[Football] West Ham's Manuel Lanzini is charged by the FA for diving against Stoke

T

TomandJerry

Well-known member

Oct 1, 2013

11,450

• Dec 18, 2017

• #1

The Argentine fell to the ground as he was challenged by defender Erik Pieters and the Hammers were awarded a penalty, which put them 1-0 up in*a 3-0 victory.

The incident was referred to an independent three-person FA panel who deemed he had deceived the referee.

Lanzini has until 18:00 GMT on Tuesday, 19 December to respond to the charge.

If the charge is upheld, he is set to get a two-match ban that would rule him out of Tuesday's League Cup quarter-final against Arsenal and Premier League game at home against Newcastle on Saturday."

Can anyone link a video of the dive?

 

Chinman3000

Well-known member

Sep 28, 2011

1,267

• Dec 18, 2017

• #2

Saw this on MOTD and immediately thought he would be in trouble under new rules. Clumsy defending to be fair but he made the most of it, looked like he was already going down.

 

jevs

Well-known member

Mar 24, 2004

4,343

Preston Rock Garden

• Dec 18, 2017

• #3

Hate diving....deserves everything he gets.

 

JBizzle

Well-known member

Apr 18, 2010

5,816

Seaford

• Dec 18, 2017

• #4

Odd one really, if he'd kept running, Butland would likely have made contact and it would have been a stone-waller. As it stands, he ended up going down 20 mins before the contact.

 

S

SAC

Well-known member

May 21, 2014

2,549

• Dec 18, 2017

• #5

jevs said:

Hate diving....deserves everything he gets.

Click to expand...

Exactly this.

Hopefully more and more players will be banned and finally managers (and fans) will tell them to stop. I don't think Stoke had a chance all game so it wouldn't have made any difference to the result but in a way that makes it worse as he didn't need to do it.

 

Razzoo

Well-known member

Sep 11, 2011

5,295

N. Yorkshire

• Dec 18, 2017

• #6

Good,it was blatant.

 

mejonaNO12 aka riskit

Well-known member

Dec 4, 2003

21,497

England

• Dec 18, 2017

• #7

So does Jose escape as no gain was made from his blatant dive?

 

T

The Optimist

Well-known member

NSC Patron

Apr 6, 2008

2,610

Lewisham

• Dec 18, 2017

• #8

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:

So does Jose escape as no gain was made from his blatant dive?

Click to expand...

I think so. I think you can only face retrospective action if you deceive the referee. As the ref didn’t give us a free kick / penalty I think he gets away with it.

 

Motogull

Todd Warrior

Sep 16, 2005

9,847

• Dec 18, 2017

• #9

Chinman3000 said:

Saw this on MOTD and immediately thought he would be in trouble under new rules. Clumsy defending to be fair but he made the most of it, looked like he was already going down.

Click to expand...

I still think Winifred is lucky from the first penalty awarded in his favour at the weekend. The 'keeper may have gift-wrapped it for him but he couldn't resist.

 

Surrey Phil

Well-known member

Aug 3, 2010

1,476

• Dec 18, 2017

• #10

I can’t see the difference between Lanzini & Zaha’s dives for pens. I’m now more worried about the inconsistency of the FA than the referees!!!!

 

Ninja Elephant

Doctor Elephant

Feb 16, 2009

18,855

• Dec 18, 2017

• #11

They should change the rules so they can charge Jose as well, criminal dive. Absolutely criminal and he should be told in no uncertain terms it's not acceptable.

 

Bry Nylon

Test your smoke alarm

Helpful Moderator

Jul 21, 2003

19,844

Playing snooker

• Dec 18, 2017

• #12

TomandJerry said:

...If the charge is upheld, he is set to get a two-match ban that would rule him out of Tuesday's League Cup quarter-final against Arsenal and Premier League game at home against Newcastle on Saturday."

Click to expand...

Newcastle are in 17th place and 1 point behind Stoke. So if Lanzini is banned and West Ham are forced to play a second-choice midfielder against Newcastle, Stoke face the prospect of being robbed twice, which hardly seems fair. I'm sure Stoke would rather West Ham were able to field their strongest possible team vs. Newcastle.