Amusing to see Garth Crooks pick Deeney for his team of the week and somehow spend the whole paragraph talking about the penalty. He, not surprisingly, is in the ban him camp.
I don't even think he 'went down easily' having seen it again! The more I watch it the more I think it's a penalty. There were TWO moments of contact from Bellerin, the first being the shove in the back as Richarlison cut across him and the second was Bellerin's knee on Richarlison's knee. When you're running full pelt and you get pushed in the back AND clipped, that's always only going to result in the player going down, wether it's easily or not, that's just physics! Virtually impossible for him to have stayed on his feet. Any impending ban would be an absolute joke and a total farce as surely that's reserved for players that haven't actually been touched and have gone down to con the referee? The fact Richarlison was impeded TWICE renders this 'argument' null and void. Simple. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me to see him banned as we are little Watford. Why wasn't Alexis Sanchez banned after the WBA dive? I hate Arsenal. Once upon a time they were a decent club, now they're just full of corporate, know fu*k all about football, ponces!
He won't be banned. Simulation is when there is 'fresh air' between the players i.e. no contact and it is clearly seen that way by the panel.
I agree, I'm not usually optimistic about FA decisions when it comes to us but the FA haven't even indicated that they will look at it. They can't use over-opinionated Twitter users or columnists to make their decision for them. The way I see it is that Richarlison is innocent until proven guilty, the TV and photographic evidence do not prove that Richarlison dived, going down easy does not imply that he wasn't fouled therefore the FA cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he dived. Ergo no ban.
Well done on the homophobic slur. Also, he absolutely could have stayed on his feet. Doesn't mean it wasn't a pen (although, it wasn't) but to suggest it was 'virtually impossible' to continue and get a shot away is ********. Not a pen, but not a dive.
I think this image is conclusive - no panel will "convict" him if they have this evidence - there are two, maybe three areas of simultaneous contact
Irrelevant but, I don't believe it was a dive, though I believe he could have done more to stay up. I believe there is a grey area here, and that it should be considered along with your very fair aversion to players going down too easily. That is, the quality of refereeing does not always ensure an infringement is fairly dealt with; if a player is impeded but stays on his feet, refs, more often than not, seem to award such endeavor by giving advantage to the offending team and allowing the infringement as if no advantage had been gained. Sadly, it is a reflection on the quality of current refereeing that a foul against a player will often only be recognised if they go to ground. In the last year it has been very noticeable that some referees seem to think that playing the advantage means seeing if a player keeps his feet. They seem to interpret it as giving the offending player the chance to avoid being penalised, rather than ensuring no advantage was gained by the foul. Advantage in association Football, in this respect, seems to be very different to that in other forms of Football. Subsequently, it encourages players to go down easily (because that is the only percieved way to ensure an infringement is recognised), which in turn, I believe, also encourages players to 'try it on' in the same manner. Too much emphasis is placed on whether a player goes down or not, and not enough on the offense committed. Get this sorted out, by judging the cause rather than the outcome, and using a more rugby like version of the advantage rule (ref holds his hand up for say ten seconds whilst advantage is being assesed), and players will not feel the need to go down so easily; nor, I believe, would we see so much diving and simulation, because they would be encouraged to keep their feet rather than fall over, knowing they have two opportunities to convert the moment.
Yep, and Deeney pretty much said as much in his post match interview. When Deeney goes down I’m genuinely concerned he’s injured, that’s how rare it is. As a result he often fails to get fouls. As for advantage, I thought refs had recently been advised they can play on for a few seconds and bring the play back. Some do, most don’t.
No, you're right. 'Ponce' obviously just means ... err ... no i've got nothing. It's homophobic. There were three points of contact, but contact ≠ a foul. I don't necessarily blame Charly for going down, because that's the way that the game is refereed now, but he could have stayed on his feet, and could have got a shot away. And we should be promoting that wherever possible.
Obviously that's a lot easier when the play is in the middle of the pitch rather than in the box. As @424TheBeautifulGame said, allowing advantage in other forms of football is better, I referee rugby and I agree that the advantage system works well but mainly because the play is slower and 9/10 times I signal advantage is because there's an infringement in the ruck, in those situations the ball isn't even moving.
