LONDON: Two English Premier League weekends. Two similar penalty decisions.
Oumar Niasse uses skill and pace to work the ball beyond a semi-static opponent and into the 18-yard box. The defender, Scott Dann, makes no attempt to play a ball, instead driving his left arm across the forward’s chest, moving his left leg and hip into Niasse’s path on goal, then holding his body taught for impact. Once the foul is complete Dann spreads both arms wide in a classic pose of claimed innocence.
Raheem Sterling uses speed of thought and foot to sprint beyond a semi-static opponent and into the 18-yard box. The defender, Scott Malone, makes no attempt to play a ball from David Silva, instead driving his right arm across the forward’s chest, holding his left arm to his back, impeding progress on goal. Once the foul is complete Malone spreads both arm wide in a classic pose of claimed innocence.
Both Niasse and Sterling fall dramatically to the ground. Both referees correctly award penalties. Both are converted, helping Everton and Manchester City to important results.
There is, however, one critical difference between the incidents. Niasse wasn’t permitted to take part in Everton’s 4-1 loss at Southampton a few hours before Sterling hit the deck at Huddersfield. And he won’t be allowed to take part in another match in Everton’s struggle against relegation tomorrow. Instead the Senegal international is the first Premier League footballer sidelined with a two-match retrospective ban for what the Football Association deems “successful deception of a match official.”
That ban was handed down by a three-person “Simulations Panel” composed of “an experienced manager and ex-player, another experienced ex-player and an experienced ex-referee” who reviewed video evidence of Everton’s 2-2 draw at Palace and “all came to the conclusion that Mr.Niasse had committed an act of simulation.”
Niasse appealed, only to have the suspension supported by an “Independent Regulatory Commission” comprised of two-cap England international Stuart Ripley, ex-Football League center back Paul Raven and Hednesford Town assistant manager Marvin Robinson. Their published reasoning is instructive.
Ripley, Raven and Robinson are “unanimous that the video footage gave clear and overwhelming evidence that the player had exaggerated the effect of a normal contact in order to deceive the referee.” They “unanimously agree” that the contact with Dann was “minimal” and that “in exaggerating the effect of the contact made between himself and Mr.Dann, Mr.Niasse deceived the referee.”
In banning Niasse the FA’s commission explicitly contradicted the view of a referee who a) had the courage to make the decision in real time, and b) upon viewing the same replays as the panel and commission “reiterated his view that he had made the right call because of the contact made.”
In other words, Niasse’s alleged deception of Taylor was so skilful that a serving FIFA official selected to referee last season’s FA Cup Final is judged to have been conned by it even after watching multiple camera angles afterwards.
If any evidence of English football’s absurd obsession with diving was needed it is writ large here. Dann makes no attempt to play the ball, impedes the run of a player closing in on goal with his body, one of the FA’s leading referees spots the foul and awards a penalty.
Outrage ensues, a trio of unnamed — and thus publicly unaccountable — ex-players and officials re-referees the incident as simulation, then an “independent commission” delivers a verdict stating that Dann’s challenge was fair. Niasse’s suspension is of twice the length the FA would punish a defender like Dann were he to be twice cautioned for fouling with “disregard to the danger to, or consequence for, an opponent” in the same match.
Time and again we watch key Premier League fixtures in which players are allowed multiple dangerous fouls on opponents without receiving a card. All this is encouraged by certain observers as improving the spectacle; often the same observers who rail against “cheats”, who “go down too easily” when a less skilled opponent hits body rather than ball.
Does a League that presents itself as the planet’s best want to encourage skill or agg-ression? Does the FA want to make it easier for skill to lead to a goal or for an out-matched defender to wrestle or bodycheck a forward’s chance away? Do they want to keep their most talented footballers on the field of play or have them sidelined by injury or suspension for alleged simulation? Do they want their best referees to decide what is a dive or retired journeymen?
Oumar Niasse uses skill and pace to work the ball beyond a semi-static opponent and into the 18-yard box. The defender, Scott Dann, makes no attempt to play a ball, instead driving his left arm across the forward’s chest, moving his left leg and hip into Niasse’s path on goal, then holding his body taught for impact. Once the foul is complete Dann spreads both arms wide in a classic pose of claimed innocence.
Raheem Sterling uses speed of thought and foot to sprint beyond a semi-static opponent and into the 18-yard box. The defender, Scott Malone, makes no attempt to play a ball from David Silva, instead driving his right arm across the forward’s chest, holding his left arm to his back, impeding progress on goal. Once the foul is complete Malone spreads both arm wide in a classic pose of claimed innocence.
Both Niasse and Sterling fall dramatically to the ground. Both referees correctly award penalties. Both are converted, helping Everton and Manchester City to important results.
There is, however, one critical difference between the incidents. Niasse wasn’t permitted to take part in Everton’s 4-1 loss at Southampton a few hours before Sterling hit the deck at Huddersfield. And he won’t be allowed to take part in another match in Everton’s struggle against relegation tomorrow. Instead the Senegal international is the first Premier League footballer sidelined with a two-match retrospective ban for what the Football Association deems “successful deception of a match official.”
That ban was handed down by a three-person “Simulations Panel” composed of “an experienced manager and ex-player, another experienced ex-player and an experienced ex-referee” who reviewed video evidence of Everton’s 2-2 draw at Palace and “all came to the conclusion that Mr.Niasse had committed an act of simulation.”
Niasse appealed, only to have the suspension supported by an “Independent Regulatory Commission” comprised of two-cap England international Stuart Ripley, ex-Football League center back Paul Raven and Hednesford Town assistant manager Marvin Robinson. Their published reasoning is instructive.
Ripley, Raven and Robinson are “unanimous that the video footage gave clear and overwhelming evidence that the player had exaggerated the effect of a normal contact in order to deceive the referee.” They “unanimously agree” that the contact with Dann was “minimal” and that “in exaggerating the effect of the contact made between himself and Mr.Dann, Mr.Niasse deceived the referee.”
In banning Niasse the FA’s commission explicitly contradicted the view of a referee who a) had the courage to make the decision in real time, and b) upon viewing the same replays as the panel and commission “reiterated his view that he had made the right call because of the contact made.”
In other words, Niasse’s alleged deception of Taylor was so skilful that a serving FIFA official selected to referee last season’s FA Cup Final is judged to have been conned by it even after watching multiple camera angles afterwards.
If any evidence of English football’s absurd obsession with diving was needed it is writ large here. Dann makes no attempt to play the ball, impedes the run of a player closing in on goal with his body, one of the FA’s leading referees spots the foul and awards a penalty.
Outrage ensues, a trio of unnamed — and thus publicly unaccountable — ex-players and officials re-referees the incident as simulation, then an “independent commission” delivers a verdict stating that Dann’s challenge was fair. Niasse’s suspension is of twice the length the FA would punish a defender like Dann were he to be twice cautioned for fouling with “disregard to the danger to, or consequence for, an opponent” in the same match.
Time and again we watch key Premier League fixtures in which players are allowed multiple dangerous fouls on opponents without receiving a card. All this is encouraged by certain observers as improving the spectacle; often the same observers who rail against “cheats”, who “go down too easily” when a less skilled opponent hits body rather than ball.
Does a League that presents itself as the planet’s best want to encourage skill or agg-ression? Does the FA want to make it easier for skill to lead to a goal or for an out-matched defender to wrestle or bodycheck a forward’s chance away? Do they want to keep their most talented footballers on the field of play or have them sidelined by injury or suspension for alleged simulation? Do they want their best referees to decide what is a dive or retired journeymen?
