Aluko Ban Upheld

[Bluedell 5,356]

Perhaps the reason that it is the latter is that he successfully conned the ref, if he hadn't the yellow card suffices.

 

if that's true then it's total bullshit. You shouldn't move from a yellow to a 2 game ban due to having a substandard referee. The punnishment for an offence has to be consistent.

 

If it warrants a 2 game ban then let refs send players off for it. It can't be dictated by a referee's incompetence or the fact that the media jump on a particular incident.

[craig 5,199]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtff98yBkk0

 

Take a look at the incident again, Aluko goes down but he in no way attempts to remonstrate with the ref for a penalty. Now, it could be that he had already heard the refs whistle, but could just as easily be that he didnt.

 

How can it be simulation if he doesnt actually claim for a penalty ? What if, and it IS plausible, he lost his balance and went down and then gets back up without claiming for a penalty ?

 

Are we now suggesting that if a player loses their balance, falls, gets back up then he should get a 2 game ban for simulation ?

 

If that is the case then we should just switch the lights off on the game in Scotland.

[craig 5,199]

I can't agree with that.

 

If it was not a foul, then why did Aluko fall to the ground? The only reason that springs to mind is to try to win a penalty kick.

 

"The particular offence, SFA rule 202 , is deceiving the referee into making a mistake which leads to a penalty or a goal." (Daily Record) So if you concede that no foul was committed and yet Aluko fell to the ground, he has attempted to deceive the referee into awarding a penalty kick. The fact that he did not, so far as I saw, appeal, makes no difference; the dive itself was an attempt to deceive the referee.

 

Apparently, the reason why a 2 match ban is considered appropriate is exactly because he DID deceive the referee and Dunfermline (in this instance) suffered as a result. That reasoning is obviously arguable but I respectfully submit that the guilty verdict is not.

 

Did he claim for a penalty ? Not from what I see from the link I posted above. So if that is the case he could easily have fallen to the ground having lost his balance - the ref deemed it a foul, NOT Aluko. It is the refs action by awarding the penalty that sees Aluko get a 2 game ban.

 

Are you suggesting that any player that goes to ground in the box without contact is attempting to deceive the ref ? What about a player that trips over his own feet when in close proximity to an opponent ? Does that constitute simulation ? Even if the player doesnt actually claim for a penalty.

 

I say it again, Aluko may have dived but he likewise could have lost his balance, and in the latter that is not simulation unless he claims for the penalty - which to me he doesnt appear to do.

[Zappa 0]

I wonder how many of the timmy variety were on the panel at the fast track tribunal...

[ian1964 10,455]

I wonder how many of the timmy variety were on the panel at the fast track tribunal...

 

More paranoia:ninja::tongue:

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Did he claim for a penalty ? Not from what I see from the link I posted above. So if that is the case he could easily have fallen to the ground having lost his balance - the ref deemed it a foul, NOT Aluko. It is the refs action by awarding the penalty that sees Aluko get a 2 game ban.

 

Are you suggesting that any player that goes to ground in the box without contact is attempting to deceive the ref ? What about a player that trips over his own feet when in close proximity to an opponent ? Does that constitute simulation ? Even if the player doesnt actually claim for a penalty.

 

I say it again, Aluko may have dived but he likewise could have lost his balance, and in the latter that is not simulation unless he claims for the penalty - which to me he doesnt appear to do.

 

Sorry, when I said "appeal" I should have said "claim"; we agree he did not claim for a penalty but I can't accept he just fell over.

[craig 5,199]

Sorry, when I said "appeal" I should have said "claim"; we agree he did not claim for a penalty but I can't accept he just fell over.

 

OK, and I can see how you would think that way. But if he dives but doesnt claim for the penalty does that constitute trying to con the ref ? I could be wrong but I dont think it does.

 

Anyway, I am playing devils advocate more than anything else because it looked a soft penalty to me. Where I have the most issue is this complete lack of consistency in dealing with similar incidents, and Regan's comments merely provide further evidence that he is clueless as to what he should be doing and his position is untenable, in my opinion.

 

I may be biased, but the SFA looks like a kangaroo court to me - and one that is hell-bent on punishing Rangers for incidents where other teams have had players' bans rescinded on appeal, and other simulations resulting in red cards to players which are, undoubtedly, "game changing" events.

[calscot 0]

Seems to me that half of most teams should be given a two game ban every game for similar offences - if a player takes a foul, a throw, a corner etc when the ref got it wrong then isn't he cheating in the same way?

 

Two players players make counter claims all the time - one must be wrong and therefore guilty of simulation and cheating. What is the difference? Aluko thinks he deserves a penalty, the referee gives it, just what has he done wrong?

 

I think there is enough contact to mean that there it is not beyond reasonable doubt that he deliberately fell to try and get a penalty. Besides there is photographic evidence that his arm was held by an opposing hand which is as far as I know, against the rules. Therefore whether he fell or not, technically a foul was committed inside the box and a penalty is the correct decision.

 

One offence is clear cut - although as the tug was minimal it may considered, "soft". The other offence requires second guessing the actions and intentions of another person which in this case is not so clear cut. So which alleged offence should be punished?

 

I agree with Craig (seperate from the difficulty in judging this case), I would be less bothered if (a) all players adjudged by the referee to have "cheated" in some way are sent off and given a two game ban so the punishment is consistent and (b) these rules are applied evenly and consistently for every team and incident.

 

I have said before these rules were contrived that perhaps the referee should ask the player involved if there was definitely a foul and take him at his word. His word is checked later using TV footage, but if he is found to have lied or grossly exaggerated, he gets a long ban. The difference here is that Aluko would have opportunity to decide if the contact was enough not just to have caused him to fall - but crucially also enough to pass the TV test. IE he could believe he was 100% fouled but realise there is not enough evidence and so drop it.

 

The offending player could also be asked their opinion and equally banned if the evidence does not agree with what they say. It could be used in any situation on the park. This could seriously cut down the amount of cheating.

 

The players could answer, "yes", "no" or "I can't say for sure".

 

A big problem I have here is that if Aluko believed he was fouled and the ref gave it - what crime has he committed. Like I said, players argue about events and incidents all the time - the Referee is there to make the final decision.

 

If Aluko believes he was fouled then he is more innocent than any player who takes a throw where he knows the linesman got it the wrong way round - which happens all the time.

 

Aluko may be guilty of cheating, due to the contact nobody knows for sure, but the real point is that the judicial system just doesn't make any sense.

[der Berliner 3,289]

Just to keep a perspective ... unpunished incident, no claim by Aluko ... which c-/should have been a penalty.

, no decision either. The actual incident for which Aluko was called a "cheat" and "liar", when you can clearly see the hand of the Pars' player holding him.

 

In contrast, free-flying O'Connor was not penalized for this ... as "there seemed to be contact".

 

We do note that Samaras was not penalised in any way for simulation, as he caused the ICT player to be sent off, thus enhancing his team's advantage to get a favourable result.

 

As I said, it cannot be that players get the same bans as people commiting violant conduct on the field. Put points on their head, so they get serve suspension earlier, but not this. (Why do I believe that the aforementioned is exactly what will happen when a Timplayer is next in line for a simulation charge?)

[chilledbear 16]

Why the arguements?

 

The guy who knows the rules, has been a referee for how many years, had the best view in the house [ including tv cameras], said penalty kick.