Watt 'simulation' appeal successful - yellow rescinded (title updated)

[Homme]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-appeal-tony-watt-s-booking-for-diving-1-4228322?

 

It turns out you can appeal yellow cards for simulation.

 

Glad the club has done this and it should be overturned without much discussion after a viewing if the video evidence.

 

Or will it?

[XB52]

there was definite contact, just with Tony hadn't done his best dying swan impersonation after it. But that shouldn't change th fact that it was a foul 

[Ryan Jarman]

Bet it wont be over turned

[Homme]

there was definite contact, just with Tony hadn't done his best dying swan impersonation after it. But that shouldn't change th fact that it was a foul

Exactly. I said on another thread he could have somersaulted afterwards but it doesn't change the fact it was a foul and we should have had a penalty.

[frankblack]

They will probably try to do Nicholson for simulation for our pen if we appeal this.

[Cut The Crap]

Worth a try, I suppose, but to me it was both a foul AND simulation, so not quite sure where that leaves him in the eyes of the panel.

 

Too much press talk about Hearts players and diving as well, some of it justified. Would be good if we can move the focus on to something more positive.

[Haken]

there was definite contact, just with Tony hadn't done his best dying swan impersonation after it. But that shouldn't change th fact that it was a foul 

 

 

Exactly. I said on another thread he could have somersaulted afterwards but it doesn't change the fact it was a foul and we should have had a penalty.

Yep, I'm pretty sure that there is no caveat in the rules that say a foul can be ignored if the reaction to the foul is one of a theatrical nature.  The best thing for Thompson to have done would have been to award the penalty and then to have a wee word with Watt.

[Homme]

Yep, I'm pretty sure that there is no caveat in the rules that say a foul can be ignored if the reaction to the foul is one of a theatrical nature. The best thing for Thompson to have done would have been to award the penalty and then to have a wee word with Watt.

I don't really blame Thompson because in real time it could have been mistaken for a dive. We won the game comfortably in the end and no harm done.

 

I just hope justice is done for Watt though.

[tian447]

It was a foul, but he didn't half fling himself forward.  It was a silly thing, but it should have been a penalty - you can see why the referee gave what he gave though.

 

It won't be rescinded IMO.  Might as well just get on with it and stop drawing attention to things that happened, otherwise they might start to look at other things such as the Nicholson penalty, which had little or no contact, and might end up coming back to haunt us!

[Busby8]

Exactly. I said on another thread he could have somersaulted afterwards but it doesn't change the fact it was a foul and we should have had a penalty.

 

 

Worth a try, I suppose, but to me it was both a foul AND simulation, so not quite sure where that leaves him in the eyes of the panel.

 

Too much press talk about Hearts players and diving as well, some of it justified. Would be good if we can move the focus on to something more positive.

 

Slap on the wrist for Thomson missing it, and yellow card upheld no doubt.

 

Oh, and for good measure, they'll probably want a word with Sam too after the weekend media assassination.

 

.

[Cut The Crap]

Slap on the wrist for Thomson missing it, and yellow card upheld no doubt.

 

Oh, and for good measure, they'll probably want a word with Sam too after the weekend media assassination.

 

.

 

Sad to say but Walker, Nicholson, and now Watt are all apt to go down far too easily in the box.

 

Really wish the coaching staff would knock it out of them.

[Musemic]

Not sure I see the point in appealing the yellow card. Presumably costs us money to appeal and, for me, it was as theatrical a 'dive' as I've seen in a while. Should've been a penalty, granted, but TW's reaction was over the top. 

[Special Agent Dale Cooper]

Watt can do a triple salco, a forward flip and a cartwheel if he wishes, the point still stands it was a foul.

[BelgeJambo]

Probably use the Imrie dive as evidence of inconsistency.

[pcw1874]

And rightly so, it was a penalty.

[The Treasurer]

Two match ban coming up.

Seriously though, it's good to know that the club are willing to support their players when they feel they have been wrongly punished

[letsalldothebeattie]

It should be overturned but it's the SFA it won't be overturned

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homme]

Two match ban coming up.

Seriously though, it's good to know that the club are willing to support their players when they feel they have been wrongly punished

Exactly. Especially players like Watt where he may not have felt he had the support during his career so far.

 

It's always worthwhile appealing if you have a case - if Watt's yellow is overturned he is one yellow card further away from a suspension which could fall on a massive game like your Celtics, Aberdeen and Rangers. He is probably first choice on the team sheet so its a no brainer.

[Busby8]

Sad to say but Walker, Nicholson, and now Watt are all apt to go down far too easily in the box.

 

Really wish the coaching staff would knock it out of them.

 

Not IMO any more than players from other clubs though.

The difference is, the media are more than happy to pick the bones out of almost any penalty issue involving Hearts.

[TheBigO]

I don't really blame Thompson because in real time it could have been mistaken for a dive. We won the game comfortably in the end and no harm done.