Just watched properly for the first time on motd2. Clearly contact. And at the point the knees clash both guys feet are planted so there is no leeway or flex available for him to ride the tackle, especially at that speed, so he effectively bounced off the defender. Yes it was soft and he maybe could have tried to stay on his feet but, sadly, what pro footballer is going to in this day and age especially as the contact would have caused him to struggle to put in a better cross/shot. A defo pen as he impeded the run illegally. Shocking that certain "experts" are seeing it otherwise and makes them look foolish and biased.
I am genuinely astonished and disgusted at the press coverage this incident is getting - where every media outlet reporting on it is stating that Richarlison should be banned (along with the moronic twitterati). By the amount of xenophobic vitriol the lad is getting, you'd think that he must have completed one of the greatest con jobs the game has ever seen. It's utterly farcicle!!! Remember in the immediate aftermath of the game - Graham Poll categorically stated that there was "no contact". And that was after viewing multiple replays. Only later did he back track and revise that lie with "minimal contact". I've put a pic from the gif i posted earlier together with the one Hornetgags posted, thus showing all points of contact: So only the arm, thigh, knee and outer calf whilst running at a speed that had just beaten the league's fastest player!!! Not only should this never be a ban in a million years - it shouldn't even be going to this mickey mouse panel (named because the likelihood of ever seeing a top player from one of the "big boys" is zilch). A glance at the above pics is all the proof you need. Definitely a pen? No, 50/50 in today's game. Definitely a dive? No, 4 areas of contact whilst running at very high speed. Definitely no contact? Only if you're a **** on the level of Graham Poll/Martin Keown (in his latest article about Troy's comments, he's stating the "dive" is now established fact) and the dinosaur Keith Hackett that the Telegraph have just dug up to put more pressure on the panel (which the FA have confirmed will be reviewing on Monday). If Richarlison is banned for this, then the panel isn't fit for purpose. It'll be a travesty of epic proportions when you consider the battering the kid has taken during the season so far.
The backlash in the media about the penalty incident is verging on hysteria. It really is. Did Bournemouth get this when they beat Chelsea or Liverpool in the last few seasons? Christ, if we beat one of the top six, it can only be because we've cheated. That can be the only possible explanation. It really is a case of........Watford!Know your place!
This is trial by media on an epic scale. Richarlison was fouled. There was minimal contact but he was at full speed and virtually past Bellerin. The look on Richarlison's face I opine is a natural one of surprise. Maybe we have also signed a great Brazilian actor but I doubt it. both Welbeck and Iwobi theatrically 'dived' earlier in the match with no sanction. The latter guy has obviously done some spinning classes and it looked ridiculous. So Andy Carroll gets a one game ban for a dangerous habit of leading with his arm and Yedlin today gets away with a sending off because it was seen by the ref and deemed not worthy of a second yellow let alone a straight red. However our man is possibly facing a kangaroo court with a two match ban because of a media frenzy. The game has gone completely bonkers.
Totally agree. And what really grinds my gears is the fact that had it been the other way round (Kiko on Welbeck/Lacazette for example), next to nothing would have been said, other than a cursory minutes analysis immediately after the game.
The Mail are the only outlet that are saying the FA have 'launched' an investigation into the 'dive'. It is dramatic language to overplay the fact that the FA consider every suspected case of simulation or diving before it is referred for review. What the Mail are trying to impress, I imagine quite successfully, is the idea that the review panel has already been engaged, making any decision not to do so seem like the FA backing down. The press will then very much enjoy sticking the boot in on the FA. The Mail article refers to FA bosses and not the review panel, which is why I am confident to say they are blowing things out of proportion at the moment; though it seems entirely likely that they do so to place further pressure on the FA. It is disgusting, but lets face it, the press don't give a toss, they just want news, and they are once again affronted by the world throwing up surprises. As for the review body itself, I think it can easily be dismissed as an unfair system, and in itself seriously risks undermining the referees authority, unless the ref has veto over any review, much like with red cards. As it stands, a player is given a yellow card if their simulation is spotted, or a two match suspension if it wasn't. It would be grossly unfair to give a player a more serious penalty because of what would ostensibly be the incompetence of the officials - remember, the official makes a decision based on what he sees, not what is implied by a player going down. If he gives a penalty, he declares that he saw an offense. This implies the referee would have to first reverse the penalty decision before referral by the review body. If the review body can over-rule a decision made by a referee without that reversal, every decision made by a referee can then be made fair game for official review, because it then becomes clear that he is not in overall charge of a match. The FA will not want that, so I believe the referee will have to be the first port of call for the FA tomorrow. The unfair element of two different punishments for the same offience could be resolved by issuing a straight red when identified in a match, or by the review body issuing a retrospective yellow card, so the punishment does not hang on the incompetence of the officials. But until that is done, the rule as described is open to serious challenge, and I believe likely failure. I really would be surprised if this even gets past the FA bosses/referee, and if it does, it will be purely because of the press piling on pressure.
