maffew
Well-known member
I dont cos they never are consistent/applied
Is it the deception of an official bit?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Zaha... cheat
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
I dont cos they never are consistent/applied
Is it the deception of an official bit?
I'm saying it's a dive.
I'm saying there is no chance that there will be retrospective action.
I'm saying that if that was Knockaert most of us would have a different view: "there was some slight contact, he was running fast and off balance" etc.
Ivory Coast.
But he has played twice for England. I didn’t realise he’d switched allegiances (or that the rules had changed to allow it).
Me and my Monkey
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2015
- 3,342
Oh, the voice of reason...BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #45
For a dive of that magnitude? No, definitely not. We'd be embarrassed.
maffew
Well-known member
The stupid thing is he doesnt need to keep doing this, I am sure he would get more goals and a lot less stick trying to actually but the ball in the net and staying on his feet. I used to fall over less than him after 100 pints
fly high
Well-known member
No change only counts if it was in a competitive match, he played in friendlies so free to change.
Agreed will struggle with out him ,think they got some nasty injuries
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #49
I point you to Niasse for Everton against Palace - ref saw it, gave a penalty. Niasse was retrospectively banned for diving, despite clear contact. For years, the gold standard has been 'if there's any contact it can't be a dive' so I was surprised they banned Niasse, but they have set that precedent. And I believe there was a bournemouth player a few weeks ago yellow carded for diving (rightfully, imo) despite contact. It seems contact isn't enough anymore.
In theory, this is pretty much the same thing. The question is the retrospective panel - they aren't famed for consistency and might argue that the miss meant no advantage. But he successfully conned the referee, got a penalty that could have won them the game, got a defender booked, which weakened the defence as they have to be extra careful knowing that they don't have to actually foul Zaha to received another yellow (and as far as I am aware, that yellow card won't be rescinded which could be important in a potential totting up ban). That is a clear advantage, that palace didn't take that advantage shouldn't be a consideration.
But if that was one of our players, we absolutely would be pointing to Sterling's arm, saying there was a nudge that put Zaha off balance.
On another note, it seems to me that the penalties that shouldn't be given seem to be missed/saved at a higher rate than those that should. (Today's and our's against Burnley the first two examples that spring to mind).
Amen brother.
Well there have been a couple of instances where refs saw it, gave penalties and players were charged.
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,199
I haven't seen his latest 'dive' yet, but seeing as there have been a couple of dives which have won penalties where he has already started to go down and looked for contact in the process which weren't looked at, i doubt anything will happen unless the media make a big thing of it as it seems that the FA are incapable of looking at things themselves but rely on trial by media (which has a big club bias) to decided which incidents to look at and what to ignore
The pundits saying there was minimal contact but it's definitely a penalty and the player is entitled to exaggerate it to make sure it's awarded when, in truth, it's just blatant cheating is disgusting imo.
There was an Everton player who was retrospectively banned for a dive when there was far more contact and more of a foul than in several other incident this season which never led to retrospective action despite being as much as, if not more of a dive that the Everton players effort.
It's the inconsistency that annoys me, and the feeling that there is a big club bias as they possess the stars of the league and don't wish to unset those clubs in fear they quit and form a European league and also in terms of the product itself being damaged in that they will be missing players which are the ones people tune in to see play on TV week in week out (the audience probably doesn't care about a Carlos Kickaball playing for Stoke, but would care if Lukaku was missing for Man U)
The pundits saying there was minimal contact but it's definitely a penalty and the player is entitled to exaggerate it to make sure it's awarded when, in truth, it's just blatant cheating is disgusting imo.
There was an Everton player who was retrospectively banned for a dive when there was far more contact and more of a foul than in several other incident this season which never led to retrospective action despite being as much as, if not more of a dive that the Everton players effort.
It's the inconsistency that annoys me, and the feeling that there is a big club bias as they possess the stars of the league and don't wish to unset those clubs in fear they quit and form a European league and also in terms of the product itself being damaged in that they will be missing players which are the ones people tune in to see play on TV week in week out (the audience probably doesn't care about a Carlos Kickaball playing for Stoke, but would care if Lukaku was missing for Man U)
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #55
You were desperate for that, get you out of the hole you dug. As I said, we would be discussing whether Knocky got a retro ban for it right now.
I don't understand how 'we' can be outraged when Murray did exactly the same to 'win' his penalty v Burnley.
There wasn't too much outrage at Izquierdo's frankly ridiculous dive in the same game.
Look at this website. We don't all agree. It's not about all or nothing. There would be both, some fans admitting it was a dive (as I assume some palace fans will, maybe not those that come on here, but the reasonable ones) being embarrassed, asking how we can dare criticise Zaha after Knockaert dived like that; but there would also be fans pointing to Sterling's nudge, maybe accepting it wasn't enough for a pen, but definitely not a dive.
I am in mind of a Calderon booking for a dive in a match where there was contact from the keeper. I'm pretty sure I was making the 'there was contact, so it's not a dive' argument (not because I agreed with that standard, but that it was the standard that was widely applied at the time).
