Captain... Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 We've all seen it what do you think? It's the first incident eligible for retrospective punishment let's see if FT agrees with the panel.
StanSP Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 very minimal contact and he's gone down easily. No penalty. Dive. Retrospective ban due.
ozleicester Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Think he needs to watch Vards a little better.
lgfualol Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 https://imgtc.com/w/9XCousV for those that haven't seen No pen. Maybe the ref gave Watford a pen because of Bellerin's awful hair.
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 The fact that the penalty was at an important time and affected the eventual result is relevant for me. So a ban is due. If it was last minute in a 7-2 loss then I wouldn't even review it.
goose2010 Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 i've seen softer! Bellerin moves his arm into his back and looks like a push, and any contact moving at that pace you are going to go down. 50/50 me for i wouldnt ban him for it.
StanSP Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 4 minutes ago, FIF said: The fact that the penalty was at an important time and affected the eventual result is relevant for me. So a ban is due. If it was last minute in a 7-2 loss then I wouldn't even review it. that's not the criteria of whether a ban is given or not. a dive is a dive at whatever point of the match irrespective of time, scoreline, eventual result etc
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 1 minute ago, StanSP said: that's not the criteria of whether a ban is given or not. a dive is a dive at whatever point of the match irrespective of time, scoreline, eventual result etc I know it's not the criteria, which is why I stated how I feel. A beer is a beer whenever you drink it , but the result of drinking it before you drive and before you go to bed are very different and treated differently in the law. I'm guessing you agree that filing paperwork 14 seconds late is too late too. Personally I like a bigger picture.
StanSP Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 7 minutes ago, FIF said: I know it's not the criteria, which is why I stated how I feel. A beer is a beer whenever you drink it , but the result of drinking it before you drive and before you go to bed are very different and treated differently in the law. I'm guessing you agree that filing paperwork 14 seconds late is too late too. Personally I like a bigger picture. random. I like the bigger picture too but your justification for a ban was as if you were making the rules for it
CollinsLCFC Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Retrospective action needs to be taken. The debate for it occurs season after season. Set the example, if players dive it will go punished. It should not matter if diving effects the actual result or not, players should get punished for unsportmanlike behaviour.
Fox92 Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Was a dive but don't agree with "banning". If you ban him for this then you've got to ban absolutely everybody for the same thing and it happens most games. A fine would probably be better.
urban.spaceman Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Missing Poll Question: 3. Do Arsenal deserve all the misery they get Yes No
StanSP Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 1 hour ago, Fox92 said: Was a dive but don't agree with "banning". If you ban him for this then you've got to ban absolutely everybody for the same thing and it happens most games. A fine would probably be better. part of the rules now that players could face retrospective action. Can't imagine fines would have the same impact given all the money they earn.
kingfox Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 A dive You've seen them given, you've seen them not given, Bellerin gave him the shoulder and he went down softly. Vardy's done worse tbh.
st albans fox Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 because there was some contact (yes I know was v slight and shouldn't have been enough to knock him over ) I don't think he will be banned.
Captain... Posted 16 October 2017 Author Posted 16 October 2017 I didn't add my opinion at the start, but I would say no penalty and no ban. It's never a penalty there is a little bit of contact but not enough to take him out and he kicked the ball out of play. If the ref had given him a yellow at the time I would say fair enough, but that happens all over the pitch with no punishment and will always be a debate because there is contact and he is running at speed. The problem is if they don't punish him they are condoning this sort of behaviour, or will be seen as the ref fvcked up and the next one will have to be 100% clear dive to get a decision. If if they do punish him then Watford will point out every time someone goes down softly and demand a ban. The panel doesn't have enough options. What Richarlison did should be stamped out the game because whilst it isn't cheating it makes the ref's job so much harder, but the punishment needs to fit the crime and a two match ban is harsh. It's not really his fault the ref was crap. He didn't even appeal the ref gave it instantly. Add a yellow to his tally and say any more and it will be a two match ban, would be my punishment but they don't have that as an option.
Ted Maul Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Soft, but I've seen much worse. This is one of the cases which will fall in the 'grey area' if they bring in video refs- how are you supposed to make a concrete decision when Bellerin clearly leans into him?
ajthefox Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 I know diving is a big bug bear for a lot of people but I think we've also got to stop clamouring for everyone who goes down on minimal contact to get banned. For me it's a never a pen but I don't think it's a dive either. He's running at speed, he stretches for the ball, there's some contact and he's gone down. It doesn't look to me like he's deliberately hit the floor. I feel like we sometimes forget how little contact it can take to destabilise you when you're running at full pelt.
Captain... Posted 16 October 2017 Author Posted 16 October 2017 2 minutes ago, ajthefox said: I know diving is a big bug bear for a lot of people but I think we've also got to stop clamouring for everyone who goes down on minimal contact to get banned. For me it's a never a pen but I don't think it's a dive either. He's running at speed, he stretches for the ball, there's some contact and he's gone down. It doesn't look to me like he's deliberately hit the floor. I feel like we sometimes forget how little contact it can take to destabilise you when you're running at full pelt. Yeah, I just completely lost balance and fell over playing football the other day, I looked like a right tit, there wasn't even anyone near me. If the ref had given me free kick I would have taken it, not my fault he wasn't paying attention. One idea is a cricket style appeal, if they don't appeal then nothing happens, if they do appeal then they clearly think they have been fouled and should be punished if video evidence shows the contact was insufficient.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Not really a dive a tad bit of simulation perhaps
Fox92 Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 1 hour ago, StanSP said: part of the rules now that players could face retrospective action. Can't imagine fines would have the same impact given all the money they earn. I know yeah but where does it stop? A ban because it resulted in a penalty? Kyle Naughton took a dive at the weekend, ref didn't give a penalty but why should that matter. Surely he should get done too?
StanSP Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 yeah he should. shouldn't matter where on the pitch it happens. a dive should be punished.
davieG Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Not a dive then according to the FA no action to be taken.
Captain... Posted 16 October 2017 Author Posted 16 October 2017 8 minutes ago, davieG said: Not a dive then according to the FA no action to be taken. It'll be interesting to see if it was a majority verdict or 2-1 it was pretty much 50/50 on here to ban him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.