Except the retrospective two game ban is only imposed if a penalty is awarded or a player sent off right? In other words, changed the possible outcome of the game. If the ref sees the dive and issues the yellow there's going to be no penalty or sending off. I can see why the punishment would be different for the same offense.
I assume you're being sarcastic - if so, it's a contact sport. He still dived. Can you show me in the rules where any sort of contact = foul? No you can't, because it isn't there. If it was, Deeney would last 5 mins per game before getting sent off for persistent fouling. The two players were competing fairly for the ball, Richarlison knew he was going nowhere and threw himself to the ground. Simulation, 2 game ban. Doesn't matter who else has done it, how the rule has been interpreted by pundits and ex-players over the years, how often we've suffered an equally bad decision, or that the contact happened to be in the penalty area. It was a dive.
I dont think it was a dive after looking at replays from various angles , he was pushed in the back whilst travelling at speed . I do think he will be banned because its a big club who is the aggrieved party and its only lil ol watford so we will stiff them !
I can’t imagine this panel will be in any sort of hurry to go against the actual decision made unless it’s absolutely blatant? The more they hand out retrospective punishment the more they undermine their referees and make a mockery of them. My feeling is this is much more of a prevention rather than cure tactic in the first place.
To those who are confused, here's some clarity over what is a penalty. The one on the left is a foul, the one on the right is a dive.
You get the same red card for breaking a players leg as you do for going in studs up but missing him. It is the intent not the outcome you are supposed to be judged on.
Don't think anyone else has mentioned this but Bellerin and Richarlison shook hands at the end of the match, so there must have been sufficient contact for Bellerin not to feel cheated.
I'm with you, ponce is not the first choice I'd make to describe or insult somebody's sexuality. Maybe we should all just go for the big curses as it offends less people. Just need the mode to remove the swear filter.
Not disputing that. So essentially, if it is deemed he did dive, he deserves no more than a retrospective yellow card.
I'm sorry? What are you on? Richarlison was pushed in the back and Bellerin's left knee caught Richarlison's right knee. I don't know how it can be viewed any other way. Both are very quick players and if there is contact then someone is hitting the deck. Bellerin barely argued and neither did any other Arsenal player.
The FA have until 6pm tomorrow to charge Richarlison so it's just a waiting game now. I don't think 2 games rest would do him or us much harm but it's his reputation going forward which will be damaged.
I think we need a review panel for pundits. Those talking rubbish get a 2 game ban. Sounds like Poll might get 5 games for this one.
Penalty for me. He was running at some speed and was nudged by Bellerin and there was also contact as momentum took him down. Simple physics. It may have been soft but we haven't been given some obvious penalties already this season.
I sit in the rookery in line more or less with the incident and my immediate nreaction was it was a foul as it looked to me Richardsons intent was to get away from Belerin and he was hampered by a push in the back . it wasn't as if Richardlison had been throwing himself on the floor during the game, if he had ref probably wouldn't have given it , we have had enough decisions go against us this season and last with little debate it's only because it's a top six side that there is the uproar! Let's face it we aren't meant to be beating The Arsenal!
The outraged masses are talking like the absolute only way to go to ground in football is to be explicitly tripped up. You try bombing it like Richarlison and have somebody plough in from the side. Just a small nudge on the thigh or shin is going to throw you. He does make the most of it, yes...but christ, if you punish people for making the most of it then there's going to be about 20 players suspended at any time.
I don't think it was a dive or a foul. If the referee had given nithing, i.e. no yellow card, no penalty no one would have said anything further. A bit like the incident down the Vic End when they claimed for one. It was one of those where sometimes it's given, sometimes it isn't, it's up to the ref. He gave it but I don't think he was conned
