[60s 70s Spireite]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 14 January 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

Is that a joke question!?

He chucks himself on the floor. If you go to the match you will have seen this on plenty of ocasions. By all means support that kind of nonsense if you like. But don't be a hyporite and shout 'CHEAT'or moan when someone does it to us. Or be under any illusion that refs speak amongst themselves and know who is fond of rolling over and act accordingly.

An awful part of the modern game. The more people that get sent off for simulation and exaggeration the better in my opinion. Stamp it out of the game. It's embarassing to watch.

I go to the match, but its not until you see the action in slow motion that you, or a ref can better say a player has 'dived'. I can only presume you haven't seen the action from 'an alternative away day' that clearly shows Bolly being fouled for the first booking. Also take a look at his hurdling skills and his ability to get up off the floor and still beat his man from the 'Bolly' video.

As far as I can see only one league player has ever been sent off for two 'simulations', so you're long way from seeing your wish.

This post has been edited by 60s 70s Spireite: 14 January 2016 - 03:39 PM

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

JonB, on 14 January 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

But a ref has to be 100% certain they are "chucking themselves to the floor" and not sure you can say that about either occasion on Saturday.

Refs aren't 100% certain about anything. It's impossible. It's a judgement call, always.

He went down easy the first time, and the second one was embarassing. Football is a contact sport, though the idiot pundits seem not to recognise this anymore in their wish to validate cheating. I'm not wanting to crucify the kid, he has masses of potential. Hope he learns his lesson.

I'd start straight reds for blatant simulation/exaggeration/cheating. Or post match bans based on video evidence. I find it sad that people defend this type of flouncing ( not saying you are ), ruins the game imo.

[dtp]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 14 January 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

Is that a joke question!?

He chucks himself on the floor. If you go to the match you will have seen this on plenty of ocasions. By all means support that kind of nonsense if you like. But don't be a hyporite and shout 'CHEAT'or moan when someone does it to us. Or be under any illusion that refs speak amongst themselves and know who is fond of rolling over and act accordingly.

An awful part of the modern game. The more people that get sent off for simulation and exaggeration the better in my opinion. Stamp it out of the game. It's embarassing to watch.

There is no question about it mate, Gboly DID NOT throw himself to the ground with the first yellow card instance. The footage clearly shows the defender put the sole of his boot on top of Gboly's, it was a definite foul, and the referee got it totally wrong.

The second incident, I have played over and over again and I still think there was contact but it isn't as easy to see. Nevertheless, the referee couldn't wait to penalise Gboly whereas I would say, if there was any doubt at all, play should just have been allowed to continue. The referee didn't consult anybody in both incidents just couldn't wait to priduce yellow cards whereas a full debate had to take place to disallow a goal which the officials initially awarded.

I don't like blaming the officials but, at times, they would win a lot more plaudits if the showed more common sense and consistency. At present the only thing which is consistent is their inconsistency and, as far as common sense is concerned, it is often non-existent.

[eddymelt]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 14 January 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Refs aren't 100% certain about anything. It's impossible. It's a judgement call, always.

He went down easy the first time, and the second one was embarassing. Football is a contact sport, though the idiot pundits seem not to recognise this anymore in their wish to validate cheating. I'm not wanting to crucify the kid, he has masses of potential. Hope he learns his lesson.

I'd start straight reds for blatant simulation/exaggeration/cheating. Or post match bans based on video evidence. I find it sad that people defend this type of flouncing ( not saying you are ), ruins the game imo.

Your take on cheating and it being an embarrassment to the sport is perfectly valid, but in Gboly's case he didn't cheat so imo isn't

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

60s 70s Spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

I go to the match, but its not until you see the action in slow motion that you, or a ref can better say a player has 'dived'. I can only presume you haven't seen the action from 'an alternative away day' that clearly shows Bolly being fouled for the first booking. Also take a look at his hurdling skills and his ability to get up off the floor and still beat his man from the 'Bolly' video.

As far as I can see only one league player has ever been sent off for two 'simulations', so you're long way from seeing your wish.

Seen it. My opinion is still the same. And lets be fair, the kid is on a yellow and he gives it the Superman treatment when we've got them where we want them.. so even if it was an iffy first yellow, then he f'ed up big time and put us in an unecessary position.

And if it was iffy (Idon't think it was) then it'll be based on the kid gaining a bit of a rep for enthusiastic falling over.

