Niasse Dive

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Niasse Dive

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 16 of 24 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

eagle@ tn34 hastings 23 Nov 17 9.40pm
Its time you got in that car willo and dont get lost, err I mean do. Boring hearing the same record from you over and over. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

eagle@ tn34

hastings 23 Nov 17 9.40pm

Its time you got in that car willo and dont get lost, err I mean do. Boring hearing the same record from you over and over.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret 23 Nov 17 9.44pm
I see that the ref in their Atalanta game has taken 75 minutes and half a dozen nasty fouls to give Tom Davis a yellow. Horrible agricultural thug. ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

23 Nov 17 9.44pm

I see that the ref in their Atalanta game has taken 75 minutes and half a dozen nasty fouls to give Tom Davis a yellow. Horrible agricultural thug.

============
The Ferret
============

Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret 23 Nov 17 9.44pm
Thumped 5 - 1. In other news, Niasse whining about Koeman "trying to destroy" him. [Link] Never mind Koeman. Let Luka Milivojevic have a go. Edited by chateauferret (23 Nov 2017 10.03pm) ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

23 Nov 17 9.44pm

Thumped 5 - 1.

In other news, Niasse whining about Koeman "trying to destroy" him.

[Link]

Never mind Koeman. Let Luka Milivojevic have a go.

Edited by chateauferret (23 Nov 2017 10.03pm)

============
The Ferret
============

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglesnut Waterford 23 Nov 17 10.14pm
Banning a player for 2 games retrospectively does not help the club 'conned' in fact, as in our case, it could work against them as Everton's top scorer is now ruled out against other struggling teams. The offending team should have points deducted - again this may not be of any benefit to the offended team but should result in coaches ensuring their players refrain from diving. Any second or subsequent offence in the same season would see the points deducted increased. Teams have points deducted if they go into administration which is no fault of the players so why should the club not suffer if a player offends.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglesnut

Waterford 23 Nov 17 10.14pm

Banning a player for 2 games retrospectively does not help the club 'conned' in fact, as in our case, it could work against them as Everton's top scorer is now ruled out against other struggling teams.

The offending team should have points deducted - again this may not be of any benefit to the offended team but should result in coaches ensuring their players refrain from diving. Any second or subsequent offence in the same season would see the points deducted increased. Teams have points deducted if they go into administration which is no fault of the players so why should the club not suffer if a player offends.

Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret 24 Nov 17 9.48pm
Ayew just dived at the Taxpayers' Stadium and Atkinson failed to book him. Didn't give a pen (correctly) but didn't book him either (incorrectly). Because no penalty, the panel won't be looking at it. Ayew only came on after 75 minutes and that and his fouls should have been enough to get him a red card. The whole thing is a lottery. Edited by chateauferret (24 Nov 2017 9.51pm) ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

24 Nov 17 9.48pm

Ayew just dived at the Taxpayers' Stadium and Atkinson failed to book him. Didn't give a pen (correctly) but didn't book him either (incorrectly). Because no penalty, the panel won't be looking at it.

Ayew only came on after 75 minutes and that and his fouls should have been enough to get him a red card.

The whole thing is a lottery.

Edited by chateauferret (24 Nov 2017 9.51pm)

============
The Ferret
============

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 24 Nov 17 10.40pm
Penalties are given far too easily these days. In the past you had to practically get your leg broken to get one. Not saying we should go back to that, but I think you have to give the benefit of any doubt to the defender. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 24 Nov 17 10.40pm

Penalties are given far too easily these days. In the past you had to practically get your leg broken to get one. Not saying we should go back to that, but I think you have to give the benefit of any doubt to the defender.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Brentmiester_General Front line in the battle against t... 25 Nov 17 12.42am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Penalties are given far too easily these days. In the past you had to practically get your leg broken to get one. Not saying we should go back to that, but I think you have to give the benefit of any doubt to the defender. I agree. I often look at penalties given and wonder if it would have even warranted a free kick if it was outside the box. Having said that, a free kick is given now days for absolutely naff all. "We love you Palace, we f@cking hate Man U, We love you Palace, we hate the brighton too, We love you Palace we play in red 'n' blue, so f@ck you, and you ...
Alert a moderator to this post

Brentmiester_General

Front line in the battle against t... 25 Nov 17 12.42am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I agree. I often look at penalties given and wonder if it would have even warranted a free kick if it was outside the box. Having said that, a free kick is given now days for absolutely naff all.

"We love you Palace, we f@cking hate Man U, We love you Palace, we hate the brighton too, We love you Palace we play in red 'n' blue, so f@ck you, and you ...

