| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 13:58 - May 18 with 2160 views | Northernr |
On the face of it good, and long overdue.
However I covered Man Utd v Swansea for the Telegraph a few weeks back where Marcus butter wouldn't melt Rashford clearly, obviously and deliberately dived over Fabianski to win the most Old Trafford of Old Trafford penalties.
It was incredibly obvious and the commentators said as much (even Graham Poll bucked the usual trend for the retired referee on TV by saying the officials had got it badly wrong) but when the TV coverage went back to the studio at half time Michael Owen and somebody else I forget sat there for 15 minutes refusing to use the words dive or cheating, and instead made all sorts of pitiful excuses about how Rashford was getting out of the way so he wouldn't get hurt, Owen blabbed on for 5 minutes about how one of his 10,000 injuries occurred in just such a situation etc etc.
So depends who's judging it. Suspect you'll very quickly get some weird, wonderful and very inconsistent decisions on it. |  | |  |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 14:09 - May 18 with 2147 views | blacky200 |
Don't think this will affect what happens on the pitch much. If a player gets a penalty from a dive and his team wins then the club / manager will say he took one for the team. |  | | |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 14:22 - May 18 with 2125 views | johncharles |
I'd like to see points deduction being brought in as well as punishing the player. If a game is won by diving to get a penalty then the result should be adjusted. Teams should not benefit by points illegally gained. Harsh but it's the only way. A retrospective suspension is probably worth it to get the three points. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 14:24 - May 18 with 2125 views | FredManRave |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 13:58 - May 18 by Northernr |
On the face of it good, and long overdue.
However I covered Man Utd v Swansea for the Telegraph a few weeks back where Marcus butter wouldn't melt Rashford clearly, obviously and deliberately dived over Fabianski to win the most Old Trafford of Old Trafford penalties.
It was incredibly obvious and the commentators said as much (even Graham Poll bucked the usual trend for the retired referee on TV by saying the officials had got it badly wrong) but when the TV coverage went back to the studio at half time Michael Owen and somebody else I forget sat there for 15 minutes refusing to use the words dive or cheating, and instead made all sorts of pitiful excuses about how Rashford was getting out of the way so he wouldn't get hurt, Owen blabbed on for 5 minutes about how one of his 10,000 injuries occurred in just such a situation etc etc.
So depends who's judging it. Suspect you'll very quickly get some weird, wonderful and very inconsistent decisions on it. |
Hopefully that's just a case of footballers looking out for their own.
I doubt there would be any exfootballers on the panel so for once the people making the decisions having zero experience of actually playing the game will work in its favour.
As for the taking one for the team (Love you Gary) then they should make it a 3 game ban so it does actually act as a deterrent. |  |
| |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 15:04 - May 18 with 2090 views | Juzzie |
There's bound to be a period of transition and I don't think it'll be perfect (I'm sure a few innocents may get punished) to begin with but we have to start somewhere and let it evolve. |  | | |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 18:33 - May 18 with 1954 views | PinnerPaul |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 13:58 - May 18 by Northernr |
On the face of it good, and long overdue.
However I covered Man Utd v Swansea for the Telegraph a few weeks back where Marcus butter wouldn't melt Rashford clearly, obviously and deliberately dived over Fabianski to win the most Old Trafford of Old Trafford penalties.
It was incredibly obvious and the commentators said as much (even Graham Poll bucked the usual trend for the retired referee on TV by saying the officials had got it badly wrong) but when the TV coverage went back to the studio at half time Michael Owen and somebody else I forget sat there for 15 minutes refusing to use the words dive or cheating, and instead made all sorts of pitiful excuses about how Rashford was getting out of the way so he wouldn't get hurt, Owen blabbed on for 5 minutes about how one of his 10,000 injuries occurred in just such a situation etc etc.
So depends who's judging it. Suspect you'll very quickly get some weird, wonderful and very inconsistent decisions on it. |
Until you get a computer looking at video evidence - yes you will - good isn't it!  |  | | |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 18:39 - May 18 with 1952 views | PinnerPaul |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 13:58 - May 18 by Northernr |
On the face of it good, and long overdue.
However I covered Man Utd v Swansea for the Telegraph a few weeks back where Marcus butter wouldn't melt Rashford clearly, obviously and deliberately dived over Fabianski to win the most Old Trafford of Old Trafford penalties.
It was incredibly obvious and the commentators said as much (even Graham Poll bucked the usual trend for the retired referee on TV by saying the officials had got it badly wrong) but when the TV coverage went back to the studio at half time Michael Owen and somebody else I forget sat there for 15 minutes refusing to use the words dive or cheating, and instead made all sorts of pitiful excuses about how Rashford was getting out of the way so he wouldn't get hurt, Owen blabbed on for 5 minutes about how one of his 10,000 injuries occurred in just such a situation etc etc.
So depends who's judging it. Suspect you'll very quickly get some weird, wonderful and very inconsistent decisions on it. |
On a slightly less flippant note - you are of course right.
I suspect the same will be true of VR decisions - how many decisions on here have been debated where we can't agree what was "right" - and that's hours/days after the event!
Even on RefChat we have arguments about decisions and sanctions all the time!
I fully expect that, eventually, people will realise that "inconsisency" ie reaching a decision EVERYONE agrees with, is impossible, even with "technology" for the blindingly obvious reason that we're all human and see the same incident in a different way.
Click on the comments below the story on the BBC site, and you will see the usual non sensical calls for "technology" to be used for "everything"
 | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 19:56 - May 18 with 1910 views | Northernr |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 18:39 - May 18 by PinnerPaul |
On a slightly less flippant note - you are of course right.
I suspect the same will be true of VR decisions - how many decisions on here have been debated where we can't agree what was "right" - and that's hours/days after the event!
