FA simulation panel

[garfsuncle]

I watched Watford v [expletive deleted] on Saturday. Not a great game, but [expletive deleted] were leading 1-0 up until the referee awarded a dodgy penalty against them. Having watched the "foul" several times, it was clear to me that the Watford player had dived. The commentators said it was a dive, Sky TV's resident ref (Graham Poll, I believe) said it was a dive; and Keith Hackett in his Telegraph article said it was a clear dive and would be a good test for the FA's new panel which was being introduced in an attempt to stamp out simulation by players trying to deceive the referee and win free kicks and penalties.

Some test. The FA panel is not only faceless but evidently also toothless. The Watford player (Richarlison) was considered blameless and thus escaped a 2-match ban. What a farce! Might as well shelve the whole project and allow players to continue deceiving referees to their hearts' content. The well-documented incompetence of the FA continues on its traditional merry way.


Alan

[Bink333]

Bellerin made contact, leg to leg in the penalty box, after Richarlison had touched the ball.

Did Richarlison seem to go down easily? Yes.

Was he entitled to? Yes.

Therefore no dive.

Seems pretty fair to me, Bellerin should know better than to make contact in the box as he's inviting disaster. Watford deserve credit for a gritty if not a very pretty performance, and if Richarlison hadn't gone down after contact was made, I expect his manager wouldn't have been best pleased with him.

[garfsuncle]

Bellerin made contact, leg to leg in the penalty box, after Richarlison had touched the ball.

Last time I looked, football was a contact sport, although admittedly this seems to be changing! Was Richarlison tripped? No. Was he pushed? No. But, oh dear, there was contact leg to leg. Quite often, when two players jump for the ball there is contact arm to arm, or chest to chest, or back to back, or any combination of these, but penalties are not usually awarded in such instances. Blimey, I've seen bear hugs and shirt tugs go unpunished! But leg against leg when two players are running alongside each other warrants a penalty, does it? But I guess one of the players, preferably the attacker, has to fall down first.

Did Richarlison seem to go down easily? Yes.

Strongly agree!

Was he entitled to? Yes.

Entitled? Absolutely not. Try it on? If he's a cheat, yes.

Therefore no dive.

Only to an ardent Watford supporter (and the gutless panel, terrified of finding the ref in the wrong). Neutrals would disagree, as have all the refs I've seen quoted so far.

Seems pretty fair to me, Bellerin should know better than to make contact in the box as he's inviting disaster.

Translation: Bellerin shouldn't even try to intervene as he might actually touch his opponent. I doubt whether he'd last long in the game, though, if he followed that policy.

Watford deserve credit for a gritty if not a very pretty performance, and if Richarlison hadn't gone down after contact was made, I expect his manager wouldn't have been best pleased with him.

Agree the first part; reluctantly agree the second.


Alan

[CryptoPlankton]

Marco Silva said it all trying to defend his player: "He is fair, He wins fouls like the best players in the world win fouls."

It has become an art form. In this instance, from behind, you can see that Bellerin is running straight at the ball as Richarlison flies in diagonally and flicks the side of Bellerin's leg with his toe, the contact "entitling" him (it's all about entitlement these days) to go sprawling and force the ref into a decision. Obviously, this was a reasonably decent performance as the referee found in his favour. However, given the number of "experts" who considered it a dive, it's hard to credit him as one of the best in the world (although he has clearly developed his art far more effectively than some - the novice Raheem Sterling springs to mind). No, the true diva ( ) leaves absolutely everyone convinced that he was fouled - probably including even himself.

Of course, it works both ways and there are players who disguise their foul play with equal skill. Just as one example, when you are in the air, the slightest perturbation can make it extremely difficult to readjust your flight. The tiniest little nudge or tug at the critical moment (imperceptible to the ref, if executed well) can ruin the chances of producing an effective header. And don't you just marvel at corners? Generally, you can identify at least a couple of cases for either a penalty or a free kick to the defending team. They're just the obvious ones - there will be several more accomplished cheats at work, unnoticed even under the scrutiny of a replay.

I don't know another sport where the level of cheating gets remotely close to that in football. It has become almost farcical - they can't even resist claiming a throw-in in midfield after kicking the ball out themselves with nobody else around! It's hard to see anything changing - the stakes are so high that nobody can afford to play fair. It's a shame, because the pure footballing skills on show these days are great to watch.

Anyway, Richarlison's effort? 7/10 from me.

[elkay]

I'm reluctantly going to defend the FA....

Watching in real-time, I thought the speed and likelihood of contact meant that going down was not unreasonable. Watching the many slow-motion replays, nothing changed that opinion, in fact the knee contact made it more likely. Even more embarrassingly, Robbie Savage appeared to be trying to say the same thing.

Therefore, in my view, the panel are likely to have some doubt about whether it was a deliberate dive, and therefore made the correct decision.

[CryptoPlankton]

I'm reluctantly going to defend the FA....

Watching in real-time, I thought the speed and likelihood of contact meant that going down was not unreasonable. Watching the many slow-motion replays, nothing changed that opinion, in fact the knee contact made it more likely. Even more embarrassingly, Robbie Savage appeared to be trying to say the same thing.

Therefore, in my view, the panel are likely to have some doubt about whether it was a deliberate dive, and therefore made the correct decision.

So definitely only worth 7/10

Seriously though, it's a pretty hopeless task. Apart from the truly obvious instances when players start their swallow dives before contact (or there is sufficient distance to be certain there was no contact), deciding on "simulation" is generally going to be largely subjective. Even with several camera angles available there will inevitably be disagreement - as in this case.

I vaguely remember an incident a few years ago where I think it was a Brazilian player who was widely condemned for diving (possibly against Sweden?) after several different angles failed to see contact. Then, after a day or so, footage from someone in the crowd turned up clearly showing a hand pushing him in the back. So, even when we're sure one way or the other, we can't really be sure! Unfortunately, short of subjecting the suspects to polygraph tests, giving them the benefit of the doubt seems to be the only possible outcome in the majority of cases. Consequently, it is a "skill" worth developing - especially as a successful outcome can frequently prove to be match-winning.