Richarlison's "Dive"

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

 

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.

It wasn’t even referred to the 3 person committee 

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

It wasn’t even referred to the 3 person committee 

Didn't see that 

[Lestoh1]

5 hours 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.

14 seconds too late is too late.

 

Your example is also rubbish.

 

Problem with diving is unless its the most blatant example that the referee should see anyway how do you prove someone has dived?

[Lestoh1]

2 hours ago, AKCJ said:

No dive for me.

 

Not a penalty either.

 

Im glad someone recognises you can go down WITHOUT diving and its not a pen.

 

The old play on option isnt seen much

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lestoh1 said:

14 seconds too late is too late.

 

 

Not in any sane world it isn't.

 

I would bet your  money that no FIFA meeting in a southern European country has ever started on time

[Carl the Llama]

Imagine if Vards had done that dive, he'd be out for a month.

[Lestoh1]

3 hours ago, FIF said:

Not in any sane world it isn't.

 

I would bet your  money that no FIFA meeting in a southern European country has ever started on time

Yeah. Be quiet anyway.

[Finnegan]

Agreed with the point Kitchen made to be fair. Just because there may be contact it doesn't mean it can't be simulation. 

 

Dive, ban. If that's not a dive and a ban, what's the point? 

[Captain...]

On 10/16/2017 at 22:46, Finnegan said:

Agreed with the point Kitchen made to be fair. Just because there may be contact it doesn't mean it can't be simulation. 

 

Dive, ban. If that's not a dive and a ban, what's the point? 

That's true, but it makes it a lot harder to prove. In this case it is feasible that the contact unbalanced him or he felt a bit of contact and went down or he knew what was happening and manipulated the contact and tried to con the ref.  Either way he didn't appeal and for that alone I don't think he should be banned. It wasn't a penalty but it was given by the ref and the error is with the ref, he wasn't conned.

 

A point that was made on a podcast I was listening to, is that even if it is a foul doesn't mean that a player can't be trying to con the ref. If someone gets kicked in the shoulder and goes down clutching his face, yes it's a foul, but he is also trying to con the ref and should be punished.

[oxford blue]

There was some contact, he made the most of it but the referee was right. 

Richarlison must be one of the signings of the season - costing just £11m. He is a very talented player and just 20 years old