Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [29th December 2017 - 4th January 2018]
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,009
- Location
- Surrey
They were both dives, I expect zero action to be taken against them following their new "diving is fine" policy though.
Wilshere's was clearly a dive but as it didn't result in either a penalty or red card for an opposition player, no action will be taken. It's an interesting one though as he should have been sent off himself so the ref's failure to spot it does have a material effect on the game - that's something they maybe should look at including.
The Hazard one is and isn't. Bellerin takes a swing at the ball, misses and kicks Hazard - it's a foul. Yes, Hazard's reaction is ridiculous but I don't really care tbh because if he stays on his feet no foul is given. Even if you are outraged by his reaction, nothing will happen as it's not directly influenced the outcome of the game because it was a foul.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,009
- Location
- Surrey
Yeah as I said, diving is fine. It's the new policy because it's a lot easier to do nothing than do something.
I don't understand you sometimes Shami. You're generally one of the most level headed, rational people in here but for some reason you're like this on this diving thing.
Previously there was no policy to take any sort of retrospective action against divers. We now have one however, perfectly reasonably if you ask me, they cannot look at every single incident and are only looking at decisions that directly influence the outcome of a game - winning penalties and getting an opposition player sent off. So no, the new policy isn't saying diving is ok. The new policy is acknowledging diving is an issue and they're now going to start clamping down on it.
It's really not that difficult to understand. For a start, there are practical reasons why they can't look at every incident - who is going to go through x amount of games every week and look at every single foul to determine whether it was a dive or free-kick? Or are we just going to look at the decisions that get the most press coverage? Also, are we then going to look at every other type of foul and re-ref that? Or are we only interested in deceiving official so we should then look at defenders shirt pulling blind side of the ref, defenders that accuse attackers of diving when they have fouled them, appealing for a throw when they know they kicked it out?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,009
- Location
- Surrey
It's not difficult to understand, it's easy to understand that they're doing jack **** about trying to cut it out of the sport. Why can't they look at every incident? They manage it with elbows not caught and things like that. There is enough money in the sport that we should be able to cut down on this, not encourage it. I don't buy **** excuses like "there is no practical way to do it" If it's ruining the sport then it's worth sorting out. The only reason they aren't is because people aren't making enough of a fuss about it so it's isn't hitting their bank balance.
I don't see why being level headed and rational should lead to being complacent about cheating
I don't see why being level headed and rational should lead to being complacent about cheating
It's not difficult to understand, it's easy to understand that they're doing jack **** about trying to cut it out of the sport. Why can't they look at every incident? They manage it with elbows not caught and things like that. There is enough money in the sport that we should be able to cut down on this, not encourage it. I don't buy **** excuses like "there is no practical way to do it" If it's ruining the sport then it's worth sorting out. The only reason they aren't is because people aren't making enough of a fuss about it so it's isn't hitting their bank balance.
I don't see why being level headed and rational should lead to being complacent about cheating
How many potential incidents of violent conduct are there each week? 2-3 in the PL maybe? How many fouls are there? Hundreds. And you can't say we'll only look at the ones which are possibly dives because who decides which incidents those are? The pundits on Sky? If you want to take action against all diving then you have to have a panel that will look over every single tackle that's made - that is not practical.
And I'm glad you used the word cheating at the end there. Diving is only one form of cheating. Like I said, what about the sly shirt pulls? Cynical trips? Defenders fouling the attacker then screaming at the ref saying he dived? Or appealing for throws they know shouldn't have gone there way? If cheating is the problem then we need to look at all these incidents too.
There's a clear stance right from FIFA down to our FA that they do not want games to be re-refereed so they will not be looking at all these decisions. The compromise is to look at incidents of diving that have a material effect on the game and if found guilty suspend the player. I have absolutely no problem with that policy. The problem is the way it's being implemented.
And the comment about not being level headed and reasonable on this matter has nothing to do with being complacent about cheating but you're unwillingness to even acknowledge what the policy is and why it is the way it is.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,009
- Location
- Surrey
Do they look over every single contact between players to determine violent conduct? How did they charge Young at the weekend for the elbow? Did they watch 90 mins for every match to spot elbows?
There is no clear policy at the moment that's why. It's remarkably inconsistent like everything they do.
They give a yellow if they spot it in game.....sometimes
They take retrospective actions and ban you afterwards.....sometimes.
The policy is the way it is because they're doing the minimum amount they can to get people to stop moaning. It's actually baffling that you seem to be ok with that
There is no clear policy at the moment that's why. It's remarkably inconsistent like everything they do.
They give a yellow if they spot it in game.....sometimes
They take retrospective actions and ban you afterwards.....sometimes.
The policy is the way it is because they're doing the minimum amount they can to get people to stop moaning. It's actually baffling that you seem to be ok with that
Do they look over every single contact between players to determine violent conduct? How did they charge Young at the weekend for the elbow? Did they watch 90 mins for every match to spot elbows?
