You're being far too rational there. Let's wait and see. Once FF got a reputation in Zola's first season we got the proverbial square root of bugger all.
Indeed. But it's now been "shown" that Richie didn't cheat. In that sense, despite HB1's protestations, I think reference to the panel has done us a favour. Whereas if there were no panel, the matter would still be a live one for debate and analysis (and that debate must influence referees). I'm playing devils advocate a little here. I share your concerns if I am honest.
Maybe been said but there is a poll on Talksports twitter feed - dive or no dive - currently 50-50 so can I suggest we pop over there and help the vote?
Just think if they had introduced video refs this season and this decision had been reviewed we would need to have hoped we got the top ref and none of the other 2!!
These Arsenal fans just can't let it go can they? Not sure if it speaks about how far we've come or how far they have dropped? All I know is, that we must be doing something right to have "The Arsenal" talk about us for 48 hours and counting. Just wondering if they are taken the lonely train to smallclubville? Edit: on a side note, I really hope Sanchez or one of those cheating Arsenal players dives this weekend and it goes to the panel and he is banned for 2 games.
My favourite irony regarding this matter is: the FA will not reprimand a referee for making a game changing red card error (a la Angella v Muff), but a player can be additionally punished if a referee makes a game changing error by identifying a foul when none took place. I'm not saying that was the case with Richarlison, just that it is what has emerged from reflecting on the new ruling as a result of the media hysteria. It's like laws written by little children. I really appreciate the intention of the new regulatory commission (as I believe it is rather grandly referred to), but it is not fit for purpose. I hope they bring some grown ups in soon to bring in laws that do work and are fair.
I don't recall anyone talking about the penalty we didn't get at Swansea the other week for longer than a few hours after the match. Even Knockaerts dive didn't get this much attention.
That's not ironic at all. You've taken two completely different scenarios for a start - one is employer/employee in nature while the other is governing body/governed. The comparison or attempt to equate the two breaks down completely once you take that into account. The way you and a couple of others have been talking about it on here today you'd think the idea of retrospectively punishing players who successfully deceive referees was a concept dreamt up by the FA for a laugh at their end of season party in May or something. In fact, it's been established in Scotland for a while now and works well. Its introduction was supported by all the trade bodies and competitions. And, maybe disappointingly from your perspective (I don't know for sure), it absolutely worked like a charm today as the panel avoided the bait laid for them by Wenger and BT Sport and came to the right decision. A little bit of scrutiny harms no one so all the outrage on here that they even bothered to pull the tapes in the first place seems pretty misplaced to me.
Not sure I claimed he wasn't, but the fall out was we were denied around half a dozen clear pens, one of which, v Leeds, probably cost us promotion.
This review thing is a good thing but it is surely only ever going to be used to retrospectively ban when you get a case like Cazorla vs WBA, when there is no contact and it’s a very deliberate attempt to deceive. They can’t go banning people retrospectively when there is contact like with Richy, you’d set a very stupid precendent that way, and it would become almost impossible to win a penalty because the refs would be scared stiff of looking stupid and being over ruled by the panel. Unfortunately the by product will be idiots like Wenger and half the media doing the equivalent of a player waving an imaginary card trying to influence the ref to book or send a player off. If they think the penalty is any way soft they will try and get their own back by calling for a ban.
Whilst I see your point, did you see the Juve vs Lazio game at the weekend? Injury time penalty in th 96th minute where the ref went off the pitch to watch a TV replay. If that’s how they have to get decisions correct, I don’t want it. Not one bit. Was just odd.
The irony, is entirely there for all to see. The FA will will not reprimand a referee for making a mistake that wrecks a game. Fair enough. However, the FA will reprimand a player, with a two match ban, whose actions and motivations were no different to another player who received only a yellow card, with the only justification being that a referee made a mistake (that he saw an offense which did not happen). If that is not irony, I am not sure what is. It would help if you read the posts. I make it absolutely clear over and again that 1. I do not believe Richarlison should have even been reviewed, and therefore my comments do not refer to him, but the inadequate laws created by the FA, probably at their end of season party in May (now you mention it, it seems entirely possible that was the case), and 2. that retrospective action is a good thing, if it is done well. This new panel is not done well, because it leaves itself open to accusatons of being unfair, for the reasons I have repeated ad nauseum because no one reads the arguments they so boldly attempt to dismantle, as is the case here with yourself; you clearly missed my suggestion of how the very same law, with a minor adjustment, could completely remove my criticism and establish itself as being fair. That goes for the rules in Scotland too if they are the same as in England, and I don't care who lauded its arrival.