 

I just hope justice is done for Watt though.

Where I am too. The ref and lino missing the claims 2nd half was much worse officiating.

[Erik]

I'm not sure I understand the calls for 'penalty AND a booking for simulation'.

 

If its a penalty we're saying there was a foul.

 

If there was a foul then how can you simulate a foul?

 

Simulating is, by definition imitating or pretending something which isn't real. If there was in fact a foul, then he cant be simulating one.

 

Appeal should be won. Yet the cynic in me knows only too well how this is most likely to go.

[Bazzas right boot]

Part of me thinks yes, this is right and it was a foul. It doesn't matter if he made the most of it.

However, we are dragging a quite inconspicuous incident on and if we lose, then more weight will be added to our "diving" tag.

 

Depends on if we win or lose, if we win, good decision, if we lose, bad.

Time will tell.

[RenfrewHearts]

Watt can do a triple salco, a forward flip and a cartwheel if he wishes, the point still stands it was a foul.

This!!

[The Treasurer]

Not IMO any more than players from other clubs though.

The difference is, the media are more than happy to pick the bones out of almost any penalty issue involving Hearts.

The media have highlighted the incident of the one penalty we did get but conveniently ignore the other 3 we should have been given.

[glastonbury jambo]

He just had to fall thats all ...

[Justin Z]

I'm not sure I understand the calls for 'penalty AND a booking for simulation'.

 

To be semantically correct it would need to be a penalty and then a booking for unsporting behaviour for the embellishment of the foul.  You almost never see this at any level, which is to my mind unfortunate.

 

However, the same logic under the SFA's competition rules can be used to appeal this yellow, as the SFA used to hand Walker his two match ban--the referee screwed up and didn't award a deserved penalty so the way to "make it right" is to rescind the yellow as compensation for the bad call.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Ray Gin]

Yellow card to be overruled. 2 game ban to be offered to Nicholson. NAP.

[TheBigO]

I'm not sure I understand the calls for 'penalty AND a booking for simulation'.

 

If its a penalty we're saying there was a foul.

 

If there was a foul then how can you simulate a foul?

 

Simulating is, by definition imitating or pretending something which isn't real. If there was in fact a foul, then he cant be simulating one.

 

Appeal should be won. Yet the cynic in me knows only too well how this is most likely to go.

Get what you're saying but I also get the argument.

 

Away from the Watt situation: We often see when a player is fouled but rolls around like he's beer shot until the yellow comes out and he's up and raring to go again. That's cheating. He's been fouled but he's feigning injury. Pepe us the best/worst at it. Any contact.

 

Not sure much can be done.

 

One of the issues we have is that if a player is honest and tries to stay on his feet, the regmfs seldom give a foul. That's where the "had a right to go down" bullshit comes from - players being told to make sure the ref gives it. You should only have to hit the deck to get the foul if it actually knocks you on yer erchie.

[upgotheheads]

Worth a try, I suppose, but to me it was both a foul AND simulation, so not quite sure where that leaves him in the eyes of the panel.

 

Too much press talk about Hearts players and diving as well, some of it justified. Would be good if we can move the focus on to something more positive.

 

 

It was a foul, but he didn't half fling himself forward.  It was a silly thing, but it should have been a penalty - you can see why the referee gave what he gave though.

 

It won't be rescinded IMO.  Might as well just get on with it and stop drawing attention to things that happened, otherwise they might start to look at other things such as the Nicholson penalty, which had little or no contact, and might end up coming back to haunt us!

 

 

Not sure I see the point in appealing the yellow card. Presumably costs us money to appeal and, for me, it was as theatrical a 'dive' as I've seen in a while. Should've been a penalty, granted, but TW's reaction was over the top. 

 

Isn't the offence actually 'causing the referee to make a wrong decision by an act of simulation' or words to that effect.

 

The SPFL will argue that Watt is guilty because his dive was so theatrical that it caused the ref to believe that there was no foul commited.

 

Nicholson's was a stone-wall penalty, there's no danger of any action against him.

[Cut The Crap]

Not IMO any more than players from other clubs though.

The difference is, the media are more than happy to pick the bones out of almost any penalty issue involving Hearts.

 

Perhaps, but we can't control what players from other clubs do. We should get our own house in order before we start pointing fingers elsewhere.

 

Jamie gets his body into some fairly contorted positions at times trying to "initiate" contact with defenders - I hope he's learned after being caught out against Celtic. 

 

Sam at least does work hard to get in front of and attempt to cut across his marker (as at the weekend).

 

As for TW - it was actually him that did us out of a penalty on Saturday, more so than the ref.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Sad to say but Walker, Nicholson, and now Watt are all apt to go down far too easily in the box.

 

Really wish the coaching staff would knock it out of them.

You don't want penalties then? Every other team in the world is at it.