Alert a moderator to this post

Nobbybm Dartford 25 Nov 17 8.34am
Originally posted by chateauferret Ayew just dived at the Taxpayers' Stadium and Atkinson failed to book him. Didn't give a pen (correctly) but didn't book him either (incorrectly). Because no penalty, the panel won't be looking at it. Ayew only came on after 75 minutes and that and his fouls should have been enough to get him a red card. The whole thing is a lottery. Edited by chateauferret (24 Nov 2017 9.51pm) Funnily enough, I thought the same thing & the two West Ham I was watching with actually agreed. I’ve said before, unless the retrospective punishment is something like a point deducted from the offenders team & possibly one given to the ‘victim’ then they’ll not stop players doing it. There’s too much money involved in the EPL & the simple act of banning a player is weighted against smaller clubs - if, say, Citeh lost Aguero for a couple of games they’re not exactly short of talent to step in. Will this be five? It's gonna be five! It IS five!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nobbybm

Dartford 25 Nov 17 8.34am

Originally posted by chateauferret

Ayew only came on after 75 minutes and that and his fouls should have been enough to get him a red card.

The whole thing is a lottery.

Edited by chateauferret (24 Nov 2017 9.51pm)

Funnily enough, I thought the same thing & the two West Ham I was watching with actually agreed.

I’ve said before, unless the retrospective punishment is something like a point deducted from the offenders team & possibly one given to the ‘victim’ then they’ll not stop players doing it. There’s too much money involved in the EPL & the simple act of banning a player is weighted against smaller clubs - if, say, Citeh lost Aguero for a couple of games they’re not exactly short of talent to step in.

Will this be five? It's gonna be five! It IS five!

Alert a moderator to this post

ARGILE OLD GEEZER PORTIMAO 25 Nov 17 9.58am
Originally posted by Willo Referees get 98% of decisions right which of course is a high percentage. Of course on occasions the the 'Big' decisions can be called into question but I can understand the reasons from a referee's perspective. When players seek to deceive the referee in the penalty area (And outside) perhaps the focus of ire should be trained on them.It almost seems as though simulation is part of their daily training !!!! Why not review every penalty and rad card decision, regardless if it is in dispute or not? it only takes a minute and sort of adds to the excitement/anticipation.
Alert a moderator to this post

ARGILE OLD GEEZER

PORTIMAO 25 Nov 17 9.58am

Send a Private Message to ARGILE OLD GEEZER

Originally posted by Willo

Referees get 98% of decisions right which of course is a high percentage.

Of course on occasions the the 'Big' decisions can be called into question but I can understand the reasons from a referee's perspective.

When players seek to deceive the referee in the penalty area (And outside) perhaps the focus of ire should be trained on them.It almost seems as though simulation is part of their daily training !!!!

Why not review every penalty and rad card decision, regardless if it is in dispute or not? it only takes a minute and sort of adds to the excitement/anticipation.

Alert a moderator to this post

Goal Machine The Cronx 26 Nov 17 9.03am
His ban is zero consolation for Palace but it is at least a step in the right direction. I sympathise with referees as it’s not easy to call these decisions when they happen at a blink of the eye, and that’s why they need help with technology. Personally, I’d like there to be a review system where the captain can challenge the decision. The footage can be reviewed in a matter of seconds when the ball next goes out of play. I think the standard of refereeing has dropped in recent years and the diving culture doesn’t help
Alert a moderator to this post

Goal Machine

The Cronx 26 Nov 17 9.03am

His ban is zero consolation for Palace but it is at least a step in the right direction.

I sympathise with referees as it’s not easy to call these decisions when they happen at a blink of the eye, and that’s why they need help with technology.

Personally, I’d like there to be a review system where the captain can challenge the decision. The footage can be reviewed in a matter of seconds when the ball next goes out of play. I think the standard of refereeing has dropped in recent years and the diving culture doesn’t help

