The mancityfans.net football forum

Just read this on the BBC and wondering people's thoughts on this particular one? Personally I think there could be serious repercussions as it wasn't a clear dive for me. Yes, Niasse went down easily but there was contact (legs) and the defender also had his arm across him.

I thought these calls would be made for clear dives where there's no doubt over the actions of the player. This one seems a bit too contentious for me.

It's obstruction, indirect freekick.

Now Calvert-Lewin holding his face in his hands to get Walker sent off, that was successful deception of a match official.

For those outside the UK that can't view BBC videos

I think the example they have chosen to apply this to ( he was obstructed with an arm ) just shows the
crappiness of a black and white rule.

This deception rule should be able to have a caution/ warning.

They have charged the player, when really the situation required something where they can say
'be warned you went down too easily'

Like yellow cards a caution can accrue until a player gets a charge of deception and a ban or whatever.
That way going down easily can be deterred while not having overkill punishment for 'soft' situations.

Too black and white basically, hardly anything in football is that clear.

He was slightly obstructed - but he did go down too easily. You have been warned!

Beefymcfc wrote:Just read this on the BBC and wondering people's thoughts on this particular one? Personally I think there could be serious repercussions as it wasn't a clear dive for me. Yes, Niasse went down easily but there was contact (legs) and the defender also had his arm across him.

I thought these calls would be made for clear dives where there's no doubt over the actions of the player. This one seems a bit too contentious for me.

I am fearful of these types of decisions. What seems to the viewer as an innocuous challenge can be a very different thing for an athlete running at speed. A mere nudge can send a player off course and off balance and as such to the floor. The challenge might not be a foul and worthy of a penalty but it is not a dive either. We are starting to be entering into a culture where it seems that it must either be a penalty or a dive. This is not the case.

There have been plenty of instances where players stay on their feet after a clear foul, Sterling and Aguero are in this camp, yet the referee waves play on and doesn't retrospectively award a penalty. Thus, players are much more inclined, and I suspect are even encouraged by their managers, to go down when they feel contact. This muddies the waters.

Of course clear dives should be punished. Ashley Young a few years ago would go down at the merest touch. Interestingly he has hardly had a penalty decision go for him lately as he had developed a reputation that cast doubt in referees minds.

The challenge in question was probably soft, but I'm not sure you can say with certainty it was a dive. Also, you can sometimes use players reactions to gauge whether they've dived. I remember a few years ago Fowler slipped against Arsenal and the ref gave a penalty even though Fowler to his credit actually said to him that he slipped. More often than not when players go down after either simply slipping or because of loss of balance following a challenge, they don't actually appeal for a penalty.

That slight touch would not produce that dramatic fall. Clearly looking for any touch to go down.

Justified logic wrote:That slight touch would not produce that dramatic fall. Clearly looking for any touch to go down.

Agree, still impeded him though. Dann makes no effort to play the ball, he just steps into Niasse to block him.

I really don't like the " goes down too easily" line. What Niasse did wrong imo was overdo /exagerate the way he went down but is that a reason to get him banned for 2 games for cheating? If he hadn't done the theatrical bit maybe he wouldn't have got the foul. which was probably warranted.

We hear all too often things like yes he nudged him , he did make contact etc etc but was it enough for a penalty? Even last night we saw Sterling fouled twice in the box ( one where he was effectively thrown to the floor) but it was deemed not enough! Shortly afterwards he got pushed over outside the box and a foul was given immediately! Surely a foul is a foul.

Interesting too that it was the Alty fan that gave this decision, pity he didn't give Aguero the decision for a very similar incident last season.

Wythenshawe rag officiating bound to be controversial . Niasse did go down very easily though , deffo dive for me . Wythenshawe rag ref regularly at center of controversy he is a cunt of the highest order .

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:It's obstruction, indirect freekick.

Now Calvert-Lewin holding his face in his hands to get Walker sent off, that was successful deception of a match official.

Absolutely correct. Too many penalties are given for obstruction in the box which has a punishment of an indirect free kick. Ref should have been pulled up for not applying the laws of the game correctly. Niasse does exaggerate the foul but he was definitely fouled.

What happens if you claim and get a corner when you know damn well you touched the ball last?

I understand why this rule came in, I think they used niasse to make an example of someone as they haven't found anyone and they got wrong. Idiots

ayrshireblue wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:It's obstruction, indirect freekick.

Now Calvert-Lewin holding his face in his hands to get Walker sent off, that was successful deception of a match official.

Absolutely correct. Too many penalties are given for obstruction in the box which has a punishment of an indirect free kick. Ref should have been pulled up for not applying the laws of the game correctly. Niasse does exaggerate the foul but he was definitely fouled.

Thanks for the replies guys, some very interesting points. On the one quoted, wasn't the rule changed some years ago to say that any foul within the penalty area is now deemed as a penalty rather than a FK?

Like many have said, we want to see certain dives penalised, such as what Tom Daley used to do for the Rags but where there is clear contact then the lines get somewhat blurred. Take a few of ours for instance, pegging it at full speed and a player comes across and knocks them off balance. It inevitably leads to the player hitting the deck and if the penalty is given, it's then subjective to a FA panel to deem it a 'Dive' or legit.

Also, how many times did we see the Rags dive outside of the box last season, Pogba's antics got a 10 out of 10 from me. The rule only works for the player gaining a penalty advantage, or another player sent off, if I recall. Surely these should be looked at as well as they lead to an advantage for the diver and could lead to changing a game?

2 game ban for Niasse

Wonderwall wrote:What happens if you claim and get a corner when you know damn well you touched the ball last?

I understand why this rule came in, I think they used niasse to make an example of someone as they haven't found anyone and they got wrong. Idiots

As we were informed, Sterling and B. Silva's alleged 'Dives' went to the panel and I'm sure is there was less contact, they would have charged them also. Unless they weren't subject to the panel at all and it was the media driving the story, finishing the agenda with 'Sterling/Silva Get Away with Diving'.

nottsblue wrote:2 game ban for Niasse

Was obvious mate. Has anybody actually got off a ban after being charged?

FA = Kangaroo Court

Having watched a replay numerous times I am still struggling to see any contact that would lead to him falling over. Blatant dive

freshie wrote:Having watched a replay numerous times I am still struggling to see any contact that would lead to him falling over. Blatant dive

1. Does Dann make any attempt to play the ball?

2. Does Dann impede his run by stepping across him?

freshie wrote:Having watched a replay numerous times I am still struggling to see any contact that would lead to him falling over. Blatant dive

They showed a close-up on one of the re-runs which showed a minor collision of legs and with Dann coming across him rather than playing the ball then it is open for debate.

For most it shouldn't have been given as a penalty but for me it shouldn't be dealt with this way as there was some contact. As posted above by one of the guys, It should be some form of warning with monitoring afterwards. The majority of cases aren't clear cut and can be debated on.

I guess they're sending out the message in the hope of stopping further incidents but I'll wait and see how they adjudicate on the Rags before I can say that it is a successful control measure.

I'm with Freshie on this. Not only blatant but blatantly theatrical which was probably what swung it.