The penalties thread.

[Prufrock]

To ban penalties altogether is a new one. Some may argue it goes a tiiiiiiny bit too far. As in the open goal last minute, trip you up, and get what? A drop-ball an indirect free-kick? Sure diving is bad but banning penalties is perhaps the worst, and zaniest, idea for fixing it, closely followed by red cards for diving. The problem with diving is it is so hard to tell in real time. The paucity of yellows for it suggests red cards wouldn't do anything other than exaggerate the mistakes. Should be retrospective three game bans if a panel is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt there was a dive. IMO that would mean the likes of Torres on Saturday (clearly tripped IMO) and Dyer (not a foul, but not a dive) would not be banned, but the likes of say, Diouf at Blackburn for us, would be banned for three games. Only option I can think of that punishes satisfactorily and wouldn't slow the game too much. Sure it wouldn't help the team conned, but would act as far more of a deterrent than the current ruling.

[TANGODANCER]

I started the thread because I'm sick of cheating in football. It's ruining the game and every player knows if you run into the box and get tackled it's worth doing an agony somersault to con refs. It's a fact of life and happens every week. If technology is ever brought in (which I doubt it will be) then fine. The fact remains that cheats do prosper in the game as it stands right now. If you're happy with that, fair enough.

I think you're offering a false dichotomy!

Course you do. And you're offering?

I'm offering the correct analysis that you are proposing a false dichotomy. take it or leave it!

I was asking for your views, possible solutions, on the topic of penalties and cheating in football.

[thebish]

I was asking for your views, possible solutions, on the topic of penalties and cheating in football.

my view would be that it isn't such a big problem as to take the drastic step you suggest - I think that would damage the game. I'd rather just leave it to the refs/FA to adapt over time to the changing nature of the game. players will always seek advantages around the fringes of the laws of the game - and refs need to keep up. often, players will be one step ahead - but refs will adapt and survive over time.

I also think jammy dodgers are the king of biscuits...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Should be retrospective three game bans if a panel is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt there was a dive. IMO that would mean the likes of Torres on Saturday (clearly tripped IMO) and Dyer (not a foul, but not a dive) would not be banned, but the likes of say, Diouf at Blackburn for us, would be banned for three games. Only option I can think of that punishes satisfactorily and wouldn't slow the game too much. Sure it wouldn't help the team conned, but would act as far more of a deterrent than the current ruling.

And that, folks, is the best idea so far. Shearer was unusually passionate in his defence of Torres, or rather his attack on the yellow card the Spaniard was given; rightly so, IMO. Introducing yellows for diving may have been an attempt to stop it but it hasn't worked, and while retrospective bans have their problems - like you say, doesn't help the victims - an independently adjudicated three-match ban would certainly stop more diving than an in-game yellow.

[bobo the clown]

The need is to have retospective action taken against blatant cheating.

I'm not especially pro video evidence, but given that there is a clamour for it this should be chucked in if it ever arises. I know it would be after an event, but it wouldn't take many cases before the whole diving culture was stopped.

At the moment we have a situation where preventing a clear goal-scoring opportunity = sending off of the defender. Well, then cheating to gain a clear goal scoring opportunity should achieve the same thing.

Plus it would be worth it just to see Satan & 'King Kenny' finally explode when they got caught up with.

[Gary the Enfield]

Should be retrospective three game bans if a panel is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt there was a dive. IMO that would mean the likes of Torres on Saturday (clearly tripped IMO) and Dyer (not a foul, but not a dive) would not be banned, but the likes of say, Diouf at Blackburn for us, would be banned for three games. Only option I can think of that punishes satisfactorily and wouldn't slow the game too much. Sure it wouldn't help the team conned, but would act as far more of a deterrent than the current ruling.

And that, folks, is the best idea so far. Shearer was unusually passionate in his defence of Torres, or rather his attack on the yellow card the Spaniard was given; rightly so, IMO. Introducing yellows for diving may have been an attempt to stop it but it hasn't worked, and while retrospective bans have their problems - like you say, doesn't help the victims - an independently adjudicated three-match ban would certainly stop more diving than an in-game yellow.

I agree.

But not about the Jammie Dodgers. Chocolate Hob Nobs are the king of biscuits.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

At the moment we have a situation where preventing a clear goal-scoring opportunity = sending off of the defender. Well, then cheating to gain a clear goal scoring opportunity should achieve the same thing.

Now then, yet more sense from the TW massive.

We should be in charge, y'know.

[2399]

Bogdán made a great penalty save against Rooney on the weekend

[ohjimmyjimmy]

At the moment we have a situation where preventing a clear goal-scoring opportunity = sending off of the defender. Well, then cheating to gain a clear goal scoring opportunity should achieve the same thing.

Now then, yet more sense from the TW massive.

We should be in charge, y'know.

Ok but don't leave Bish in charge of the biscuits please.

[Wandering Willy]

6 game ban for cheating - nothing less.

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Then give pointless yet gainful employment to a new breed of super lawyers, to get them off.

[Bruce Rioja]

I agree.

But not about the Jammie Dodgers. Chocolate Hob Nobs are the king of biscuits.

Imagine if they did chocolate Hob Nobs in orange, or mint? The possibilities are endless. My word!

[bobo the clown]

I agree.

But not about the Jammie Dodgers. Chocolate Hob Nobs are the king of biscuits.

Imagine if they did chocolate Hob Nobs in orange, or mint? The possibilities are endless. My word!

PLAIN chocolate Hob Nobs !!

[Lord Kangana]

I suppose I'll be marked out as a pariah for saying I like Fig Rolls. And Garibaldi biscuits?

[Prufrock]

Fig Rolls are ace. Not that keen on Garibaldi, but I can get 'em down.

[bobo the clown]

Garibaldi are ace ... as are Chorley (less so Eccles) cakes, with butter.

In fact I'd happily munch currants all day.

[Prufrock]

Chorley + butter +Lancashire cheese. Nom.

Not really a biscuit though...

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Is a jaffa cake a biscuit?

[CrazyHorse]

Is a jaffa cake a biscuit?

Dunno, but they definitely count as one of your five a day.

[FaninOz]

As I have said many times before , referee decisions win most games. Penalties given/not given, freekicks the same and red/yellow cards the same. The inconsistency is still astounding and the lack of the use of cameras and technology over the whole field is also quite astounding. Even then its not always posible to get the decisions 100% right but al least with the use of technology they would be able to get 99% right in a very short length of time that wouldn't hold the game up too much.

But doing as Tango suggested in his original post wouldn't work and would create more problems than is solved.

Now getting rid of the offside rule would be a different matter, that would be a good move!!