Silva getting no further action taken

Just been confirmed on SSN

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

Penalty correctly given, why would he get a ban?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Isn't it unsporting conduct? Attempting to deceive?

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.

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

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

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.

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

Should Arfields yellow be rescinded from other week?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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...

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.

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?

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

cricketfieldclarets wrote:He wasnt fouled.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

It's like I have special powers.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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 .....

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.

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.

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

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