Like everyone else I've no idea what contact if any Shearer made with Fortune on Saturday. I believe Al's claims (admittedly through my veil of bias) that he heard Charlton players telling the lad to stay down. Maybe they did this was because they wanted Al sent off. Maybe because they saw Fortune's prostrate body on the pitch and were encouraging him to wait for medical attention. Who knows? The chances are we'll never find out. But is anyone else getting more sick of the frequent, overt cheating of today's Premiership players - much of which they seem to get away with ? I for one would be delighted if Bobby openly fined anybody who did a Gary Neville, constantly appealing for throw ins that clearly belong to the opposition team, not to mention anyone player who blatantly tries to con officials into giving us free kicks, penalties or whatever. Thoughts ??

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Answers

Appalling Play ?

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

There should be some kind of fines or disciplinary action instituted throughout the league to stop the cheats. Not sure what would be most effective, but something has to be done. The ever-increasing diving and whinging is ruining the enjoyment of watching a game.

I seem to remember reading somewhere recently that FIFA were going to crack down on diving in the WC next year. Should be interesting to see how serious they are, and how it affects the games.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

hmmmmm, if Shearer had been the one who dived, would we even be talking about this?

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

In most countries trying to influence the referee (cheating) is seen as part of the game, just as bluffing is part of the game in poker.

anglo saxon culture has a peculiar lilt that places value on things always being right.

in football there exist huge disconnects between crime and punishment that encourages cheating.

e.g. soljskear on rob lee had zero negative consequences for manu because it happend in injury time.

a player can "win" a penalty that wins a game but will only face the odd booking if caught.

a player can feign injury to get another sent off but doesn't face any sanction if susupected of acting.

football has been very slow to change its laws in this area and until it does everyones gonna cheat, they have to because they can and so can the opposition.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Not directly comparable but in rugby league in Australia (and perhaps in Aussie Rules, someone will know?) they have a panel that look over any incidents from the week's games and can call before a 'judiciary' any player they believe guilty of foul play, regardless of whether it has been brought to their notice by referee's reports. I've no doubt some would see this as putting power in the wrong hands, or doubt the benefit versus the cost but I'd happily see deliberate cheats fined and even banned. Might keep the divers on their feet and see a little more sportsmanship return who knows ? At present though it comes down to individual managers to instil a certain set of values into his squad and be prepared to punish players, even to the short-term detriment of the team

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Loons, there was a statement recently by the FA or Referees Association on punishing divers as Graham Poll said it had become al most impossible to give a penalty decision one way or the other. There hasn't been much evidence of this, IMHO. Having said that, when we were playing Barnsley a few weeks ago, on our side Shearer, Robert and Solano all dived spectacularly and on the other side, at Bolton, their players were falling as though they'd been hit over the head by Nelson's Column.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

As long as the emphasis of the sport is on cash, with entertainment a secondary possible bonus, there'll always be people looking for ways to beat the system.

If diving is targetted, I can see the situation arising where referees will not only have sendings off to justify, when clubs appeal, but also appeals against diving 'convictions'.

Most of them seem to have trouble coping now. What would it be like having that as another rod across their back ? I'm not saying nothing should done, but maybe that would be better than legislation that could turn out to be more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe a system should be introduced in which it was possible to have the result of a game forfeit, afterwards, if the cheating was serious enough and absolutely clear cut, but there's not a hope in hell of anything as drastic as that being tried. Taggart would end up not having a healthy vein anywhere from his shoulders upwards.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Cheating is now endemic in the game. Some Managers encourage it; very few are prepared to do anything significant to stop their players doing it. In many respects this this is understandable because they would be at a disadvantage if they did so unilaterally.

Unfortunately, Wor Georgie Best hits the nail squarely on the whotsit when he says:

"....in football there exist huge disconnects between crime and punishment that encourages cheating".

