I know we don't want to keep hearing about Pawlett and his looming 2 game ban for "Simulation" but just wondered why there are never any commentators on the English Premiership not calling for the same punishment for the so called Superstars who actually get booked for it during a game by the ref. ( Van Persie tonight against Villa was booked for diving amd Moses for Wigan , although he blatantly dived and didn't get a booking )

 

It only seems to be where the ref doesn't blow up for it in a game where the player ends up with a 2 game ban , but if the same thing happens in a game and the ref books a player that is his only punishment for doing exactly the same thing , a yellow card with no ban, so the moral of the story is your better off cheating and getting a yellow card than the cameras picking you up after a game and the opposition teams/commentators calling for a ban for one of your players.

The way I see it, Pawlett goes down, the ref says he dives and books him, no more punishment needed. But in this case Pawlett goes down ref gives a penalty, completely changing the course of the  game and possibly a season, imagine if Hibs go down or Aberdeen stay up and the margin is 2 points that dive just relegated a team that would have stayed up, hence the bigger punishment.

Well if pawlett had recieved a yellow card on saturday they we would only be 4 points off the bottom instead of 6

 

your argument may stand up for the player but doesnt always stand up for the team

The way I see it, Pawlett goes down, the ref says he dives and books him, no more punishment needed. But in this case Pawlett goes down ref gives a penalty, completely changing the course of the  game and possibly a season, imagine if Hibs go down or Aberdeen stay up and the margin is 2 points that dive just relegated a team that would have stayed up, hence the bigger punishment.

 

Hate this argument that people always use. So if we scored another and won 2-0 it would have been alrite?

 

If Pawlett got booked and it wasn't a pen the match would have been entirely different and not necessarily finished 0-0. Just as if he hadn't been wrongly sent off the match would have been entirely different.

 

Aberdeen and Pawlett are being punished for the referees incompetence. If the referee did his job properly Pawlett would have finished the game, allowing us to continue to attack to try and get a a goal instead of 10 men behind the ball, and we would have him available for the next 2 matches just like Hibs have O'Connor available.

 

Does Stevenson not get booked for diving when Pawlett slide in? That conned the ref into thinking there was contact and giving a red. Do we not get any sort of compensation for losing Pawlett for the rest of that game? Hibs benefitted from that decision as much as we did to get the penalty. We got one chance on goal from the ref and took it. They weren't able to convert any of the multiple chances the ref gave them in the last 25 minutes.

The way I see it, Pawlett goes down, the ref says he dives and books him, no more punishment needed. But in this case Pawlett goes down ref gives a penalty, completely changing the course of the  game and possibly a season, imagine if Hibs go down or Aberdeen stay up and the margin is 2 points that dive just relegated a team that would have stayed up, hence the bigger punishment.

 

Sort of see your point, imagine being Dumfermilne going down by 1 point and the Blue noses winning the league by 1 point after their 2-1 win and Penalty conversion that never was   There is always going to be a scenario of what if's .... but my point was really that it is the commentators looking for talking points especially on tv that highlight the matter when the opposition weren't really making that big a deal of the penalty other than disappointment

The solution as I see it is to scrap the yellow for diving and classify it as a straight red card offense. Handball on the line is a red, as is GK handling outside the box - can't see that latter as worse than diving personally

 

The problem then is with inconsistent application of the law...soooooo

 

LET'S USE VIDEO TECHfuckingNOLOGY 

The solution as I see it is to scrap the yellow for diving and classify it as a straight red card offense. Handball on the line is a red, as is GK handling outside the box - can't see that latter as worse than diving personally

 

The problem then is with inconsistent application of the law...soooooo

 

LET'S USE VIDEO TECHfuckingNOLOGY 

 

I believe it is video technFUCKINGology

Agree that diving needs to be punished with a straight red.

The way I see it, Pawlett goes down, the ref says he dives and books him, no more punishment needed. But in this case Pawlett goes down ref gives a penalty, completely changing the course of the  game and possibly a season, imagine if Hibs go down or Aberdeen stay up and the margin is 2 points that dive just relegated a team that would have stayed up, hence the bigger punishment.

 

Punishments like this shouldn't be used to compensate for the referee making a mistake. It's also not much compensation for the team that have been hurt by the decision. Imagine for instance if Rangers won a game against Hibs with a dive, then the next game Rangers were playing Dunfermline (who Hibs are in a relegation battle against) and they have one of their players suspended. That doesn't actually help Hibs at all, it just makes it worse.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's completely unworkable to dish out punishments based on the consequences of cheating, as opposed to the offence itself. If you take that principle to its logical extreme then where does it end? Should players be banned for minor fouls that they get away with in the build up to a goal? Or a handball (like Henry against Ireland)? A very minor offence can have huge consequences for a match/season but that doesn't make the offence itself any worse.