Mistakes will happen, and endless retrospective investigations into the mistakes by referees and their consequences would be exceptionally time consuming. It could inevitably lead to calls to add or deduct points depending on the result. How far can we go in a sport where the "moment" counts for so much. This type of panel looks at intentional cheating, and I think it is a good thing, but I want to see explanations for the verdicts (maybe they will come). As it stands, "professionals" in the refereeing world, players, pundits and coaches, and fans, are disagreeing with each other over the rules. Clarity is needed.
But it's not fair enough is it because it's total guess work on your part. Referees, being employed by PFMOA, are not going to have their performance management raked over by their employer in public. If a referee is on an action plan to improve his performance or has been told to get an average score of X from the assessor in the next couple of months or he's off their Select List how would you expect to know about it? The one reprimand we do see pretty regularly, in situations like the one you mentioned involving Angella, is that the referee is benched for a couple of weeks or exiled down the leagues for a bit. I'm not really sure what you else you think should happen in the public eye in that regard. Not at all. The player whose actions are considered by the panel is being punished for 'successfully deceiving a match official'. If a player dives and is caught in the act he gets a yellow card. The matter is closed because he's caught. Of course with that comes the ridicule for diving along with the intangible effects of being on a yellow card for the remainder of the game. However, if he dives and the referee gives a penalty or sends off an opponent the deception doesn't stop at the moment he stops rolling around on the grass. It's open to the diving player at any time until the penalty is taken or the opponent kicks the dressing door open to inform the referee that he cheated and he wishes to fess up. He can take his yellow card and avoid a two-game ban. There's nothing unfair about it at all. If the referee refuses to reverse his decision despite a cheat admitting cheating then that'll be excellent mitigation for him when the FA propose to give him a two-game ban. What happens subsequently to the referee when his performance is reviewed in relation to the wonky decision is not related at all. Given the act of reviewing something is completely neutral I really don't understand this. All 3 get the video and watch it independently of one another and all have to agree (ie. 3-0 in favour) for a matter to go to the FA proper for consideration of sanction. The panel don't dictate the punishment - they just act as a filter so that the decision-making around whether something goes before the blazers is done by ex-players and referees rather than more blazers. Anything that dilutes the influence of the latter should be welcomed. Presumably this is the point where you think it's unfair that a player caught gets a yellow card whereas a player not caught at the time is open to a two-game ban? If so I've responded to that now.
UEA. I have expressed an opinion and stand by it completely. All I will be doing is repeating myself and you clearly are not going to grasp anything I have to say. The points you are making are fair, but I can't figure out why you thjnk they have much, if anything to do with a counter argument to what I am saying, or why you feel they detract from my opinion. You seem to be inviting an argument where there isn't one. Merely a difference of opinion.
As this has now cleared up, I would love if Richarlison took a proper dive on Saturday against Chelsea to get us the winning penalty.
We're much more likely to have a couple of stonewall pens not given now. It's hilarious laughing at Arsenal fans but the upshot is referees will look to be 110% sure next time.
EPL rules state that if your designated penalty taker isn't on the pitch then the penalty goes to Bournemouth in their next game by default
Exactly, re reviews. It’s the incidents that get the most coverage will invariably be the ones which are reviewed. Had Wenger not said what he did, had he accepted it with good grace, I doubt it would have gone to the review panel. It’s trial by media, which is wrong. Most sports writers support a top 6 club, so can influence which incidents to highlight. I’ve seen many worse situations where a player has clearly dived to trick an official. This was not one of those. There was contact between the two players and a push in the back. It was a foul and the panel, with their decision, have upheld the referee’s penalty award as being correct.
Perhaps, but that will be down to individual refereeing rather than the paranoid Illuminati narrative some of our fans have about the FA being against us etc.
The panel have said it wasn't a dive, that's all. Contact happens all game and players go down without a foul being given. The referees decision to award a penalty has not been vindicated by the panel. It wasn't a pen in a million years, and that's from someone with yellow tinted glasses on.
You didn’t think it was a penalty and is your opinion, which fair enough. For me it was a correct decision because Bellerin made a deliberate attempt to put off Richalison by pushing him in the back. The leg contact may have been accidental but the push was not. For me that is enough for a penalty. Had it been the other way around I would fully expected a penalty to have been given and would not have complained about it.
Not as likely as if proved guilty, which was never in question imo. But ALL refs saw it, some will certainly feel it was theatrical if not a full blown dive. He's the only player to be officially questioned. If he gets a small trip at full pace at stamford bridge the referee will be thinking about giving it but only if 100% certain. Any slight thought it was not enough contact to go down and it wont be given.
Then they would be wrong, as per THEIR supportive panel on diving and should probably pack in the profession and become a dustman.