[JamboJen]

A few years ago when there was an attempted crack down on simulation there were some articles saying all clubs had been visited by refs in pre season and that part of simulation included embellishing any contract or going down when the level of contact would otherwise not cause you to go down.

 

However, it seems to have gone a similar way to the 6 second goalkeeper rule and tackles from behind being an automatic red so who knows where exactly the lines are drawn.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the SFA told us to ram our appeal though.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

I don't see him getting the booking taken away as there was not enough contact to merit the reaction. Nor will Sam be punished. Anyone who has ever played will know that when running at pace, a quick turn is going to cause imbalance. Falling over is not diving, in the course of running to avoid the tackle he has lost balance as a result. The Hamilton player got nowhere near the ball and whether he actually touches Sam or not, he has impeded his progress to goal

[Hungry hippo]

Sad to say but Walker, Nicholson, and now Watt are all apt to go down far too easily in the box.

 

Really wish the coaching staff would knock it out of them.

Totally disagree re Watt. He rides challenge after challenge which is why I was surprised when I thought he'd dived on Saturday. Having now seen the replay it was a a definite pen even if he did put his arms out theatricality.

[Kirky Jambo]

It will get overturned.

 

The stigma attached to diving is that you are trying to con the ref, not that you fall theatrically. Watt wasn't trying to con the ref at all. In my opinion he did nothing wrong.

[sairyinthat]

He just had to fall thats all ...

You think he should just crumple to the ground rather than drop with a bit of style?Look classy players do everything with class even falling.

[Cut The Crap]

It will get overturned.

 

The stigma attached to diving is that you are trying to con the ref, not that you fall theatrically. Watt wasn't trying to con the ref at all. In my opinion he did nothing wrong.

 

A genuine question then: What do you think was he hoping to achieve by diving four feet forward with his arms outstretched?

[Bazzas right boot]

Totally disagree re Watt. He rides challenge after challenge which is why I was surprised when I thought he'd dived on Saturday. Having now seen the replay it was a a definite pen even if he did put his arms out theatricality.

Yip, I agree, he doesn't go down easily, gets tackled and knocked about allot and stays up, maybe too much.

[FTH]

Bet it wont be over turned

 

SFA might fancy overturning this yellow, then giving Sam a 2 game ban for the penalty instead.

[Cut The Crap]

SFA might fancy overturning this yellow, then giving Sam a 2 game ban for the penalty instead.

 

Fortunately there's nothing that shows conclusively that Sam wasn't impeded, so he'll get the benefit of any doubt anyone might have.

[davie1980]

Sitting high in the Roseburn, it looked like a total dive.

 

I've no sympathy and said at the time even if there is contact there is no excuse for reacting like that. In fact throwing himself down like that has cost us a penalty. I was more hoping Robbie would go through him than defend him

[Bazzas right boot]

Sitting high in the Roseburn, it looked like a total dive.

 

I've no sympathy and said at the time even if there is contact there is no excuse for reacting like that. In fact throwing himself down like that has cost us a penalty. I was more hoping Robbie would go through him than defend him

He got tripped and fell over. That's the offence.

 

Overplaying a foul is not an offence.

 

Penalty all day long.

 

Your saying it's only a penalty if you fall down a certain way after a foul?

[Homme]

A genuine question then: What do you think was he hoping to achieve by diving four feet forward with his arms outstretched?

Emphasise that it was a penalty.

 

Which it was.

[grumpyespana]

Worth a try, I suppose, but to me it was both a foul AND simulation, so not quite sure where that leaves him in the eyes of the panel.

 

Too much press talk about Hearts players and diving as well, some of it justified. Would be good if we can move the focus on to something more positive.

Maybe as before the press are worried we are challenging there cosy Glasgow chums.

[Cut The Crap]

Emphasise that it was a penalty.

 

Which it was.

 

Poor judgment by him then, because it was in all likelihood his "emphasizing" that persuaded the ref that it wasn't a penalty.

[Jambof3tornado]

Watt can do a triple salco, a forward flip and a cartwheel if he wishes, the point still stands it was a foul.

Correct as the foul occurred before his over - enthusiastic tumble.

[alanbauld]

If you keep your legs ridged when your hit with a tackle you stand far more chance of a serious injury than if you let them go loose. Can be said that Watts instincts kicked in and he threw himself out of the tackle, it did look like he could have brought his legs up off the ground just after the tackle made contact to avoid the player going through him resulting in an ankle injury. Is the new rule now that a player cannot cushion a tackle ? 

[Son Of Anarchy]

There was contact clearly. It's a penalty. What happened next is irrelevant.

[FTH]

Fortunately there's nothing that shows conclusively that Sam wasn't impeded, so he'll get the benefit of any doubt anyone might have.

 

Since when did the blazers at the SFA ever let solid evidence, or a lack of it, stand in the way of their decisions..........

[Paolo]

If he stayed on his feet, we probably would not have got the penalty either.