Smash Those Potters - Stoke (A) Match Thread 16.12.17 3pm

IronHerb

Not sure he will be banned for the Arsenal game. He has until 6pm tomorrow to appeal so no punishment will be meted out before then and as we kick off less than 3 hours later I'm not sure there will be sufficient time.

As you can see I'm very unsure. ;biggrin

NEoldiron

This is interesting, up until January this year, we're not even on the list, but Stoke are ;angry

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/revealed-premier-league-teams-worst-9643002

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

Expat_Hammer said:

Next name Slizzy ?

and it wasn't a dive, so there ;pokeouttongueinjestsmiley

Looks like the FA disagree mate

grey_til_I_dye

Slizzy

Yeah, coz we all have a lot of faith in that mob...

TwistandShout

I'll accept the 2 game ban.... If everyone else is treated the same. Zaha dives 2-3 times a game. In fact he 'won' 2 penalties the other day yet wasn't charged?

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

What annoys me is that once again the law / rule makers have got this wrong.....

While I’ll applaud the fact divers and cheats should be be punished, how the heck can the likes of Kane and more importantly Deli Alli get away with those shocking tackles just because the ref gives them a yellow?

Punishing a club / player after the fact for a dive does nothing to help the club affected by the penalty, in fact it could hurt them more than once as the culprit is now not playing against a teams rivals.

The sooner video official comes in the better, I hate the fact we’ve reached that point but the game is too fast, too much at stake and has too much tv scrutiny not to now.

MrsGrey

TwistandShout said:

I'll accept the 2 game ban.... If everyone else is treated the same. Zaha dives 2-3 times a game. In fact he 'won' 2 penalties the other day yet wasn't charged?

The panel reviewed it and - as he wasn't charged - we can deduce that the 3 panel members did not all agree that he dived. (The panel members view the evidence independently, and there has to be unanimity that it was a dive.)

Plus, whether or not Zaha dives at other times, the current laws of the game only provide or a review if the 'dive' leads to a penalty or a sending off.

IronHerb

What about the Brighton player who made the most outrageous dive against Burnley where nothing was given but lives to dive another day. Why isn't 'attempting to deceive the ref' not punishable?

MrsGrey

I have forwarded your question to Fifa ;ok

Although, in some cases it is ... a ref can punish a player for diving during the game.)

claretandbluesky

The FA are the worst thing about football and once again they shine a light on it by a questionable decision regarding Lanzini whilst Ali will line up for Tottenham scot free next time. The conclusion I make is that they would rather players like Ali go unpunished than bring the quality of their referee into question. Why is this absurd rule of 'the referee saw it' even in existence? he saw it but possibly did not apply the rules, he is at fault if so.

Put the Ali tackle to a three man panel and I bet they take a lot less time coming to that judgment than Lanzini's, so why do they retrospectively punish one but not the other? because one says you conned the ref and the other says the ref is inept....... just looking after their own so not fit for purpose.

Expat_Hammer

Mrs G, did the forward to FIFA include the brown envelope ?

MrsGrey

claretandbluesky said:

Why is this absurd rule of 'the referee saw it' even in existence?

That rule has been amended.

The disciplinary panels look at a range of things that the ref 'saw' during the game. Just not everything.

I for one don't think we should have a panel basically re-referring everything in the game in slo-mo the next day.

I do, though, think the things currently 'reviewable' need to be changed.

I also think we need video technology to help refs, for the reasons Izzy mentioned earlier.

claretandbluesky

I would agree that you can't re visit throw ins etc but significant decisions of which the two I have compared are both significant and potentially could change the course of the game. Although to be fair even if Spurs were allowed to play the rest of the match with two Dele Ali's let alone lose one they would still have lost. The next team who play Spurs however should benefit from his absence.

For me significant match changing decisions and things missed by the ref revisited, there can easily be rule that states anything deemed significant can be retrospectively punished. I feel they want to deflect as much criticism as possible from referees at the expense of justice and consistency. We all know refs will make mistakes and accept that but we feel a lot less vexed when revisited consistently.

While I am at it, fining a manager who dares suggest the referee was appalling is just wrong, if you insist they stand in front of a camera then let them appraise the game properly. The referees are not made of glass.

Right I better go for a sit down now and take some deep breaths.

SuzanneClaret

The FA don't want to over rule one of their ref's so incidents like the Ali yellow - should have been a red - card won't get looked at.

But, the diving / penalty award can - after all what is the poor ref to do if a player cons him.

What happens if the ref just gets it wrong, a player falls over but doesn't appeal to the ref but a penalty is awarded?

#confussed

;puzzled

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

It says something when going over a bit easy or a bit previous as expecting a tackle, is now deemed worse than someone like Alli almost ending a career.

