So they have 48hrs to correct the error or any rescindment becomes redundant........... Mmmm - fat chance of that, PL
I don't think there's anything the ref can do about bookings once they're given. Knowing Twatkinson he wouldn't do it anyway, he still probably thinks he's right to book him even after watching the replays and certain refs seem to delight in booking Bale for being fouled and not falling in an FA approved fashion.
As far as I know you cannot do anything about a yellow card, there's no appeal procedure the player/club can use.
This article clarifies it the FA's rules - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ing-at-Sunderland-must-stand-says-the-FA.html
This whole mess is the result of trying to inject morality somewhere it does not belong, a team sport. How else to explain the very strong feelings towards one area of cheating, namely diving, while leaving the thousand other areas of cheating virtually unremarked? Every defender who tugs a shirt, or even gives a small push, is cheating as certainly as any diver. Can it be that diving = cheating + histrionics, while other forms of cheating are only cheating? If so, then it appears that what people are so concerned about is acting rather than cheating, or else they feel that acting somehow makes the cheating more culpable. None of this makes any sense to me. Games are won by the fastest, strongest, most skillful, and, yes, the sneakiest, the ones best able to exploit the rules and how they are enforced. Wishing people would play "honestly" will never make them do so. It makes much more sense to take moral concerns out of it, accept that players will always try to cheat if it will help them win, and concentrate on making better rules and getting better officials to enforce them, so that cheating is not, as far as possible, successful. At least two issues make the present debate about diving dysfunctional besides what I feel are excessive concerns about morality. The first is that referees don't call fouls and penalties when players don't go down. Players therefore have to choose between doing what is "right" and helping their team. It's farcical to give them this choice. Also, anyone knocked off stride at huigh speed will tend to avoid injuries more by tumbling rather than trying to stay on their feet. Awkward steps have cost a lot of players their careers. The fact that there's no agreed on signal or convention (that I know of) that says, "no foul, just rolling to avoid trouble," shows how far from a sensible solution we are. Finally, I agree AVB would do well to bring the issue up often. I guess Bale should hit the deck less, but only if there's no risk of injury. It's also very clear, as has been said, that diving should be punished in retrospect only, after careful review of footage. Even then it's all too often unclear whether a dive took place. Asking the typical crap ref to judge what is and isn't a dive from one angle in real time is like having a guy with DT's perform a bris.
of course it's a foul if there's contact,arm around the waist,is a foul also a knee into the side of Bale's knee is a foul,so you have 2 fouls in one tackle
A very good post. I think the difference in my mind lies between trying to get away with bending the rules versus deliberately deceiving the officials. I am very happy with the notion that the refs will do their best and will make some mistakes but in particular if they don't see an offence they can't penalise it. It's when they penalise an offence that hasn't happened that I get irritated. The problem with 'diving' (better described as simulation or deception) is that it is very hard for the ref to differentiate between a real attempt at deception, a fall after taking evasive action and a foul that they have missed. It therefore seems to me that the best course of action is for simulation to be punished retrospectively (including heavy points deductions) and for refs to assume that there isn't any. I've always thought in general that the punishment for any infringement of the laws ought to be much heavier than the likely benefit gained by the transgressor. That is the way to stop cheating of any sort.
The other point to be made here is that there are actually four possibilities - contact which is a foul in which case 'diving' isn't an issue - you can't simulate a foul if you've been fouled! Contact which isn't a foul but which causes the player to lose balance or fall (I think the Walcott one was in that category). No contact, no foul but the player takes evasive action and loses balance (some of the Bale ones are this). Neither of the last two are simulation and shouldn't be penalised. And clear simulation such as Cazorla's.
It is without a shadow of doubt that Bale is an amazing player. I know football has moved on, but when I used to play as I was told to stay on my feet if I had a chance to score or set-up. I was actually berated if my boss thought I could have stayed on my feet. In my book that is what footballers should do, so Bale is in the wrong. However, that isn't what football is like now, sad as it is, unless we can 100% eliminate simulation and diving people will join in. Defoe's was much worse btw. I do think Bale could have gone on and maybe scored against Sunderland. I don't always buy the he is going so fast explanation, a fall from being clipped at speed isn't consistent with how Bale goes over sometimes, you would be more likely to tumble and probably land on your face than flat on the floor (particularly at pace). I hate to say it, but Walcott did something similar in the 7-3 but he got up and scored. Don't worry that isn't a WUM just a football fans views trying not to be biased
Don't agree that the Walcott incident mirrors the Bale one: he wasn't running at the same sort of speed for a start, more a winding dribble and he also went down in such a way that he landed on his knees with the ball in front of him. That made it possible for him to get up and finish. Bale was fouled - effectively twice - and fell forwards. That's not to say that Bale hasn't added to his own current situation by over-egging some situations in the past.....
Youre right, I didnt mean to compare the Bale and Walcott incidents to say they were the same, However it was an example of him going over but wanting to score. Bale went flat out when I dont think he needed to. He wanted a pen, didn't really want to see if he could carry on. Although once he was down he had no chance. I just think Bale does simulate and for me, I would prefer players to stay on their feet
I think that we might end up with Sigurdsson on the left and Dempsey playing up top. Defoe or Adebayor to drop to the bench.
If two people collide accidently it is not a foul, therefore, just contact doesn't mean one has the right to go down and doesn't mean a foul. Bale has to stay on his feet, AVB and Freund have to do the complaining. Then Bale will get protection. Let's face it, he has admitted diving, he has been booked 5 times and said that he was caught in three of them. That is the same as saying 'I dived in two of them'. He is a great player but could become a really great player if he stays on his feet.
When did football become a non contact sport, in that case if you brush against someone then it's a foul. Personally I do think it was a foul having seen the replay, but to suggest that any contact warrants a foul is essentially changing the whole ethos of the game.
Referees already punish defenders for having arms due to not actually knowing the handball rule - yet somehow Jordan Henderson was let off yesterday without a second glance...