Maybe I won't get my wish, after all, playing the victim and having no sense of honour is quite popular these days. Sign of the times.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

dtp, on 14 January 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

There is no question about it mate, Gboly DID NOT throw himself to the ground with the first yellow card instance. The footage clearly shows the defender put the sole of his boot on top of Gboly's, it was a definite foul, and the referee got it totally wrong.

The second incident, I have played over and over again and I still think there was contact but it isn't as easy to see. Nevertheless, the referee couldn't wait to penalise Gboly whereas I would say, if there was any doubt at all, play should just have been allowed to continue. The referee didn't consult anybody in both incidents just couldn't wait to priduce yellow cards whereas a full debate had to take place to disallow a goal which the officials initially awarded.

I don't like blaming the officials but, at times, they would win a lot more plaudits if the showed more common sense and consistency. At present the only thing which is consistent is their inconsistency and, as far as common sense is concerned, it is often non-existent.

Yeah, their is contact for sure, but ( like many, many others) players are abandoning attempts to get the ball/follow the ball and leaving a foot behind to wait for contact and then go over).

I agree about the inconsistency. Refs don't stamp down on it enough, as it's very hard to spot. Gboly was unlucky in the sense that he got a ref who decided to put his foot down (pardon the pun) on the day. So yeah, he was unlucky in that sense.

Introducing post match bans may be the only way to cut it out of the game.

[JonB]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 14 January 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yeah, their is contact for sure, but ( like many, many others) players are abandoning attempts to get the ball/follow the ball and leaving a foot behind to wait for contact and then go over).

I agree about the inconsistency. Refs don't stamp down on it enough, as it's very hard to spot. Gboly was unlucky in the sense that he got a ref who decided to put his foot down (pardon the pun) on the day. So yeah, he was unlucky in that sense.

Introducing post match bans may be the only way to cut it out of the game.

Been introduced in the Prem League for this season i believe.....had a massive impact on things!

[lindo-spireite]

boot, on 14 January 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

I trust that the club is supplying video evidence to the relevant authorities to prove the injustice of the ban, although it can't be appealed against, and more importantly to highlight the poor performance of the referee. The rule that the injustice can't be appealed against because it is two yellows resulting in a red and a suspension is ludicrous. Can anybody explain the logic behind that?

I think it is how it is to keep the work load of the appeal board down. If they allow yellow cards to be appealed, there'd be dozens appealed week in week out to prevent suspensions.

[Siberian Spireite]

dtp, on 14 January 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

I don't like blaming the officials but, at times, they would win a lot more plaudits if the showed more common sense and consistency. At present the only thing which is consistent is their inconsistency and, as far as common sense is concerned, it is often non-existent.

Refs can exhibit common sense+discretion, or consistency. It's one or the other, and the reffing powers that be want the latter, and couldn't care a toss for the former, it seems.

If they were free to use common sense when they saw fit, consistency would decrease as interpretations would differ.

[boot]

JonB, on 14 January 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

Been introduced in the Prem League for this season i believe.....had a massive impact on things!

Excellent if true, but logically the reverse side of that coin is that if post-match video evidence is allowed to prove guilt then it also has to be able to be used to prove innocence.

Bolli's first yellow was definitely a foul - thought so at the time and absolutely convinced having seen the video. On the other hand I think he made a meal of the second one.

[boot]

Siberian Spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

Refs can exhibit common sense+discretion, or consistency. It's one or the other, and the reffing powers that be want the latter, and couldn't care a toss for the former, it seems.

If they were free to use common sense when they saw fit, consistency would decrease as interpretations would differ.

The laws contain references containing the phrase 'if in the opinion of the referee ......'. There was a discussion on MOTD last night quoting four separate references relating to one incident which contained that phrase -in relation to the off-side rule I believe. There can be no consistency where it is a matter of the referees opinion - which it has to be, and is, many times every game. They have a very difficult job but they need help from technology - it's available in other sports. Would anybody really want to be labelled as an idiot for sending the Swansea player off when the evidence was instantly available to say you were wrong.

[Westbars Spireite]

boot, on 14 January 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

I trust that the club is supplying video evidence to the relevant authorities to prove the injustice of the ban, although it can't be appealed against, and more importantly to highlight the poor performance of the referee. The rule that the injustice can't be appealed against because it is two yellows resulting in a red and a suspension is ludicrous. Can anybody explain the logic behind that?

