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

grey_til_I_dye

Luke

The extras are because they got away with it so created a potentially match-changing situation (either a pen/red card or both.)

Clearly, the idea is to disincentivise cheating, by making the risk/reward greater.

NEoldiron

MrsGrey
I posted something similar in November

http://www.whu606.com/discussion/comment/877229/#Comment_877229

Cuz1

Give em the penalty back, West Ham 2 Stoke 0 job done end of

NEoldiron

Cuz no way! Not with our GD ;nonono

claretandbluesky

I don't think we should re score matches of course just open all yellow and red card decisions to retrospective review. So with regard the two matches we are speaking of if Lanzini is adjudged to have dived he gets his ban, if Masouakos was adjudged a yellow offence in the build up he gets that, if just a foul, no further action. Ali gets ban for Spurs and also the City player who nearly took off Kanes head.

So just card offences revisited by the three man panal but none of this Lanzini's can be but Ali's can't on account of Lanzini's can due conning our poor ref and Ali's can't because we don't want to say the ref didn't judge it properly.

I recognise retrospective banning is not as fair as immediate sending off but is better than nothing.

Adam

It’s simple. There should be Video Referees. If a referee awards a penalty, it always takes at least a minute for everyone to calm down and for the penalty taker to get ready.

During that time, the video referee takes a look at the footage. If the footage shows that contact was initiated by the attacker (or there wasn’t any contact at all), then reverse the decision. Give the attacker a yellow card if it’s easy to tell it was 100% a dive, i.e. no contact at all.

If the video is inconclusive (or the video referee can’t decide), then the referee’s decision stands.

This way the team who were defending get the correct decision during the game and don’t suffer.

There won’t be any of this 2-game ban nonsense.

thornburyiron

The thing that annoys me more than the penalty issues is when a player is barely touched but goes town holding his face and checking his nose etc for blood. There were instances of this in half of the games this weekend, at least one in the WBA Utd game. In the Watford game one of their players lay in the penalty area when he hadn't been touched and the ball ran to a Huddersfield player who smashed it in. If he'd stayed up he'd have blocked it. I suppose this is poetic justice.

alderz

Adam

I do agree, but if you look at the responses to the Lanzini incident you can see how opinion is split anyway. People will still argue the decision even if VR is used

jay_in_cpt

thornburyiron said:

The thing that annoys me more than the penalty issues is when a player is barely touched but goes town holding his face and checking his nose etc for blood. There were instances of this in half of the games this weekend, at least one in the WBA Utd game. In the Watford game one of their players lay in the penalty area when he hadn't been touched and the ball ran to a Huddersfield player who smashed it in. If he'd stayed up he'd have blocked it. I suppose this is poetic justice.

Agree with that, Rashford was the player in the Man U team who carried on for nothing!

SSN saying we going to contest charge against Lanzini

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/11176722/west-ham-will-contest-manuel-lanzini-fa-charge-for-simulation

baracks_a_hammer

VR is an inevitability - it is just a matter of time

As, I believe will be the notion of the sin-bin

Hopefully this will right many of the wrongs

As amusing as it is, Stoke do not benefit at all from lanzini being banned - arsenal and Newcastle will. How can this possibly be right??

VR and a spell in the sin bin for simulation starts to introduce a bit more fairness

Lukerz

Sky saying we’re appealing the charge.

ASLEFshrugged

NEoldiron said:

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.

To the best of my knowledge Arthur has never played anywhere other than on the left so he might feel less than confident being stuck in a position he's never played before. Ayew's played in the hole before and would be a better replacement if Lanzini is banned

NEoldiron

Aslef, to me Arthur seems to brim with confidence under Dr Mosh

Adam

Alderz

For sure there will be plenty of decisions that the video referee will be unsure of.

It’s similar to cricket. If the ball is clipping the stumps, the umpire’s decision stands.

And on the Lanzini incident, I don’t think I’ve seen people say it was a penalty (I could be wrong - I haven’t been reading all the comments), so the penalty decision would have been overturned. Whether it was a dive or not (which is the contentious issue) would determine if there should be a yellow card.

chicagohammer

Video refs are used a LOT over here, for almost anything that can be challenged and it is to much.

At face value - the use of video refs to reinforce penalty decisions given seems like it is sensible and doable, however, I fear that they will soon called upon to assess whenever contact is made in the box where the ref did not give a penalty - thinking of all the jostling that takes place during corners, free kicks and indeed in nearly every cross.

I think at the start of last season, there were moves afoot to try and address the issue of jostling and shirtpulling etc, I recall a couple of games where it really looked like it was having an effect, but I think that went out of the window.