There is no clear policy at the moment that's why. It's remarkably inconsistent like everything they do.
They give a yellow if they spot it in game.....sometimes
They take retrospective actions and ban you afterwards.....sometimes.
The policy is the way it is because they're doing the minimum amount they can to get people to stop moaning. It's actually baffling that you seem to be ok with that
No, I've complained about it 1000s of times. They pick out incidents that the press pick up on and make a fuss. BT made a thing of the Young incident so he got a ban. Barely anybody mentioned Lukaku vs Brighton(?) so they swept it under the carpet. As I said regarding diving, the policy is fine, the way it's implemented isn't.
There is a policy there. If the officials see and are confident a player has dived then it's a yellow. It's extraordinarily rare for an official to see an incident (and be confident of the call) and not take action on it - occasionally you'll have times where the ref bottles it but not often. If a player dives to win a penalty or get an opposition players sent off, the policy is that he gets a retrospective ban to counter out the advantage they were given. Dives that are missed live but don't have a material effect on the outcome of the game don't. That's the policy. It's not being implemented properly but that's it.
And it has nothing to do with stopping people moaning. It's a practical thing. They are not going to re-referee the game and to do what you want then they would have to. They would have to look at every single tackle and free-kick.
Lets be honest here, very few people give a **** and certainly don't mention all the times we see a CB under pressure near his goal line just collapse on the floor and win a free-kick. I actually commented on it the other day, Ashley Barnes spent the entire game diving vs Liverpool but it was for a free-kick near the half way line so nobody gave a ****. Had Barnes won a penalty or got Lovren sent off then people care. The FA know they can't (and won't) re-ref every incident so they have put a policy in place so at least the incidents that effect outcomes of games are being looked at.
Yes, it would be wonderful if football was the purest game of them all. Nobody dived, nobody pulled shirts, nobody lied when appealing for a corner. It's not happening though or should we ban players for shirt pulls too?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,009
- Location
- Surrey
So if they can do it for that why can't they do it for dives? How hard would it be to go back and ban Wilshere for what was quite clearly a dive and had a clear game impact. Instead he'll likely get off scot free. Lukaku was the one where he kicked out at the defender right? Didn't they come out and say they were taking no action? That doesn't sound like brushing it under the rug, just incompetence. Just like Barry got off stamping on De Gea against us for some reason.
Regarding shirt pulling if they wanted to crack down on that too then fine but it's nowhere near as big a problem as diving is in most people's eyes.
The hilarious thing is that Jesus dived to try and win a penalty against us and got zero punishment. None whatsoever. That is not a system that is working. The sport is so far from pure it's not funny.
Regarding shirt pulling if they wanted to crack down on that too then fine but it's nowhere near as big a problem as diving is in most people's eyes.
The hilarious thing is that Jesus dived to try and win a penalty against us and got zero punishment. None whatsoever. That is not a system that is working. The sport is so far from pure it's not funny.
If they can do what for what? Just take action against the high profile incidents? Two wrongs don't make a right Shami.
Re Wilshere - firstly, I think they should include incidents like his where he would have received a 2nd yellow. Under the current policy though that's not the case so until they change it, it wouldn't be right. Secondly though, we can't just pick out the obvious incidents that we all saw on Sky and ban them but then ignore the others. If you're going to do something then it needs to be done fairly and consistently - that means somebody sits down and looks through every foul and determines whether it was a foul or not because if you ban x as it was live on Sky and we're all talking about it but don't ban y because it was a 3pm between 2 sides that nobody cares about, that's just not fair.
Re Lukaku and Barry - Lukaku wasn't banned because nobody made a big deal out of it. I can't even think of the Barry incident so assuming he did something too that warranted a red for violent conduct, that only backs up what I've been saying. If there's a big song and dance about something then the FA act, if there's not then they won't ban them.
Why is shirt pulling not as big a problem though? I'd guess we have more incidents of that than diving. If the objective it to clean up the game surely you look at both.
And yes, Jesus dived to try and win a penalty - had the ref been 100% confident it was a dive then he'd have been booked. However, no significant advantage was gained so there will be no action taken. This all comes back to what I've been saying, unless you're going to re-ref the game (which FIFA right down to the FA are against) then what you're asking isn't practical. You can't ban Jesus because it was in a high profile game that we're all talking about but then let of an incident when Stoke play West Brom and nobody cares. To keep it as simple and consistent as possibly they've choose to concentrate on penalties and red cards - at the end of each round of games they look at every penalty and red card given and make their decision, rather than have to go through every single tackle in every single game (again, which they won't do).
wut
ok maybe wasn't 100% serious
never that simple presumably - also it's 2041 on a school night just now
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 20,773
- Location
- North Yorkshire
An educated guess, lowering prices considerably for a EPL game would devalue the brand ? As I say an educated guess. Whats the attendance out of interest ? 55K?
be an early night for the adults at this rate - wow. That was bad!