Garry O`Connors dive last night.....

[Drylaw Hearts]

So? Players dive for pens all the time! If an OF player did that do you think the same action would be taken?

 

Yep.

[...a bit disco]

So? Players dive for pens all the time! If an OF player did that do you think the same action would be taken?

 

How often is it this clear-cut though?

 

How often does the player own up to it?

 

How often does the players manager and assistant manager admit it?

[huskycol]

But players dive all the time and don't get suspensions?

It's just the SFA's way of letting Rangers know they are not getting picked on.

[colinmaroon]

I never knew God was on the SFA committee...

 

 

Never underestimate the power of prayer!!!

[john brownlee]

So? Players dive for pens all the time! If an OF player did that do you think the same action would be taken?

 

 

nope

 

we are not talking about an rantic player

 

but the reason we get upset /bothered because he dived in a game and got away with it but in the same game, as some might say a Hearts player got hounded out of scoootlan for the same thing.

[Paolo]

I wonder if he will now get persecuted by the media, fans and match officials like Miko did.

[Erik]

Tis good that he is being punished for this - but I cant help but feel that St Johnstone are the big losers out of all this.

 

He cheated, that much is obvious. As a result of his cheating, it cost St Johnstone points (not that i'm complaining about that the way the league is jsut now) - and then even the 'punishment' could effectively hinder St Johnstone more in that the next two teams to play Hibs will have an even easier fixture than normal given that without GOC, they couldnae buy a goal.

 

I dont have an alternative, and fair do's they've done all they can - but I just cant help but think there's not a lot of justice for the team whom were the victims in this case.

[Guess The Crowd]

Tis good that he is being punished for this - but I cant help but feel that St Johnstone are the big losers out of all this.

 

He cheated, that much is obvious. As a result of his cheating, it cost St Johnstone points (not that i'm complaining about that the way the league is jsut now) - and then even the 'punishment' could effectively hinder St Johnstone more in that the next two teams to play Hibs will have an even easier fixture than normal given that without GOC, they couldnae buy a goal.

 

I dont have an alternative, and fair do's they've done all they can - but I just cant help but think there's not a lot of justice for the team whom were the victims in this case.

 

Agree with this completely.

 

When decisions are officially (and correctly) recognised as wrong, it opens up a whole can of worms as regards the beaten team. I'm amazed that, to date, no one has challenged the legality of a result in these circumstances.

[SE16 3LN]

If you can handle the vomit factor take a look at what their saying on goc'sasaintandshouldbecanonised.net. Apparently it was a penalty, albeit a soft one, and nothing like as bad as the dirty cheating yam Miko. The whole thing is an SFA conspiracy. While I do agree that the OF seem to be treated differently, I have rarely seen such a spectacular dive. FTH

[Des' Dad]

Seriously re O'Connor, is this not another example of Romanovs west coast mafia imposing bans on teams outwith the old firm? If not then Naysmith has no future in the Scottish game.

[Walter Bishop]

Im assuming the "panel" that has come to this decision contains God?

[Chris Benoit]

Im assuming the "panel" that has come to this decision contains God?

 

 

[wibble]

If his appeal fails wouldn't it be increased to a 3 game ban? I thought that's how it worked?

[mahgrassyshoes]

Overheard a couple of Hibbees talking about it, asking why he was being punished and what the point was if they couldn't take the goal back etc

[SPG]

Imagine if that had been Miko...

[Erik]

The more I think about this, the more I think HIbs should actually also be asked to explain their decision to appeal this when a member of their management team has already admitted that it WAS a dive on national TV.

[Fozzyonthefence]

This new disciplinary process seems much better than the shambles we've had in the past. We've already seen positive action taken restrospectively for incidents missed during the game by officials - as well as O'Connor's dive, Naismith got a ban for elbowing a Pars player and looks like action could be taken against Stack for an incident with Lafferty. Don't know if there's been any others and I suppose it's only a matter of time until we're on the receiving end too but I like it so far.

 

I also like the take your fixed penalty 2 game ban or take a gamble and risk more in an appeal thing as well.

[Erik]

This new disciplinary process seems much better than the shambles we've had in the past. We've already seen positive action taken restrospectively for incidents missed during the game by officials - as well as O'Connor's dive, Naismith got a ban for elbowing a Pars player and looks like action could be taken against Stack for an incident with Lafferty. Don't know if there's been any others and I suppose it's only a matter of time until we're on the receiving end too but I like it so far.

 

I also like the take your fixed penalty 2 game ban or take a gamble and risk more in an appeal thing as well.

 

I agree with you in that it does seem that 'stuff is getting done' at the moment, and it defo seems like a step in the right direction.

 

But that goes back to my point earlier on, despite the retrospective punishment - in both instanced you've cited in your post, cheaters DO prosper.

 

In the Naismith incident, Rangers kept a man on the field instead of going down to 10 and the player who shoulda been off then went on to score twice after that incident.

 

Retrospective punishment is all fine and dandy, but whilst it may punish the offending teams / players, it does nothing about the fact that the opposing teams are left cheated out of something.

[Rick Grimes]

Diving's a yellow card offence. He shouldn't get any more than that regardless of whether or not it was missed by the ref first time round. Wasn't right when Miko was banned, isn't right now.

[hawaii]

Can't believe that some folk are moaning about the new system. It's like night and day compared to the old way.