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

I recall BR saying recently that he wanted Robert to keep making runs up the wing to get someone (a LPool player I think) booked for a second time. So NUFC as a team are not beyone this type of stuff. However the way the Charlton player fell was pretty disgraceful I have to admit.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

It's a strange thing really, as Bellamy rarely gets praised for honesty, yet I can think of at least four times when the goalkeeper has come out and challenged him. If he'd went down, it's a certain penalty and possible red card for the 'keeper. Instead he stays on his feet and doesn't score.

Part of me thinks, "Stupid boy, you should go down there" but part of me admires his honesty, it's just it's like he's fighting a losing battle trying to be honest as it'll most likely never get him anywhere - just more frustrated at not scoring, then this transfers to his mouth and he gets booked.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Lynda - in saying that I don't think BR was condoning cheating at all. However, with the FB on a booking he would inevitably need to be careful about tackling Robert running at him at full speed. This could create goal-scoring opportunities for us, or indeed a 2nd yellow for the FB. That's all part of the game - or "going for the soft spot".

I truly don't think BR would openly enourage his players to cheat - it's just not part of his phsyche. However, I'm sure he realises it happens, and wouldn't react internally if we did get an advantage by someone diving in the penalty area and getting us a penalty - because as I said, everyone is doing it now, and regrettably it's become regarded as part of the game.

Personally, I find it repugnant, and watching that cheating get Simon Davies going down tonight like a roll of lino to get the FK that gave Spurs the points, made me sick to the stomach.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Beat me to it Clarky. There's a huge difference in pressurising a player into making a mistake and cheating. George, your analogy to poker doesn't fit. In poker you bluff somebody - you don't cheat. If they are foolish enough to get drawn by the bluff, then tough titty. However, with all the cash riding on success, you're always going to get players who'll cheat. IMHO, as PB says, it's going to be very, very difficult to police it. Appealing to their sense of fair play ain't gonna work. But a rogues gallery on Sky with a lot of emphasis on the cheats might make them think twice. It would certainly get the oppo fans a bit more vocal! Ee - it's nice weather here up in Cloud-Cuckoo Land.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

I was thinking about this the other day when here in Oz football was attracting a fair degree of criticism for the amount of diving and feigning of injury.

I thought that you could extend the rule that makes players go off if they have to receive attention. You could maybe make them stay off the field for 10 minutes rather than letting them come straight back on. Players would put their teams at a numerical disadvantage if they tried to feign an injury.

I haven't thought this through fully so Im sure there are reasons why this wouldn't work. There are some situations where it could be effective.

What do you guys think?

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Bit harsh on someone who does actually need a bit of attention?

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

I see with all this holier-than-thou talk over the last couple of days very few have added: 'oh, and of course we really should have lost to Charlton, because the handball in the area was the most blatant for a long while & we were BLOODY lucky not to get a penalty awarded against us'.

That cost Charlton the victory, they were cheated out of 3 points, whether deserved or not. Why should Shearer (rightly) have his red card withdrawn after the game but Charlton not be awarded a goal in lieu of the bad decision?

Oh, I remember, fairness is all one sided and goes out the fukkn window when someone else could gain.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Each World Cup the authorities(Fifa) make a conscious decision to clamp down on one aspect of the game. I believe cheating may be the priority this year although the melees that proceed a corner or free- kick in the box may also be high on their list.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

... and not before time.

Defenders blatantly obstructing forwards from playing the ball near to the goal line would be another favourite issue for me - these are clear fouls and Referees consistently favouring the defender in these situations drives me nuts.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Fair enough Nick though I couldn't comment on the Robert handball because I've not been shown a replay (the power of TV editors eh?) and it occurred down in the opposite end from where the away fans stood.

I believe my point stands though - if on reflection YBR believed Robert or any NUFC player cheated deliberately then I'd be more than happy for him to discipline them.

It's also very true that refs and linesmen are under increasing pressure as the game gets faster and as they face the repercussions of countless TV replays. IMO either the game returns to the days when a ref's interpretation was final - with TV cameras refused into grounds (unlikely let's face it!), or for major decisions during a match we must now bring in a fourth official with access to all the replays. It's clear that the current situation suits no-one and constantly ends in tears.

