Smash Those Potters - Stoke (A) Match Thread 16.12.17 3pm

1…1112131517

Comments

  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    It says something when going over a bit easy or a bit previous as expecting a tackle, is now deemed worse than someone like Alli almost ending a career.
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    Let's assume that the charge is upheld and Manu gets a 2 game ban which, according to the BBC website, means tomorrow's cup game and Saturday's match against Newcastle regardless of whether he appeals or not.
    Since IMO the priority for us is PL survival, could we not experiment tomorrow so that we are prepared for the Newcastle game without Manu.
    How about playing Arthur in the AM role. I think he has the ball skills, pace and pass to make a decent go of it. Cresswell could go back to LB and Rice come in at LCB.
  • LukerzLukerz
    Accept it. He’d probably be rested tomorrow anyway. Only misses Newcastle (which is still a shame). We got the three points against Stoke. Move on.
  • TwistandShoutTwistandShout
    On Goals on Sunday Wagner (Huddersfield manager) said it was a pen. So there is some doubt. Not everyone thinks its a dive. Surely it has to be 100% a dive for a ban
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Even Graham Poll said he thought it was a dive at first, then he thought it was a penalty and then he thought he was going down to avoid contact.
    If an ex ref can't even agree with himself how can three independent reviewers all come to the same no doubt conclusion.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    What you have to take into account is that good old British football people would rather see someone's leg broken in a poor tackle than those Johnny Foreigners diving all over the place.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    But Thorn, that was Graham Poll. He would have booked Lanzini for diving, then for appealing and again for confusing him.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    thornburyiron said:

    Even Graham Poll said he thought it was a dive at first, then he thought it was a penalty and then he thought he was going down to avoid contact.
    If an ex ref can't even agree with himself how can three independent reviewers all come to the same no doubt conclusion.

    To be fair though Graham Poll has often been confused by exactly how many yellow cards are required in order for a player to be sent off
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    I await the time when Zaha gets booked or better still gets a two game ban as he is always falling over! He isn't the only one who does it but he is one of the worst but that is no excuse. The penalties v Bournemouth are just two incidents when he deceived the ref. The FA probably don't want to punish a player from Good Old Roy's team. ;angry
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    The question at the appeal should be am I obliged to take an impact from a player or is any evasive action permitted? what do they think the appropriate action for me was and would the referee have awarded a penalty regardless of my action?

    In my view his feet left the floor before contact which is the cause I would imagine for the cry of dive, I feel that was in preparation for the impact from a player arriving at speed and his own momentum leading him to feel he was going to get taken out. The defender does pull back but still hits him and so a penalty would have been awarded anyhow. I feel they can only claim it a dive if they also state no evasive action is possible by an attacker.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    TwistandShout said:

    On Goals on Sunday Wagner (Huddersfield manager) said it was a pen. So there is some doubt. Not everyone thinks its a dive. Surely it has to be 100% a dive for a ban


    It does have to be 100% for a ban - 100% of the panel charged with making the decision.

    They can't ask the entire world to vote.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    claretandbluesky said:

    The next team who play Spurs however should benefit from his absence.

    Well, yes, but why? The team who should benefit is the team they were playing at the time. We often see fans complaining that retrospective action can actually be even more damaging tbecause it is possible a rival team who you are battling it out with benefits, when you didn't at the time. So you have suffered double. ( If that makes sense? ;puzzled)

    Thing is, you can't change a result. So you have to balance 'what behaviour do you want to punish' and 'does it actually matter, if the opposing team has already suffered the consequences of the ref's mistake'?
    claretandbluesky said:

    For me significant match changing decisions and things missed by the ref revisited, there can easily be rule that states anything deemed significant can be retrospectively punished.

    Yes. punishment is possible. But what does it achieve and what are the downsides?


  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited December 2017
    For me significant match changing decisions

    Who decides which are significant (or insignificant) and which changed matches, and what would have happened if tye decision had gone the other way.

    For example, prior to the Lanzini pen, there was possible a foul on Shaqiri.

    Was the ref's decision NOT to award a foul game changing?

    Well, you could argue YES because then the pen would (might?) never have happened?

    So that's a game changer. ;ok

    But, if the ref had booked Lanzini for diving, and not given a pen, it the failure award the earlier foul WOULDN'T have been a game-changer.

    So, same decision in both cases (no foul), which both is and isn't a game-changer, but only because of what happened afterwards, in hindsight.

    Sorry, but that way madness lies. ;wahoo
  • alderzalderz
    I think it's all well and good saying that we want consistency, but actually we need to also hold our hands up and say that it was deserved. Just because player x has gotten away with it doesn't mean Lanzini should just because he plays for us.
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited December 2017
    So if Lanzini was seen to dive, the ref gave a free-kick to Stoke, booked Lanzini, would he have been pulled up after and banned? Or would it have just been a yellow to his name?