In short I am reluctant to allow video refs as, no matter how well intentioned and reasonable the proposal, I do not think we will be able to keep the genie in the bottle

Lukerz

I do find it outrageous that a player should be encouraged to take a full on clattering to justify asking for a penalty. So Pieters comes over, Lanzini thinks “oh dear this could be nasty at this pace”, decides to ride the challenge but in the end the challenge isn’t as bad as anticipated.

It wasn’t, IMO, a penalty, but there is a middle ground. No pen and no accusation of labelling Lanzini a cheat. He could just as well claim he was trying to avoid being wiped out. The panel have accused him of deception.

Cuz1

I agree lukerz deception seems quite strong if your trying to avoid a kicking

thornburyiron

It's a bit of a thin line because why should throwing yourself to the ground in the penalty area because you think you might get kicked be any different to anywhere else on the pitch.
Nobody except Lanzini knows why he did what he did ie dive to win a penalty or go down because he thought he was going to get scythed down anyway but whatever the reason was the referee was looking directly at it with an uninterrupted view and he deemed it to be a penalty.

welovethehammers

Why was Fabian Delph not banned when we played Manchester City? Rice was about to tackle him and then he took a tumble. Surely that should be a ban?

Against Chelsea in the first half I saw at least 3 players go down softly. Morata turned one of our defenders and took a tumble. Why was he not banned? Zabacosta or whatever his name was kept going down like he was shot... why wasnt he banned? There was another Chelsea player who blatantly dived (think it was Marcos Alonso but could be wrong) - why wasn't he banned?

I 100% agree Lanzini did dive and tbh I'm dissapointed in him for doing it but what irritates me is players who get away with it. I can't imagine they would ban a top Man City player if he were to dive but I feel they would pick on players at the lower end of the table.

buffybegood

welovethehammers said:

I 100% agree Lanzini did dive and tbh I'm dissapointed in him for doing it but what irritates me is players who get away with it. I can't imagine they would ban a top Man City player if he were to dive but I feel they would pick on players at the lower end of the table.

Yep, agree with this, as always the lack of consistency is the thing that grates the most, especially when it seems the bigger clubs almost always get preferential treatment.

Fortuneseeker

The much criticized Mr Poll said some Refs would look at that situation and not award a penalty, not book Lanzini for diving and just give a goal kick due to not being certain what had actually taken place.

When I played some years back I was taken out knee high in the penalty area and tried to play on until my leg gave way and all the Ref gave was a goal kick. After the match he said you should have gone down immediately as I thought you wanted to play on as you stayed on your feet for a step or two. My knee with a few stitches in didn't agree!

IronHerb

I wonder if Lanzini can call the ref as a witness. ;hmm ;lol

Lukerz

I think he is just unlucky to be charged and can see why we are appealing.

An opposition player comes in with his wrong leg, studs up, obstructing Lanzini’s run at goal whilst having no chance of taking the ball and the panel can conclusively prove Lanzini was attempting to deceive the match official, despite there being minimal contact.

All Lanzini has to argue at the appeal is he feared for his safety after anticipating a studs up, high challenge.

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes

You’ve picked one image out of so many. From behind, you see the defender’s leg and studs are quite some distance from Lanzini, and don’t extend out to threaten any harm.

NEoldiron

The point is that this all happens in a second more or less.
Manu can see/is aware that Pieters is making a sliding tackle with his foot raised. His reaction is a purely self-preservation instinctive one.

OutcastLondoner

Adam said:

It’s simple. There should be Video Referees. If a referee awards a penalty, it always takes at least a minute for everyone to calm down and for the penalty taker to get ready.

During that time, the video referee takes a look at the footage. If the footage shows that contact was initiated by the attacker (or there wasn’t any contact at all), then reverse the decision. Give the attacker a yellow card if it’s easy to tell it was 100% a dive, i.e. no contact at all.

If the video is inconclusive (or the video referee can’t decide), then the referee’s decision stands.

This way the team who were defending get the correct decision during the game and don’t suffer.

There won’t be any of this 2-game ban nonsense.

What happens when a penalty isn’t given? Does the team get to call it and we end losing a counter attack opportunity?

Cuz1

Or if it isn’t given appeal to the video ref to overrule the ref and give it. Or just stick to what the ref says yes/ no end of

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

The thing is Lanzini has started to go down before any contact and he’s not tried to hurdle the challenge he’s gone down with his arms up in the air, like most players who try and make more of it do.

Yeoldhammer

He's dived and being punished accordingly.

TheMadcapLaughs

Should De Bruyne be punished and suspended also (plus a few others but I can`t be bothered to find the videos). Blatant dive, no?

https://streamable.com/dqm46

If Lanzini`s suspension gets upheld and no other incidents are investigated from the weekend it shows what a mockery the whole procedure is. Absolute disgrace.