Whether or not a panel could then review the weekend's games on a Monday and see if anyone should face additional charges for violent conduct, cheating or whatever I'm less sure now. How could they possibly have the time and all the camera angles to please everyone ?

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

I tend to agree with you LT.

It's all well and good D'Urso watching the video on Monday and overturning his decision to send off AS. However, what if it this had been a Championship decider, the incident had occurred in the 48th minute and not the 87th, and Charlton had gone on beat our 10 men 2-1 to deny us the PL?

What bloody good to us would the Ref looking a the video 36 hours later be? An ashtray on a motor-bike comes to mind!

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Surely if the ashtray was tucked in right behind the perspex screen then that would be OK ?

... oh I see, metaphor right !!!

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Nick, there are some things which can be reviewed in retrospect and some which can't. Deciding whether a player should receive a disciplinary punishment comes into the former category. Things which would materially affect the game can not. The award of a penalty comes into this latter category. Obviously both affect the game and that can not be avoided (nor changed after the fact).

However, when it can affect future games, everything possible should be done to reach the right decision. As much as I don't rate D'Urso as a ref, at least he had the b@lls to revoke his decision given the additional evidence available. Something Uriah Renal failed to do with his previous ban. Whether it (the Charlton affair) would have happened if it had been (say) Jody Craddock instead of Alan Shearer is a moot point. The power of the press and pundits no doubt helped Shearer due to his "position in the game". I'd like to think it should make no difference who the accused is.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Can I play "What If"? Some of these things can be corrected later, as a wise man or shcreacer said above. What if it was a goal that was not given? Will they say OK the match ended 1-1 but that other one did go in so the score will be 2-1?

Of course they could hold up play next time the ball goes out and award the goal during the match. Same as for penalties, appeal to the fourth Ref like they do in cricket and get a red or green flashing light!

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

It must be possible to come up with a camera system that could be fitted on rails along each side of the pitch, with operators or whatever controlling the cameras to keep up with play, along the lines of those things they have when they televise athletics.

And static cameras on the goal line, or pointing down from the cross bar, or even something like that cyclops thing they use for tennis. Mind, with that, telling the difference between the ball and a player's foot would need working on, no doubt.

It's got to happen, though.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

It's not a case of taking goals and cards away.

Shearer still received a red card, he just doesn't have to serve a ban for it as the referee realises it was wrong.

Also the thing about the penalty for handball : what about the West Ham game? Elliott clearly hacked down in the box after three minutes but no penalty, do we get a goal for that? Just as bad as handball really, in some ways worse as handball doesn't necessarily deny a scoring chance.

A penalty would change the game though, Charlton could have missed and this could have spurred us onto greater things. If we start using "What if's" then it could go on for ever.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

At last Paul, someone gets my point!

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

They tried replays in American Football. American football stops every 10 seconds or so anyway but they still found that it slowed the game down too much and abandoned it. It would be a disaster for football - one of the best things about it is the way if flows so quickly.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Theory is that injustices will happen but if season is long enough and the injustices frequent enough, then it will all balance out.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Nick
I think that's more or less the way the game was pre big-business.

We all still whinged as much about the incidents, but there wasn't nearly as much of this video 'evidence' that keeps these things boiling for days rather than just the weekend of the game.

As you say, it all sort of evened out over the season.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

I sent an articulate, carefully reasoned e-mail to the 3 Legends on Century FM last night detailing the previous examples of the use of video evidence at the behest of the FA and demonstrating that the only change to normal practice with the Shearer case was the speed in which it was handled and that this owed everything to being the first case since refs went professional and are now expected to be on call whenever it suits their employers.

They read out the introduction whereupon Mr Gates decided that since I have a silly surname, my points were invalid. It was just like being on here really.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

What is your surname Softie?? Is it really that silly?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

No worse than Slaven or Gates :-)

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001

That is terrible Softie, still you got to hand it to them, they picked you early, even if it was for the wrong reason!

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2001