There isn't any as far as I can tell.

[boot]

lindo-spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

I think it is how it is to keep the work load of the appeal board down. If they allow yellow cards to be appealed, there'd be dozens appealed week in week out to prevent suspensions.

Not if the punishment was increased - doubled say - should the appeal fail. For example, in those circumstances I would have appealed Bolli's first yellow but would not have risked appealing the second because I'm not sure the evidence is clear cut in his favour.

[Johnnyspireite7]

boot, on 14 January 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

The laws contain references containing the phrase 'if in the opinion of the referee ......'. There was a discussion on MOTD last night quoting four separate references relating to one incident which contained that phrase -in relation to the off-side rule I believe. There can be no consistency where it is a matter of the referees opinion - which it has to be, and is, many times every game. They have a very difficult job but they need help from technology - it's available in other sports. Would anybody really want to be labelled as an idiot for sending the Swansea player off when the evidence was instantly available to say you were wrong.

It was the Handball rule they were discussing.

[boot]

Johnnyspireite7, on 14 January 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

It was the Handball rule they were discussing.

Cheers mate - I remember it now.

[dtp]

lindo-spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

I think it is how it is to keep the work load of the appeal board down. If they allow yellow cards to be appealed, there'd be dozens appealed week in week out to prevent suspensions.

Possibly, as they allow sending offs for a straight red to be appealed this could be changed to include all red cards.

Let's be honest clubs normally only appeal if they think they have a case.

Additionally, the work-load of the appeal process could be reduced if referees were prepared to write in and actually admit they got it wrong.

[plannerj]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 14 January 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yeah, their is contact for sure, but ( like many, many others) players are abandoning attempts to get the ball/follow the ball and leaving a foot behind to wait for contact and then go over).

I agree about the inconsistency. Refs don't stamp down on it enough, as it's very hard to spot. Gboly was unlucky in the sense that he got a ref who decided to put his foot down (pardon the pun) on the day. So yeah, he was unlucky in that sense.

Introducing post match bans may be the only way to cut it out of the game.

You should watch the clips on the Ref's TV channel and see what Keith Hackett (that renowned defender of the referees' faith) has to say about this particular referee. He saw him recently in charge of a Barnsley game and though he had perhaps improved and abandoned his previous reputation as being "card happy". That explains a lot. He also pours cold water on a situation where a player on a yellow card for simulation goes for another dive. His view is that it would be unlikely to happen. That also explains a lot.

[dim view]

boot, on 14 January 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

Excellent if true, but logically the reverse side of that coin is that if post-match video evidence is allowed to prove guilt then it also has to be able to be used to prove innocence.

Bolli's first yellow was definitely a foul - thought so at the time and absolutely convinced having seen the video. On the other hand I think he made a meal of the second one.

The 4 man refereeing team should be given the power to rescind bookings at half time (followed by an announcement over the tannoy) and full time using video technology, if requested by a manager.

Obviously that won't work for red cards, but at least that has an appeal process.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Watched it again.

Point of contention seems to be the first one. Frames 1:04 - 1:05 on this link to CFC youtube.

I'd note where the ball is in relation to him (never had intention to go for it imo) but more telling is the fact that he has both feet close/planted together, like a swimming dive! And your feet would never be like that in motion, as he would have to be considering he'd kicked the ball 10 yrds in front of him. Pity, as he obviously had a stormer and won us the game.

We were unlucky to get a ref who was that strict, but I hope refs all over the country enforce it and even the playing field.


Other (side) point is that having that negative mindset to look for the FK/Pen/FosberryFlop rather than back yourself to skin the full back and bang it in the bottom corner could be detrimental?

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 14 January 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

Watched it again.

Point of contention seems to be the first one. Frames 1:04 - 1:05 on this link to CFC youtube.

I'd note where the ball is in relation to him (never had intention to go for it imo) but more telling is the fact that he has both feet close/planted together, like a swimming dive! And your feet would never be like that in motion, as he would have to be considering he'd kicked the ball 10 yrds in front of him. Pity, as he obviously had a stormer and won us the game.

We were unlucky to get a ref who was that strict, but I hope refs all over the country enforce it and even the playing field.

what bollux. What punishment should the ref dish out to the defender then, who also had his feet in the wrong place?.