    Seems unfair that the decision to ban a player is dependent on the performance of the ref.
  • alderzalderz
    Lukerz

    The rule is stupid, no doubt about it. The punishment is (IMO) fair, but in that case a player should be given a straight red and not a yellow if diving in the game. And the exclusions of certain offences (those not winning a pen / not resulting in a red / those dealt with by the ref) is absolutely ridiculous.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Luke

    The extras are because they got away with it so created a potentially match-changing situation (either a pen/red card or both.)

    Clearly, the idea is to disincentivise cheating, by making the risk/reward greater.
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    MrsGrey
    I posted something similar in November

    http://www.whu606.com/discussion/comment/877229/#Comment_877229
  • Cuz1Cuz1
    Give em the penalty back, West Ham 2 Stoke 0 job done end of
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    Cuz no way! Not with our GD ;nonono
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I don't think we should re score matches of course just open all yellow and red card decisions to retrospective review. So with regard the two matches we are speaking of if Lanzini is adjudged to have dived he gets his ban, if Masouakos was adjudged a yellow offence in the build up he gets that, if just a foul, no further action. Ali gets ban for Spurs and also the City player who nearly took off Kanes head.

    So just card offences revisited by the three man panal but none of this Lanzini's can be but Ali's can't on account of Lanzini's can due conning our poor ref and Ali's can't because we don't want to say the ref didn't judge it properly.

    I recognise retrospective banning is not as fair as immediate sending off but is better than nothing.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    The thing that annoys me more than the penalty issues is when a player is barely touched but goes town holding his face and checking his nose etc for blood. There were instances of this in half of the games this weekend, at least one in the WBA Utd game. In the Watford game one of their players lay in the penalty area when he hadn't been touched and the ball ran to a Huddersfield player who smashed it in. If he'd stayed up he'd have blocked it. I suppose this is poetic justice.
  • alderzalderz
    Adam

    I do agree, but if you look at the responses to the Lanzini incident you can see how opinion is split anyway. People will still argue the decision even if VR is used
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    edited December 2017
    thornburyiron said:

    The thing that annoys me more than the penalty issues is when a player is barely touched but goes town holding his face and checking his nose etc for blood. There were instances of this in half of the games this weekend, at least one in the WBA Utd game. In the Watford game one of their players lay in the penalty area when he hadn't been touched and the ball ran to a Huddersfield player who smashed it in. If he'd stayed up he'd have blocked it. I suppose this is poetic justice.

    Agree with that, Rashford was the player in the Man U team who carried on for nothing!

    SSN saying we going to contest charge against Lanzini

    http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/11176722/west-ham-will-contest-manuel-lanzini-fa-charge-for-simulation
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    VR is an inevitability - it is just a matter of time

    As, I believe will be the notion of the sin-bin

    Hopefully this will right many of the wrongs

    As amusing as it is, Stoke do not benefit at all from lanzini being banned - arsenal and Newcastle will. How can this possibly be right??

    VR and a spell in the sin bin for simulation starts to introduce a bit more fairness
  • LukerzLukerz
    Sky saying we’re appealing the charge.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    NEoldiron said:

    How about playing Arthur in the AM role. I think he has the ball skills, pace and pass to make a decent go of it.

    To the best of my knowledge Arthur has never played anywhere other than on the left so he might feel less than confident being stuck in a position he's never played before. Ayew's played in the hole before and would be a better replacement if Lanzini is banned
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    Aslef, to me Arthur seems to brim with confidence under Dr Mosh
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    Video refs are used a LOT over here, for almost anything that can be challenged and it is to much.

    At face value - the use of video refs to reinforce penalty decisions given seems like it is sensible and doable, however, I fear that they will soon called upon to assess whenever contact is made in the box where the ref did not give a penalty - thinking of all the jostling that takes place during corners, free kicks and indeed in nearly every cross.

    I think at the start of last season, there were moves afoot to try and address the issue of jostling and shirtpulling etc, I recall a couple of games where it really looked like it was having an effect, but I think that went out of the window.

    In short I am reluctant to allow video refs as, no matter how well intentioned and reasonable the proposal, I do not think we will be able to keep the genie in the bottle
  • LukerzLukerz
    I do find it outrageous that a player should be encouraged to take a full on clattering to justify asking for a penalty. So Pieters comes over, Lanzini thinks “oh dear this could be nasty at this pace”, decides to ride the challenge but in the end the challenge isn’t as bad as anticipated.

    It wasn’t, IMO, a penalty, but there is a middle ground. No pen and no accusation of labelling Lanzini a cheat. He could just as well claim he was trying to avoid being wiped out. The panel have accused him of deception.
This discussion has been closed.