NEoldiron

Let's assume that the charge is upheld and Manu gets a 2 game ban which, according to the BBC website, means tomorrow's cup game and Saturday's match against Newcastle regardless of whether he appeals or not.
Since IMO the priority for us is PL survival, could we not experiment tomorrow so that we are prepared for the Newcastle game without Manu.
How about playing Arthur in the AM role. I think he has the ball skills, pace and pass to make a decent go of it. Cresswell could go back to LB and Rice come in at LCB.

Lukerz

Accept it. He’d probably be rested tomorrow anyway. Only misses Newcastle (which is still a shame). We got the three points against Stoke. Move on.

TwistandShout

On Goals on Sunday Wagner (Huddersfield manager) said it was a pen. So there is some doubt. Not everyone thinks its a dive. Surely it has to be 100% a dive for a ban

thornburyiron

Even Graham Poll said he thought it was a dive at first, then he thought it was a penalty and then he thought he was going down to avoid contact.
If an ex ref can't even agree with himself how can three independent reviewers all come to the same no doubt conclusion.

IronHerb

What you have to take into account is that good old British football people would rather see someone's leg broken in a poor tackle than those Johnny Foreigners diving all over the place.

IronHerb

But Thorn, that was Graham Poll. He would have booked Lanzini for diving, then for appealing and again for confusing him.

baracks_a_hammer

thornburyiron said:

Even Graham Poll said he thought it was a dive at first, then he thought it was a penalty and then he thought he was going down to avoid contact.
If an ex ref can't even agree with himself how can three independent reviewers all come to the same no doubt conclusion.

To be fair though Graham Poll has often been confused by exactly how many yellow cards are required in order for a player to be sent off

Fortuneseeker

I await the time when Zaha gets booked or better still gets a two game ban as he is always falling over! He isn't the only one who does it but he is one of the worst but that is no excuse. The penalties v Bournemouth are just two incidents when he deceived the ref. The FA probably don't want to punish a player from Good Old Roy's team. ;angry

claretandbluesky

The question at the appeal should be am I obliged to take an impact from a player or is any evasive action permitted? what do they think the appropriate action for me was and would the referee have awarded a penalty regardless of my action?

In my view his feet left the floor before contact which is the cause I would imagine for the cry of dive, I feel that was in preparation for the impact from a player arriving at speed and his own momentum leading him to feel he was going to get taken out. The defender does pull back but still hits him and so a penalty would have been awarded anyhow. I feel they can only claim it a dive if they also state no evasive action is possible by an attacker.

MrsGrey

TwistandShout said:

On Goals on Sunday Wagner (Huddersfield manager) said it was a pen. So there is some doubt. Not everyone thinks its a dive. Surely it has to be 100% a dive for a ban

It does have to be 100% for a ban - 100% of the panel charged with making the decision.

They can't ask the entire world to vote.

MrsGrey

claretandbluesky said:

The next team who play Spurs however should benefit from his absence.

Well, yes, but why? The team who should benefit is the team they were playing at the time. We often see fans complaining that retrospective action can actually be even more damaging tbecause it is possible a rival team who you are battling it out with benefits, when you didn't at the time. So you have suffered double. ( If that makes sense? ;puzzled)

Thing is, you can't change a result. So you have to balance 'what behaviour do you want to punish' and 'does it actually matter, if the opposing team has already suffered the consequences of the ref's mistake'?

claretandbluesky said:

For me significant match changing decisions and things missed by the ref revisited, there can easily be rule that states anything deemed significant can be retrospectively punished.

Yes. punishment is possible. But what does it achieve and what are the downsides?

MrsGrey

For me significant match changing decisions

Who decides which are significant (or insignificant) and which changed matches, and what would have happened if tye decision had gone the other way.

For example, prior to the Lanzini pen, there was possible a foul on Shaqiri.

Was the ref's decision NOT to award a foul game changing?

Well, you could argue YES because then the pen would (might?) never have happened?

So that's a game changer. ;ok

But, if the ref had booked Lanzini for diving, and not given a pen, it the failure award the earlier foul WOULDN'T have been a game-changer.

So, same decision in both cases (no foul), which both is and isn't a game-changer, but only because of what happened afterwards, in hindsight.

Sorry, but that way madness lies. ;wahoo

alderz

I think it's all well and good saying that we want consistency, but actually we need to also hold our hands up and say that it was deserved. Just because player x has gotten away with it doesn't mean Lanzini should just because he plays for us.

Lukerz

So if Lanzini was seen to dive, the ref gave a free-kick to Stoke, booked Lanzini, would he have been pulled up after and banned? Or would it have just been a yellow to his name?

Seems unfair that the decision to ban a player is dependent on the performance of the ref.

alderz

Lukerz

The rule is stupid, no doubt about it. The punishment is (IMO) fair, but in that case a player should be given a straight red and not a yellow if diving in the game. And the exclusions of certain offences (those not winning a pen / not resulting in a red / those dealt with by the ref) is absolutely ridiculous.