Retrospective cards for diving

[lawros left foot]

Watching MOTD tonight, and the 'experts'are calling for retrospective punishment for diving, ironically, because of the Hull v Palace game, and Snodgrass,s rather clever deception.
My personal opinion is these decisions equal out over the season,some you win, some you lose. If our second pen last night had of come before a panel, Dunk did over egg the pudding ,and, although it was a definite penalty, he may have been punished retrospectively fir a dive. He did go down very easily, but, had he not gone down, I doubt the ref would have awarded the pen, although the dirty Leeds skipper pulled his arm and prevented him making contact with the ball.
If Dunk was banned for a game for his dying swan, we would have been punished more than Leeds, and, quite unfairly to my mind

 

[dazzer6666]

Watching MOTD tonight, and the 'experts'are calling for retrospective punishment for diving, ironically, because of the Hull v Palace game, and Snodgrass,s rather clever deception.
My personal opinion is these decisions equal out over the season,some you win, some you lose. If our second pen last night had g retrospectively fir a dive. He did go down very easily, but, had he not gone down, I doubt the ref would have awarded the pen, although the dirty Leeds skipper pulled his arm and prevented him making contact with the ball.
If Dunk was banned for a game for his dying swan, we would have been punished more than Leeds, and, quite unfairly to my mind

"My personal opinion is these decisions equal out over the season,some you win, some you lose. If our second pen last night had g retrospectively fir a dive. He did go down very easily, but, had he not gone down, I doubt the ref would have awarded the pen, although the dirty Leeds skipper pulled his arm and prevented him making contact with the ball"

I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Pen, or no pen ?

 

[Triggaaar]

Watching MOTD tonight, and the 'experts'are calling for retrospective punishment for diving, ironically, because of the Hull v Palace game, and Snodgrass,s rather clever deception.
My personal opinion is these decisions equal out over the season,some you win, some you lose.

Some players receive not contact and fly to the ground, getting their opponent sent off etc. I think it would be good to ban players for several games for that level of cheating, which would mostly remove it from the game.

If our second pen last night had of come before a panel, Dunk did over egg the pudding ,and, although it was a definite penalty, he may have been punished retrospectively fir a dive.

That makes no sense at all. You think he was fouled, you think it was a definite penalty, yet you think he could be banned for diving.

Making a meal of something is not the same as blatantly diving. Players wouldn't get banned for making a meal of a real foul.

 

[lawros left foot]

"My personal opinion is these decisions equal out over the season,some you win, some you lose. If our second pen last night had g retrospectively fir a dive. He did go down very easily, but, had he not gone down, I doubt the ref would have awarded the pen, although the dirty Leeds skipper pulled his arm and prevented him making contact with the ball"

I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Pen, or no pen ?

It was a pen, but I doubt we would have got it if Dunk had not gone down, thus drawing the refs attention to the foul.
Dunk a big bloke ,and I can't see that pulling his arm would make him fall over, but, it was enough to prevent him from reaching the cross.

 

[happypig]

If the standard of proof was "beyond reasonable doubt" like criminal law rather than "balance of probabilities" in civil cases then it can only be a good thing; if it's absolutely clear that a player has dived then a decent length ban would, hopefully, see it stamped out.

 

[GT49er]

Dunk was tugged. No argument over that. Yes, perhaps he could have not fallen over, or not so hard, but he was still tugged. That is a foul.

Snodgrass threw himself to the ground without any contact being made by the Palace player. That is cheating (and it must be serious cheating or I wouldn't even be considering taking Palace's side). Retrospective red card would be quite appropriate.

 

[Superphil]

I'd like to see retrospective bans for cheating, and really big bans too. Dish out a couple of 10 game bans and you'd all but wipe out the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WhingForPresident]

Snodgrass outright cheated to win the penalty, then tweeted admitting that there was no contact.. I think he was expecting people to go 'ooh how refreshing that he admitted it', but it was pretty dense of him. If he was actually 'sorry' for cheating, surely he would've booted the pen into row z or admitted it to the ref and told him it wasn't a penalty, rather than scoring the goal anyway.

