weeks wages would work much better.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 24, 2017 12:59:29 GMT
Trouble is would never be able to make a difference to the team affected during the game. Only option is to deduct points but unless the incident occurs right at the end of the game there is still time to play therefore anything can happen. Any points deductions I feel would be unfair although most certainly stamp it out. It's a starting point what they have done this season although a 5 game ban and two weeks wages would work much better. Stokey in my opinion to eradicate this cancer in the game the only answer is points deduction and awarded to the opposition regardless of the final score or when the incident happened. There should no grounds for appeal under any circumstances and the decision must be made within a couple of hours of the game ending. Cheating would stop overnight. Bans and fines mean nothing and, as seen with the Lanzini imbecile, it has no advantage other than to the next teams they play.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 24, 2017 13:13:56 GMT
Trouble is would never be able to make a difference to the team affected during the game. Only option is to deduct points but unless the incident occurs right at the end of the game there is still time to play therefore anything can happen. Any points deductions I feel would be unfair although most certainly stamp it out. It's a starting point what they have done this season although a 5 game ban and two weeks wages would work much better. Stokey in my opinion to eradicate this cancer in the game the only answer is points deduction and awarded to the opposition regardless of the final score or when the incident happened. There should no grounds for appeal under any circumstances and the decision must be made within a couple of hours of the game ending. Cheating would stop overnight. Bans and fines mean nothing and, as seen with the Lanzini imbecile, it has no advantage other than to the next teams they play. The easiest way to stamp it out and the fairest to the team offended against is the video referee. Check it there and then. Make the decision and if it's deemed to be cheating send the offender off. That way the result isn't adversely affected and the cheat and his team get instant justice.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 13:33:58 GMT
Stokey in my opinion to eradicate this cancer in the game the only answer is points deduction and awarded to the opposition regardless of the final score or when the incident happened. There should no grounds for appeal under any circumstances and the decision must be made within a couple of hours of the game ending. Cheating would stop overnight. Bans and fines mean nothing and, as seen with the Lanzini imbecile, it has no advantage other than to the next teams they play. The easiest way to stamp it out and the fairest to the team offended against is the video referee. Check it there and then. Make the decision and if it's deemed to be cheating send the offender off. That way the result isn't adversely affected and the cheat and his team get instant justice. I think there is an easier way. A two game ban for players of the top 6 can mean very little given they have huge squads of talented players. Add in that the team cheated on makes no benefit. So quite simply... Deduct one point. It then affects all teams the same and players would stop doing it. Imagine Man City winning on the last day but through a dive for a penalty. Then imagine man City being deducted a point and it costing them the title or flip it and it being a team relegated. It's the fairest punishment and would stop diving in an instant. Do it twice and it's 2 points, three ETc
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 24, 2017 15:02:28 GMT
The easiest way to stamp it out and the fairest to the team offended against is the video referee. Check it there and then. Make the decision and if it's deemed to be cheating send the offender off. That way the result isn't adversely affected and the cheat and his team get instant justice. I think there is an easier way. A two game ban for players of the top 6 can mean very little given they have huge squads of talented players. Add in that the team cheated on makes no benefit. So quite simply... Deduct one point. It then affects all teams the same and players would stop doing it. Imagine Man City winning on the last day but through a dive for a penalty. Then imagine man City being deducted a point and it costing them the title or flip it and it being a team relegated. It's the fairest punishment and would stop diving in an instant. Do it twice and it's 2 points, three ETc I entirely agree but they'd never dare bring that in. Imagine the court cases contesting such massive decisions. Mind you, you'd be owrate. Job for life.
|
|