Alert a moderator to this post

Aolcpfc Finchley, London 26 Nov 17 10.14am
Apologies in advance for the long post, but I think the detail is needed to make the argument stick that CPFC should demand three points for the game and not be satisfied with one point for a draw. Niasse dived. That is the verdict. The penalty would not have been given. The goal would not have been scored. Conclusioneduct the goal as the penalty was wrongly awarded. CPFC 2 Everton 1. We should be awarded the three points for winning. It should be declared Everton's loss because they cheated. In the Olympics a goal medal is taken from the cheat. The original silver medal winner is awarded the gold; the bronze medal winner, the silver and the fourth-placed competitor the bronze. Practically everyone is satisfied except the cheat and those who condone cheating. Everton should have no argument that had they not been awarded the penalty the game might have been different because they would have scored another goal anyway because they would have been so resolute in getting back into the game. This counterfactual argument assumes far too much. The point is: Niasse cheats; Everton lose that particular (penalty) goal. Had the scoreline been CPFC 2 Everton 5 then a one goal deduction would have been CPFC 2 Everton 4, and Everton would have kept the 3 points despite the deducted goal (that resulted from the penalty). Had the penalty been saved then in the scenario above the scoreline would read CPFC 2 Everton 4 because no goal would have to be deducted because a goal had not resulted from the penalty. In the latter scenario, it could then be said that Everton won despite the instance of the wrongly awarded penalty. Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think that it spells out the detail of the argument that CPFC should make. It could be the difference between relegation and a place in the Premiership next year. Furthermore, the benefit of punishing the Everton team (as a whole) could be that in future they as a group of players would discourage Niasse from diving. As it stands, "he took one for the team" and the Everton team has profited. In general, the FA might see this as a better way of reducing the benefits of diving than simply punishing the one player.
Alert a moderator to this post

Aolcpfc

Finchley, London 26 Nov 17 10.14am

Apologies in advance for the long post, but I think the detail is needed to make the argument stick that CPFC should demand three points for the game and not be satisfied with one point for a draw.

Niasse dived. That is the verdict.
The penalty would not have been given.
The goal would not have been scored.

Conclusioneduct the goal as the penalty was wrongly awarded.
CPFC 2 Everton 1.

We should be awarded the three points for winning.

It should be declared Everton's loss because they cheated.

In the Olympics a goal medal is taken from the cheat. The original silver medal winner is awarded the gold; the bronze medal winner, the silver and the fourth-placed competitor the bronze. Practically everyone is satisfied except the cheat and those who condone cheating.

Everton should have no argument that had they not been awarded the penalty the game might have been different because they would have scored another goal anyway because they would have been so resolute in getting back into the game. This counterfactual argument assumes far too much.

The point is: Niasse cheats; Everton lose that particular (penalty) goal.

Had the scoreline been CPFC 2 Everton 5 then a one goal deduction would have been CPFC 2 Everton 4, and Everton would have kept the 3 points despite the deducted goal (that resulted from the penalty).

Had the penalty been saved then in the scenario above the scoreline would read CPFC 2 Everton 4 because no goal would have to be deducted because a goal had not resulted from the penalty.

In the latter scenario, it could then be said that Everton won despite the instance of the wrongly awarded penalty.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think that it spells out the detail of the argument that CPFC should make.

It could be the difference between relegation and a place in the Premiership next year.

Furthermore, the benefit of punishing the Everton team (as a whole) could be that in future they as a group of players would discourage Niasse from diving. As it stands, "he took one for the team" and the Everton team has profited.

In general, the FA might see this as a better way of reducing the benefits of diving than simply punishing the one player.

Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse Hastings 26 Nov 17 10.28am
Retrospective bans are to try to change the mindset of players not the result. Goals change matches, so no one knows what might have happened if the ref got it right. Ayew should be charged by the FA regardless of if he fooled the official or not, if they want the new ruling to work. To get it right on the day the only way is a coaches challenge IMO. We challenge the decision, it's overturned, players booked and he has a charge to answer. Eventually they will stop doing it. Before a professional foul or punching off the line became a red card offence they all did it. Now it's a much rarer occurrence because of the jeopardy and the same will happen with diving and feigning injury to get someone sent off if they stay strong and punish. All football's ills are fixable if they have the desire to fix them. We've all known this for years. That's Life And as funny as it may seem Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream. KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse

Hastings 26 Nov 17 10.28am

Retrospective bans are to try to change the mindset of players not the result. Goals change matches, so no one knows what might have happened if the ref got it right. Ayew should be charged by the FA regardless of if he fooled the official or not, if they want the new ruling to work.
To get it right on the day the only way is a coaches challenge IMO. We challenge the decision, it's overturned, players booked and he has a charge to answer. Eventually they will stop doing it. Before a professional foul or punching off the line became a red card offence they all did it. Now it's a much rarer occurrence because of the jeopardy and the same will happen with diving and feigning injury to get someone sent off if they stay strong and punish.
All football's ills are fixable if they have the desire to fix them. We've all known this for years.

That's Life
And as funny as it may seem
Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream.
KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 16 of 24 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Niasse Dive

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors