Everton's Oumar Niasse has been charged of successful deception of a match official by FA in game against Crystal Palace.

Is he the first Premier League player to get this charge?

He is, But has we well know he shouldn't be!

There was more contact there than that diving cheating Man City toe rag.

So a hand in the chest constitutes a dive yet barely any contact on a foot causing a ridiculous swan dive gets away scott free? Unbelievable. I don't think either was a penalty btw.

Quickenthetempo wrote:There was more contact there than that diving cheating Man City toe rag.

Clear dive for me but then again so was Bernado Silva's at Man City - absolutely ridiculous not to charge him.

I still can't believe Van La Parra didn't get charged for his blatant dive against West Brom a few weeks back People seemed to let him off because he went on to score a screamer of a goal.

skibum84 wrote:I still can't believe Van La Parra didn't get charged for his blatant dive against West Brom a few weeks back People seemed to let him off because he went on to score a screamer of a goal.

Didn't see that one. He didn't get away with the one against us but his manager seemed to think his diving on the Turf was acceptable.

skibum84 wrote:I still can't believe Van La Parra didn't get charged for his blatant dive against West Brom a few weeks back People seemed to let him off because he went on to score a screamer of a goal.

They can only be charged if the referee gives a penalty or red card because of the dive.

ClaretTony wrote:Didn't see that one. He didn't get away with the one against us but his manager seemed to think his diving on the Turf was acceptable.

“I said after the game it was the wrong decision from him,” said the 45-year-old German. “It was something we don’t like to see, he got a yellow card and we go on.”

MOTD guys said it was definitely not a penalty despite also admitting there was contact.

Yet they (can't remember whether it was the same pundits) all agreed that Man City one was a penalty because there had been contact.

Anybody with any sense knows that both players dived and cheated and both should have been punished. They should take the "grey" area of contact out of the equation by assessing whether the player attempted to con the official by exaggerating the dive. If he does then he is cheating and even if there was contact and it would have been a penalty without the exaggeration it will serve them right - and more importantly cut it out.

One out of two is better than none - it's a shame we lost out but it very probably did not impact the result of the game. The precedent is hopefully set now that contact in itself does not excuse ridiculous swan dives

"Town head coach David Wagner has confirmed that the winger has been fined for the dive."

UpTheBeehole wrote:"Town head coach David Wagner has confirmed that the winger has been fined for the dive."

Good - because his after match at the Turf, smirking and laughing about it, was unacceptable.

Tall Paul wrote:They can only be charged if the referee gives a penalty or red card because of the dive.

Haha that’s a joke of a rule! If the ref misses it then no action?!

http://www.skysports.com/football/hudds ... rom/373199" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

13 seconds into the highlights.

ClaretTony wrote:Clear dive for me but then again so was Bernado Silva's at Man City - absolutely ridiculous not to charge him.

Spot on there Tony.

Everyone banging on about how good City are but yet we all know they are at least in part cheating their way , and with the FA's help, to the title

The little teams in this case, Everton get punished ,it's the corrupt way the system works it's an absolute joke Silva wasn't charged

"Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'Successful Deception of a Match Official'.

I think someone needs to explain the 'Successful Deception of a Match Official' part. There was as much contact, if not more, than Bernardo Silva vs us and Richarlison vs Arsenal yet they both got away with it? Nice to see the FA being consistently inconsistent as ever.

ClaretTony wrote:Good - because his after match at the Turf, smirking and laughing about it, was unacceptable.

David Wagner said he didn't know if Van La Parra was touched or not against us because he couldn't see the incident.

This is somewhat of a contradiction by Speccy Four eyes because at the time of the incident he went from one side of his technical area to the other and then to confront the fourth official outside of the tech area then just onto the pitch and all the time his arms were aloft claiming a penalty.

FA have rejected Everton appeal - Niasse will serve a two match ban

Usually 3 points and as 100 quid fine these days

Everton caretaker boss David Unsworth says a "dangerous precedent" could be set

Unsworth also stated: "I think it's a great rule but it doesn't change my stance on if there's contact anywhere on the pitch - slight or not, contact is contact'

see link to article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42086238" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretblue wrote:Everton caretaker boss David Unsworth says a "dangerous precedent" could be set

Unsworth also stated: "I think it's a great rule but it doesn't change my stance on if there's contact anywhere on the pitch - slight or not, contact is contact'

see link to article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42086238" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Has there been a rule change? Is football no longer a contact sport?

I notice that Niasse also said there was "contact." Niasse, quote in today's Times: “The contact was on my body and when I had the contact I was in the box so that is it, that is all I have to do, go on the floor. I think it was because I was running so quick. Yes, yes. I went down because of the contact."

So, two footballers come together...but that doesn't make it a foul. Trips, yes, kicks, yes, but just "contact" no, no foul.

claretblue wrote:Everton caretaker boss David Unsworth says a "dangerous precedent" could be set

Unsworth also stated: "I think it's a great rule but it doesn't change my stance on if there's contact anywhere on the pitch - slight or not, contact is contact'

see link to article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42086238" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also from Unsworth - "We don't want contact taken out the game. Slowly but surely it has started."

Isn't he contradicting himself here?

I can't believe the FA excuse for his ban . The panel have stated that Niasse "exaggerated the effect of a normal contact to deceive the referee" What the heck where they looking at regards bloody Silva

Martin, I think they looked away with it being city...........


Up the Clarets........

bfcmartin wrote:I can't believe the FA excuse for his ban . The panel have stated that Niasse "exaggerated the effect of a normal contact to deceive the referee" What the heck where they looking at regards bloody Silva

It's so inconsistent it's f'in ludicrous.

The 5th guideline in deciding whether there has been simulation should make the decision clear cut to me. Irrespective of whether there is contact and irrespective of how much contact if the player exaggerates the effect to deceive the referee then he is banned.

This puts to bed the very long debate we had on the Silva dive because whilst opinion was split on whether it was a penalty or not because of the contact pretty much everyone said Silva exaggerated his dive.