Wonder if the FA would have the power to charge him with bringing the game into disrepute or similar, considering he has admitted guilt. He 1definitely deserves a ban, despite the fact it was against Palace.

Zaha's effort wasn't much better, mind.

 

[Alfie87]

It's pretty simple to me, play honestly. If someone trips you to the ground and you can't stay up then fine. But if you can't stay on your feet the you should. If it's a foul then the ref should give a foul regardless of if you fell on the floor! I hate all of this 'going down easily' it's cheating to me.

 

[Easy 10]

I'd like to see retrospective bans for cheating, and really big bans too. Dish out a couple of 10 game bans and you'd all but wipe out the problem.

100% this.

Where a player has blatantly cheated a-la Snodgrass yesterday, they should have the book thrown at them and serve a hefty ban. Repeat offenders like Zahaha should be clobbered even harder. Then instead of smiling and shrugging their shoulders, managers would instead be telling their players to cut that shit out, as they can't afford to keep losing them for chunks of the season.

A few hefty bans via retrospective review and you'll all but eradicate simulation from the game, or at least dramatically reduce it. I'd include the El Abd "collapsing faceclutchers" in that as well.

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

For clear dives yes, the penalty against Palace yesterday was a disgrace, no contact made at all.......

 

[BensGrandad]

No for me as I am against retrospective cards just because the ref with the help of his 2 assistants and the 4th official failed in his job.

 

[dazzer6666]

No for me as I am against retrospective cards just because the ref with the help of his 2 assistants and the 4th official failed in his job.

Very, very difficult to spot in real time sometimes. There needs to be retrospective action, or TMO as in rugby.

I hope Snodgrass faces a disrepute charge given he has admitted cheating (bet he doesn't).

 

[BensGrandad]

Very, very difficult to spot in real time sometimes. There needs to be retrospective action, or TMO as in rugby.

.

It was never a problem when football wasnt on the TV every day but just internationals and cup finals. Have we got to set rules to accommodate Sky TV. If so go the whole hog and bring in a TV ref as per rugby.

 

[dazzer6666]

It was never a problem when football wasnt on the TV every day but just internationals and cup finals. Have we got to set rules to accommodate Sky TV.

Without the TV evidence you don't know whether it was a problem or not........it's nothing to do with Sky, it's players (no doubt encouraged by their clubs) who have got very good at conning officials. Only way to stamp it out is to properly punish it, and to punish it you need to review the evidence, whether real time or restrospectively if the officials miss it.

 

[BensGrandad]

Without the TV evidence you don't know whether it was a problem or not........it's nothing to do with Sky, it's players (no doubt encouraged by their clubs) who have got very good at conning officials. Only way to stamp it out is to properly punish it, and to punish it you need to review the evidence, whether real time or restrospectively if the officials miss it.

So bring in a third ref, an ex ref who us not physically able to run around, to monitor the game on TV but do one or the other. Most games at all levels of the FL are now filmed for TV so it is not a problem to do it. Either that or scrap the retrospective action altogether as it is unfair.

 

[dazzer6666]

So bring in a third ref, an ex ref who us not physically able to run around, to monitor the game on TV but do one or the other. Most games at all levels of the FL are now filmed for TV so it is not a problem to do it. Either that or scrap the retrospective action altogether as it is unfair.

That's what I said in #13.

 

[BensGrandad]

That's what I said in #13.

But you missed the alternative which is scrap retrospective cards.

 

[dazzer6666]

But you missed the alternative which is scrap retrospective cards.

There aren't any for diving. That's the point.

 

[BensGrandad]

There aren't any for diving. That's the point.

I dont think that you can differentiate between what happens either retro cards for anything not in the best interests of football or not at all.