Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1
    Glory hunting since 1969 lawros left foot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    10,051

    Retrospective cards for diving


    0 Not allowed!
    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
    You be glad you be Sussex born!

    STAYING ALERT!!

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #2
      Members dazzer6666's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Burgess Hill
      Posts
      30,465


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by lawros left foot View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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 ?
      "Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts"
    • #3
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      44,481


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by lawros left foot View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
    • #4
      Glory hunting since 1969 lawros left foot's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2011
      Location
      Worthing
      Posts
      10,051


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by dazzer6666 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      "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.
      You be glad you be Sussex born!

      STAYING ALERT!!
    • #5
      Staring at the rude boys happypig's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Location
      Eastbourne
      Posts
      6,803


      1 Not allowed!
      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.
    • #6
      Members GT49er's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Gloucester
      Posts
      28,694


      1 Not allowed!
      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.
    • #7
      Ralf Minge Superphil's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      In a pile of football shirts
      Posts
      23,416


      1 Not allowed!
      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
    • #8
      Members WhingForPresident's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Berkshire
      Posts
      11,893


      0 Not allowed!
      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.
    • #9
      Members
      Join Date
      Aug 2010
      Posts
      157


      0 Not allowed!
      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.
    • #10
      Brain dead MUG SHEEP Easy 10's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Location Location
      Posts
      56,416


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Superphil View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      "But you accept that there is an increased risk of vehicle/bat collision"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •