No simulation - FA not persuing ban

clarethomer · Post by **clarethomer** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:31 pm

Silva getting no further action taken

Just been confirmed on SSN

MT03ALG · Post by **MT03ALG** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:36 pm

FA not allowed to take action against the Premier League Leaders.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:36 pm

Penalty correctly given, why would he get a ban?

Rumbletonk · Post by **Rumbletonk** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:50 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Penalty correctly given, why would he get a ban?

I'm beginning to get the impression you don't think it's a penalty

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:53 pm

Football is not football any more. Players leave their leg there or put it there at the last second, when a keeper or defender is coming and they get a penalty every time. "he was touched, so it's a penalty". That is rubbish. Keepers used to come through players, get the ball and that was that. Football is in serious trouble. It will soon not be worth watching by a football fan. Only by those who just like a spectacle on the Tv, to fill a couple of hours.

skibum84 · Post by **skibum84** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:53 pm

I would say he dived, he exaggerated the contact. Should this be a penalised after the game?

If it had occurred in England, should the Lyon player who dropped to the floor when approached by Neymar been penalised after the game? I think so.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:53 pm

They should at least add a segment to Strictly Come Dancing so top theatrical experts can vote on it.

or X Factor for best performance

superdimitri · Post by **superdimitri** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:55 pm

This is exactly why it's important we also cheat. Leave your leg in the way, easy.

Croydon Claret · Post by **Croydon Claret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:55 pm

They need to check the pitch for landmines then.

Something unnatural must have caused him to fly into the air some time after his foot was pinned to the ground

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:02 pm

And now we watch as every Proper Claret™ becomes Blue Labrador, complaining about a conspiracy to favour the big teams instead of admitting that they are just wrong.

jdrobbo · Post by **jdrobbo** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:07 pm

The issue here is the ruling.

Was it a penalty - I think it was yes.

Did Bernardo Silva try to make more of the incident than it was? Yes I think he did.

Should a player be banned for 'Over-simulation' in such circumstances - This is where the rule needs to change.

It sounds daft, but a penalty to Manchester City, followed by a yellow card to Bernardo Silva, for ungentlemanly conduct, would've been the correct decision.

Squarepusher · Post by **Squarepusher** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:09 pm

I don't personally feel that you can go booking players for exaggerating contact if a penalty was correctly given. Doesn't seem like anyone has really been deceived, as such.

CharlieinNewMexico · Post by **CharlieinNewMexico** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:15 pm

Isn't it unsporting conduct? Attempting to deceive?

Squarepusher · Post by **Squarepusher** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:20 pm

CharlieinNewMexico wrote:Isn't it unsporting conduct? Attempting to deceive?

Maybe. But he wasn't trying to win a penalty that was unwarranted. He was (rather dramatically) drawing attention to one that was warranted.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:34 pm

The FA have lost respect in a number of areas over the years, so this comes as no surprise to me.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:34 pm

Not worth it to anyone. Doesn't benefit Burnley and only a squad player who won't play the next two games.

Foulthrow · Post by **Foulthrow** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:48 pm

This puts the FA in a really tricky situation now. Precedent set. As long as you can demonstrate that you were touched then no ban.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:01 pm

Sets a bad precedent. Particularly when the players excuse was 'I was touched'

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:01 pm

Should Arfields yellow be rescinded from other week?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:06 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Sets a bad precedent. Particularly when the players excuse was 'I was touched'

What about the excuse "i was fouled"? Because he was fouled. By not suspending him the FA are saying he was fouled. If he wasn't fouled and went down like that, and successfully deceived the referee, then he'd probably be suspended. I don't see what precedent is being set here.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:What about the excuse "i was fouled"? Because he was fouled. By not suspending him the FA are saying he was fouled. If he wasn't fouled and went down like that, and successfully deceived the referee, then he'd probably be suspended. I don't see what precedent is being set here.

He wasnt fouled.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:What about the excuse "i was fouled"? Because he was fouled. By not suspending him the FA are saying he was fouled. If he wasn't fouled and went down like that, and successfully deceived the referee, then he'd probably be suspended. I don't see what precedent is being set here.

Precedent could be that ANY touch and an overly dramatic dive is now fine - not every touch is a foul (such as Tark checking Benteke other week and making him look a muppet) but had he dived .... He would have been touched but it was no foul.

The precedent is not "was it a foul" but "what is a foul" now - does ANY touch now mean a foul?

turfytopper · Post by **turfytopper** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:13 pm

It is a cheaters charter....ie this one following on from the Richarlison joke.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:15 pm

i don't know what's worse. his blatant cheating or that some folk can't see it.

it has become so pervasive that footy is turning into a performance art.

'contact' has become the ugliest word in this sport.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:17 pm

yTib wrote:
'contact' has become the ugliest word in this sport.

(Iain) Dowie is still the ugliest word for me.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:19 pm

What happened in our game wasn't the best example for the FA to follow up on.

There was enough contact that it was never going to stick, they're trying to ban diving with no contact, not a keeper landing on a players ankle who then rolls around like he's broken it...

NL Claret · Post by **NL Claret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:24 pm

You can't be banning the top players. The PL gets millions from showing their matches across the globe, it just wouldn't be right. It's easier for the FA to ban someone from Carlisle.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:29 pm

bfccrazy wrote:Precedent could be that ANY touch and an overly dramatic dive is now fine - not every touch is a foul (such as Tark checking Benteke other week and making him look a muppet) but had he dived .... He would have been touched but it was no foul.

The precedent is not "was it a foul" but "what is a foul" now - does ANY touch now mean a foul?

Exactly. Now, presumably, the FA is going to have to act over the many hundreds of penalties that aren't given for slight touches in the box where the forward doesn't go down. Obviously Silva's actions can't turn a non-foul into a foul, so what the FA is saying is that a touch like Pope's on Silva should be a foul; dozens of those are not given every weekend. Every match, in fact, if you include offences outside the area. Are they going to take action on lenient referees?

THEWELLERNUT70 · Post by **THEWELLERNUT70** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:33 pm

I find it interesting that of the referees asked to give an opinion on the incident,only 1, Roger East, thought that it's was indeed a penalty

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:38 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:He wasnt fouled.

Yes he was. The referee says so and the FA with video evidence says so.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:50 pm

They call it simulation, or gamesmanship, or diving, or exaggeration.
They should call it what it is cheating.
Pope didn't fetch him down deliberately, he didn't even fetch him down accidentally. Silva left his leg in and threw himself down. To any rational mind that isn't a penalty. Football though isn't run on rationale, and the FA don't have the ******** to do anything about it.
If Miller had played for City instead of Carlisle his would have been a 'good' call as well.

In any other walk of life cheating is frowned upon or illegal, why does football turn it's back on it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:52 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:They call it simulation, or gamesmanship, or diving, or exaggeration.
They should call it what it is cheating.
Pope didn't fetch him down deliberately, he didn't even fetch him down accidentally. Silva left his leg in and threw himself down. To any rational mind that isn't a penalty. Football though isn't run on rationale, and the FA don't have the ******** to do anything about it.
If Miller had played for City instead of Carlisle his would have been a 'good' call as well.

In any other walk of life cheating is frowned upon or illegal, why does football turn it's back on it.

Exaggeration isn't cheating. Or was Ben Mee cheating when he went down because he was hit in the face with an arm? Should he be banned?
In any other walk of life who the **** does down holding their face in agony because they got hit with an arm a bit? But not a single person criticised Mee. I wonder why?

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:59 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Exaggeration isn't cheating. Or was Ben Mee cheating when he went down because he was hit in the face with an arm? Should he be banned?

How is making something look worse than it really is not cheating? It certainly isn't honest, so how would you define it?

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:00 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Exaggeration isn't cheating. Or was Ben Mee cheating when he went down because he was hit in the face with an arm? Should he be banned?
In any other walk of life who the **** does down holding their face in agony because they got hit with an arm a bit? But not a single person criticised Mee. I wonder why?

No dangerous precedent and it was a penalty by the letter of the law.

The FA have merely encouraged a new training routine at professional clubs where players will learn to leave trailing legs to ensure ‘contact’.

As long as contact is there, they will argue the toss that it forced them to hit the deck, whether it is a penalty or not, given or not.

Congrats to the FA.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:04 pm

Darthlaw wrote:No dangerous precedent and it was a penalty by the letter of the law.

The FA have merely encouraged a new training routine at professional clubs where players will learn to leave trailing legs to ensure ‘contact’.

As long as contact is there, they will argue the toss that it forced them to hit the deck, whether it is a penalty or not, given or not.

Congrats to the FA.

Couple of problems. 1. he didn't leave a trailing leg. And 2. you think that would be a NEW training routine?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:07 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:How is making something look worse than it really is not cheating? It certainly isn't honest, so how would you define it?

So you agree that when Ben Mee went down and (and stayed down) against West Ham he was cheating? Why didn't you say something at the time? or is it only OK when Burnley players do it?

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:13 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And now we watch as every Proper Claret™ becomes Blue Labrador, complaining about a conspiracy to favour the big teams instead of admitting that they are just wrong.

ClaretCharlie apparently subscribes to the dictum that if a player is touched he has the right to go down, but he is neither a claret nor a dingle or a football fan, he is just a tennis loving troll and should be ignored. IMO sub Saxo.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:13 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So you agree that when Ben Mee went down and (and stayed down) against West Ham he was cheating? Why didn't you say something at the time? or is it only OK when Burnley players do it?

How was he cheating.
When you see the challenge from behind, Bens head took the full force of a 6ft plus 13st bloke through the point of his elbow. I think it would deck anybody.
If you really believe he faked that, then your just the big muppet everybody thinks you are.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:15 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Exaggeration isn't cheating. Or was Ben Mee cheating when he went down because he was hit in the face with an arm? Should he be banned?
In any other walk of life who the **** does down holding their face in agony because they got hit with an arm a bit? But not a single person criticised Mee. I wonder why?

Are you talking about the one where he was sent off?

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:16 pm

I only clicked on this thread to see if the Turtle was all over it.

It's like I have special powers.

bartons baggage · Post by **bartons baggage** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:17 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And now we watch as every Proper Claret™ becomes Blue Labrador, complaining about a conspiracy to favour the big teams instead of admitting that they are just wrong.

Only opinions,why do you take them so personally?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:17 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:How was he cheating.
When you see the challenge from behind, Bens head took the full force of a 6ft plus 13st bloke through the point of his elbow. I think it would deck anybody.
If you really believe he faked that, then your just the big muppet everybody thinks you are.

And when you see the replay you see that Silva's ankle took the full force of Nick Pope. But i guess Pope weighs nothing, is that what you're saying?

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:20 pm

The comparison between Silva initiating the contact and then diving, and Carroll elbowing Mee is f***ing hilarious

Woodleyclaret · Post by **Woodleyclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:21 pm

Complete and utter bxxxcks.Never a penalty and blatant cheating .the message is this dive playing for a top club and you get rewarded.Woody was tripped by Hart and got nothing.Typical no consistency.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:22 pm

bartons baggage wrote:Only opinions,why do you take them so personally?

I wouldn't say i take it personally, but I am embarrassed by my fellow clarets. I like to visit other boards and watch them meltdown over some perceived refereeing injustice, particularly when they're wrong. But now it's happening here with so many of you and it kind of embarrasses me that i thought we were better than other fans. But apparently we're not. We're worse.

Castlerigg claret · Post by **Castlerigg claret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:23 pm

Leaves a bad taste and bad message. Media love Pep so it can't be true that one of his players was pushing the boundaries of sporting behaviour .....

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:24 pm

taio wrote:The comparison between Silva initiating the contact and then diving, and Carroll elbowing Mee is f***ing hilarious

If Silva's standing foot initiated the contact with Pope then Mee initiated the contact with Carroll's elbow.

That's how ridiculous it is to say that Silva initiated contact.

But i wasn't comparing the fouls, i'm comparing the exaggerations.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:25 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If Silva's standing foot initiated the contact with Pope then Mee initiated the contact with Carroll's elbow. That's how ridiculous it is to say that Silva initiated contact.

But i wasn't comparing the fouls, i'm comparing the exaggerations.

No it isn't. And saying so makes you look really foolish.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: But apparently we're not. We're worse.

There is no we you are no claret nor a dingle, you are a jock that likes tennis and an argument. IMO

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:27 pm

You really have had to have played football before to see the initiated contact and unnatural movement.