 

You remember the old way? Decisions dragging on for 6 months as the SFA couldn't get committee members from all over Scotland together at the same time. Having to pay ?1000 just to appeal a decision. Neil Lennon & Celtic bringing in the lawyers when they didn't like an outcome. The SFA totally bodyswerving some decisions to protect refs, and even asking the ref if they thought they'd got a decision wrong before anything would be done.

 

I love the new system.

 

Would Naysmith have been done under the old system? Would O'Connor? Players need to know that if they try to "brush players off" by elbowing them in the face, or dive for a penalty that they will get caught and get banned. I would like the SPL to also step in and help here by saying that if a player dives for a penalty and that penalty is scored then it will be ruled out. So the Hibs v St Johnstone game is retrospectively amended to a 2-2 draw. I would even go so far as to say that as Naismith should have had a red card that the 2 goals he scored after the incident are also chalked off so it was only a 2-0 win over Dunfermline.

 

If you want a fair game then the only way is to use technology to clean the game up. It will also help highlight the players that cheat so that a ref is less likely to fall for their patter in future games.

[linkin- hearts]

Well it's taken a while but this seems to be a progressive step from the SFA, it's up to players now to ensure they cut diving out of their game.My one worry is that referees will start to see dives where a genuine foul has been committed so some teams are going to suffer adversely because of it. .

[Guest Dipped Flake]

Diving's a yellow card offence. He shouldn't get any more than that regardless of whether or not it was missed by the ref first time round. Wasn't right when Miko was banned, isn't right now.

 

The rule is if a player dives and gains an advantage through that dive (as O'Connor did by winning and scoring a penalty) then it is a 2 game ban

[Gods a Jambo]

Diving's a yellow card offence. He shouldn't get any more than that regardless of whether or not it was missed by the ref first time round. Wasn't right when Miko was banned, isn't right now.

 

Please explain that one.

[mahgrassyshoes]

Diving's a yellow card offence. He shouldn't get any more than that regardless of whether or not it was missed by the ref first time round. Wasn't right when Miko was banned, isn't right now.

 

 

Where is the deterrent there? When a player dives they hope to avoid a booking and seek an advantage. Telling them they will be book after the game if caught won't make a difference. They will take the booking for that advantage. If the punishment for getting caught retrospectively is harsher than during the game their best game scenario is to get caught during the game, which is fecking pointless ergo they will stop cheating.

[Goldstone Wonder]

Can't believe that some folk are moaning about the new system. It's like night and day compared to the old way.

 

You remember the old way? Decisions dragging on for 6 months as the SFA couldn't get committee members from all over Scotland together at the same time. Having to pay ?1000 just to appeal a decision. Neil Lennon & Celtic bringing in the lawyers when they didn't like an outcome. The SFA totally bodyswerving some decisions to protect refs, and even asking the ref if they thought they'd got a decision wrong before anything would be done.

 

I love the new system.

 

Would Naysmith have been done under the old system? Would O'Connor? Players need to know that if they try to "brush players off" by elbowing them in the face, or dive for a penalty that they will get caught and get banned. I would like the SPL to also step in and help here by saying that if a player dives for a penalty and that penalty is scored then it will be ruled out. So the Hibs v St Johnstone game is retrospectively amended to a 2-2 draw. I would even go so far as to say that as Naismith should have had a red card that the 2 goals he scored after the incident are also chalked off so it was only a 2-0 win over Dunfermline.

 

If you want a fair game then the only way is to use technology to clean the game up. It will also help highlight the players that cheat so that a ref is less likely to fall for their patter in future games.

 

I agree with most of what you say but this bit in highlights will never happen. You can't interfere with the integrity of the result.

[scott herbertson]

I agree with most of what you say but this bit in highlights will never happen. You can't interfere with the integrity of the result.

 

 

Does the result have integrity if it has been achieved by cheating?

 

(I agree with you by the way - 4th official video playback is the way)

[TheBigO]

Does the result have integrity if it has been achieved by cheating?

 

(I agree with you by the way - 4th official video playback is the way)

Not sure it is. There will always be ones where you cant even see it onh video. And when and what does the 4th official review? Not sure the idea sits comfy with me. Does every SPL ground get fitted with numerous cameras?

 

The best way to reduce the number of bad decisions is to professionalise our refs. It's a multi-million pound business totally at the mercy of amateurs.

 

I'm not against technology in footy (goal-liner tech is a must), but only retrospective videos for now, for me.

 

Said it before, if a dive is caught in a game, its a yellow and if the decision is proved correct retrospectively it should be increased to a red and 2match ban. Theory being that a straight red for such a difficfult decision could ruin too many games and actually see refs give less decisions rather than the desired clampdown.

[Rick Grimes]

Please explain that one.

 

 

Where is the deterrent there? When a player dives they hope to avoid a booking and seek an advantage. Telling them they will be book after the game if caught won't make a difference. They will take the booking for that advantage. If the punishment for getting caught retrospectively is harsher than during the game their best game scenario is to get caught during the game, which is fecking pointless ergo they will stop cheating.

 

 

I don't agree that when an infraction is noted should have anything to do with the level of punishment applied. Makes no sense - the offence itself isn't any worse, its just that the ref has made a bad decision or not seen it.

 

You could institute a way to deter cheats in a much easier fashion though it would still lead to some controversy. Make diving in the box a straight red.

[skinnybob72]

With only a 2 match ban and no changing of the final result teams could keep a 'diver' on the bench. If you need a goal in the last 10 minutes you bring on the 'diver' in the hope that they can 'win' a penalty. They may get a ban later if they do an O'Connor but as long as you get the goal it doesn't matter - or that's how the rules seem.