Wright Banned

A separate topic.

The FA are starting to deal with one aspect of cheating which should be lauded.

I think an interesting point was made about modern players. What would Gow and Hunter do?

A few seasons ago I met Glenn Humphries, a player off the pitch who was warm and entirely affable v his overt pitch persona. He spoke about his time at City as being the highlight of his football but also about how hard he would find it to play in todays environment where players dived and held their faces (!) as if hit by an uppercut. Glenn Humphries would not have been poleaxed like that either.

 

I don't see it as a separate topic I'm afraid.....Can't just clean up the game with one aspect........Cheating is cheating....(looking to deceive the referee) end of.

 

I think its interesting that with all the cameras they have live games especially in the Premiership the only two people that they have convicted of cheating are Wright and the bloke from Carlisle (which was another joke decision) where the amount of cameras and the angles from them were a lot less

 

Simulation is different to deliberately fouling an opponent.

A quirk of cheating is that culturally we can have differing views to it. One nation may find diving more acceptable, or even part of the game - Football in the UK has been transformed by outside influences positive and negative.

Simulation is one of these negatives. It can become as endemic and entrenched as diving has become if allowed. As a coach of kids I already see eight, nine, ten ... Going down theatrically and feigning injury. I find pros behaving in that manner more than unpleasing and a bit weird - I had to be truly knocked down and I would get up quickly, but its the affect pros have on kids I think the FA needs to stem at its source right now. They have started and I will laud that.

Cheating is complex and highly variable, personally I would like to see a citing system where Clubs can bring to attention elements of games not played in the spirit of football which negatively affected the result, within a stipulated timescale - Warnock may use it every week.

 

Its also crazy that if ref sees the simulation as in the case of the game between the Wimbledon and Peterboro on Sunday you get a yellow card but if he doesn't you get a 2 game ban so the FA are giving out different punishments depending on whether you have a bad ref or not.

 

If a player attempts to deceive a referee and does not the referee acts as he sees appropriate for what is a non deception.

If a player deceives the referee the punishment is based on the deception.

That is proportional.

 

I still hang onto "Cheating is cheating".
Simulation and faking injury both cheating..
Also to me, it's easier to spot simulation that it is "knowing" if a player is actually hurt. mmmmm Common sense!!

 

well done the AUSSIES, and well done Bailey Wright, you can now fly back have a nice rest put your feet up for a couple of days, have a nice kip and get fresh for Tuesday nights home fixture v PNE....

???

 

The FA are using a proportional scale. Deliberately causing the referee to believe something that is not true by simulation is a deception. To fail is a non deception. One is the remit of the referee, the latter is dealt with in isolation and with a different punishment.

Its fashionable to give the FA a punting, but I feel the distinction is beneficial and positive, but also supportive of the officials - Get one past them and we will ban you for your cheating.

 

Putting to one side whether the general thrust of your opinion is correct , which I think it isn't by the way , how can u justify why whether a player is successful or not in deceiving a ref should determine the severity of the punishment, the intent is exactly the same and should be dealt with the same , to suggest anything else is madness & defies logic .

 

That’s my thinking as well for instance you get the same punishment if you hit someone whether the ref sees it or if it picked up on camera after the game

 

The FA are using a proportional scale. Deliberately causing the referee to believe something that is not true by simulation is a deception. To fail is a non deception. One is the remit of the referee, the latter is dealt with in isolation and with a different punishment.

Its fashionable to give the FA a punting, but I feel the distinction is beneficial and positive, but also supportive of the officials - Get one past them and we will ban you for your cheating. #69
Cliftonville, Today at 11:23 AM
why is the above posted to the tag :- ?( as re produced below)

and to be honest, none of the coffee morning group, 5 of us today, can understand the first 4 lines above. OPINION, not necessarily mine is you are trying to be word / phrase clever and it means jack schict

 

It is not madness. It is a logical progression. A player deceiving the referee has been successful. That success can bring significant rewards. By increasing the punishment for players who successfully deceived a official that reward is balanced by a ban, thus the inducement to cheat has been reduced.

Simple "I will go down and attempt to get this player sent off as its only a yellow" to " bollocks to a ban if I get away with it now, because that is too much".

 

Are you seriously suggesting if a players attempts to deceive a ref the punishment should be more if he's successful? , sorry Clifton that's just plain daft . As my previous post the crime is the attempt to deceive not whether the attempt is successful.

 

I wonder if already ideas are not being put in place in the minds of players( by the player himself) that are a bit unsteady on their feet, or may find themselves in an innocent compromise "that if a deception is likely to be an interpretation" they will stay down longer, have the trainer on, even be carried off for a minute or so!
reading back through a log book of mine some years ago, a friend slipped at porth o ogof carpark foot path, suffering a severely twisted ankle, swelled up inside an hour to double size .. I had the picture of it come flashing back to mind and saw him on the ground, both hands clutching head and the other leg being excessively moved about! never once did he grab hold of his leg or ankle that I can recall

 

the Carlisle player suffering same punishment I believe had ex managers of high repute ..including sir A? Wrightys I never heard of.. 12th tier maybe?

 

Before long players that have genuinely been offended against & the said aggressor has been sent off will be pleading with the ref not to send them off incase some panel of 'experts' rule the sending off was as the result of deception.
No one condoned cheating , but this is not the way to deal with it.

 

It is logical.

Failing to get a penalty, a player sent off via simulation which doe snot deceive the referee does not affect the result of a match.

Get a penalty, a player sent off via the subterfuge of simulation that does deceive the referee can affect the result.

Clearly the success of the second has more serious implications and should be dealt with robustly to deter players attempting to deceive officials.

 

If City lost one nil due to a player feigning injury like a fanny and getting a player sent off people would be whining like Warnock for stiff penalties..

 

Not exactly a new concept is it?