Haven’t seen the game but a lot of people are writing online that they expect him to receive a ban once footage has been reviewed under the new guidelines. If this is the case it is recognition that he cheated and as such the goal should be taken away from Everton and the result should stand at 2-1. There’s no way that if retrospective evidence reveals that a player has cheated as decided by a panel of experts that they should gain a point. Players need to know that they will gain their team no advantage. I would want our players treated the same way.

All three have to agree it's a dive for any action to be taken. They've bottled every decision so far, so because there was contact with his shoulder they will bottle it again. It's a contact sport and body contact in most cases should be ignored because of that reason, but I guanantee they will bottle it, "Cos there was contact." I'd love to be proved wrong and they send out a message, but I won't hold my breath.

Edited by Dangermouse (18 Nov 2017 10.17pm)

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

Except if it were Wilf it would be yellow card and no penalty because it's Wilf. So it won't get in front of the panel.

If the correct decision had been given it would not only have been no goal but Niasse would have had a yellow card, so would either have had to change his conduct later on or else have been sent off sometime before half-time. It would also have sent a signal to Everton that the referee wasn't having any s***.

Unfortunately the referee was indeed having s***, and plenty of it. He let them get away with murder.

The panel will make no difference to anything until the consequences it imposes are severe enough to make cheating not worth while. That means losing all advantage gained from the cheating with an additional penalty for cheating itself. People like Niasse and Snodgrass need to be told that they are playing in a country where a batsman who has hit the ball and is then caught walks from the wicket before the umpire has had to decide whether to raise his finger or not, and that similar sportsmanship is expected of them or else.

And referees need to be told that if they perform like that idiot did this afternoon they can collect their P45s.

As pointed out above, however, those things won't happen until the pig farm starts operating international flights.

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

At the game I thought it was a penalty (well I’d have been shouting for one if it was up the other end ) might be wrong. Looked like a body check , no need to give him the option to dive , if he’s going no where.
Like Delaney against Benteke (for Liverpool) if you pull out of the challenge there’s no opportunity to dive.

Sorry, but Dann has to move to cover the run. As he closes in he sees the danger of fouling him and pulls out. His hand touches the shoulder of Niasse, but it's a contact sport and body contact doesn't make your legs fold up behind you and send you to the floor. If Dann had just let him run through I can only imagine the s*** he'd be getting now.
The referee had the perfect view of the incident and the fact he gave it means that Asian betting syndicates could be a real problem in football, cos I can't see any other reason for the prick to give it.

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

At the game I thought it was shoulder to shoulder and goes down with it happening to see what he can get. Now I know it's blatant cheating because Dann pulls out, there's minimal contact and the weasel goes down.

Contact or minimal ontactbor being impeded should apply when it affects the attackers run or control of the ball, passing or shooting opportunity. Dann just being there caused none of that.

Fvcking disgrace. I'm of the view that you give what you see. If you don't see something, don't give it. He clearly didn't see anything so he's fvcked up, but because the fa suits have never kicked a football it means sh1t.

COYP