Even on RefChat we have arguments about decisions and sanctions all the time!
I fully expect that, eventually, people will realise that "inconsisency" ie reaching a decision EVERYONE agrees with, is impossible, even with "technology" for the blindingly obvious reason that we're all human and see the same incident in a different way.
Click on the comments below the story on the BBC site, and you will see the usual non sensical calls for "technology" to be used for "everything"
|
Me and you are in full agreement on this. Big fan of the goalline technology and think that should be spread as widely as possible but that's it. There was a thread on here the other week about a tackle in the Old Firm game that we could all watch a thousand times over and some of us thought it was a great tackle and some thought it was a red card.
I saw one of the trial games the other week where the referee brought play back and awarded a penalty on the video advice and quite apart from the weird bit of non play that happened after it and was subsequently expunged, and the time it took, and the confusion, I didn't think it was a penalty anyway.
I watch a lot of rugby league as you know and the video referee is an absolute pain in the ars. They've had to experiment with two referees operating it after a famous example in a Hull HullKR game of the video referee just getting it plain wrong, even with the aid of two mintues of replays. Now they send it up with a ref's call and they have to have evidence to overturn it, which results in obviously wrong decisions being waved through because somebody is in front of the camera at the key moment etc. I'd say 30-40% of the decisions reached by the video referee I disagree with. And the time it takes. On and on and on it goes. Went to a semi final at Doncaster last year, kicked off at 20.00, booked the last train at 22.30 and thought that wouldn't be a problem, maybe even one in the tut and shive on the way back to the train - fcking referee sent every try to the screen and the match was still going on at 22.20. | | | |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 20:23 - May 18 with 1884 views | johncharles |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 19:56 - May 18 by Northernr |
Me and you are in full agreement on this. Big fan of the goalline technology and think that should be spread as widely as possible but that's it. There was a thread on here the other week about a tackle in the Old Firm game that we could all watch a thousand times over and some of us thought it was a great tackle and some thought it was a red card.
I saw one of the trial games the other week where the referee brought play back and awarded a penalty on the video advice and quite apart from the weird bit of non play that happened after it and was subsequently expunged, and the time it took, and the confusion, I didn't think it was a penalty anyway.
I watch a lot of rugby league as you know and the video referee is an absolute pain in the ars. They've had to experiment with two referees operating it after a famous example in a Hull HullKR game of the video referee just getting it plain wrong, even with the aid of two mintues of replays. Now they send it up with a ref's call and they have to have evidence to overturn it, which results in obviously wrong decisions being waved through because somebody is in front of the camera at the key moment etc. I'd say 30-40% of the decisions reached by the video referee I disagree with. And the time it takes. On and on and on it goes. Went to a semi final at Doncaster last year, kicked off at 20.00, booked the last train at 22.30 and thought that wouldn't be a problem, maybe even one in the tut and shive on the way back to the train - fcking referee sent every try to the screen and the match was still going on at 22.20. |
On the other hand, what's the point of playing a game, any game, where cheating is tolerated.
Why not have one team with 11 players and the other have 12 ?
How about a 100 metres where one contestant only runs 90 metres ?
Diving is cheating just like taking drugs is cheating. Athletes found to have taken drugs have their medals taken away. Teams that cheat should have points taken away. Football is a game and a game where one side ignores the rule is pointless. | |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 21:35 - May 18 with 1845 views | LythamR |
Good News, The adjudicating panel has been chosen
Frank Mclintock
David Webb
Mark Dennis |  | | |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 09:17 - May 19 with 1766 views | PinnerPaul |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 19:56 - May 18 by Northernr |
Me and you are in full agreement on this. Big fan of the goalline technology and think that should be spread as widely as possible but that's it. There was a thread on here the other week about a tackle in the Old Firm game that we could all watch a thousand times over and some of us thought it was a great tackle and some thought it was a red card.
I saw one of the trial games the other week where the referee brought play back and awarded a penalty on the video advice and quite apart from the weird bit of non play that happened after it and was subsequently expunged, and the time it took, and the confusion, I didn't think it was a penalty anyway.
I watch a lot of rugby league as you know and the video referee is an absolute pain in the ars. They've had to experiment with two referees operating it after a famous example in a Hull HullKR game of the video referee just getting it plain wrong, even with the aid of two mintues of replays. Now they send it up with a ref's call and they have to have evidence to overturn it, which results in obviously wrong decisions being waved through because somebody is in front of the camera at the key moment etc. I'd say 30-40% of the decisions reached by the video referee I disagree with. And the time it takes. On and on and on it goes. Went to a semi final at Doncaster last year, kicked off at 20.00, booked the last train at 22.30 and thought that wouldn't be a problem, maybe even one in the tut and shive on the way back to the train - fcking referee sent every try to the screen and the match was still going on at 22.20. |
Agree.
BTW its now reported as the "panel" will be 1 ex referee, 1 ex manager, 1 ex player, but banned player can appeal and that goes to another panel (make up unspecified) | | | |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 12:01 - May 19 with 1746 views | FredManRave |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 09:17 - May 19 by PinnerPaul |
Agree.
BTW its now reported as the "panel" will be 1 ex referee, 1 ex manager, 1 ex player, but banned player can appeal and that goes to another panel (make up unspecified) |
So Paul Adcock, Arsene "I didn't see the incident" Wenger* and Jurgen Klinsmann.
*Soon to be Ex. | |
| |
| Diving bans: Football Association expected to approve retrospective action on 13:25 - May 19 with 1706 views | smegma |
The best way would be for the fourth official.looks at a replay and informs the ref. At least the fourth official will do some work.
Player dives, wins penalty and scores. Penalty wins 3 points. Player retrospectively gets banned, club keep 3 points. With 25 players in a squad, one player banned isn't a punishment. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
