Refree Taylor says he was not conned

Saturday 25 November 2017  37 Comments  [Jump to last]

Two days after Oumar Niasse was suspended for two matches having been found guilty of committing a ‘Successful Deception of a Match Official' in winning a fifth-minute penalty at Crystal Palace last weekend, it emerged Anthony Taylor had been satisfied he had not been conned.

The revelation, included in the written reasons for the verdict of the independent regulatory commission which sat in judgment on Niasse on Tuesday, raised questions about the application of a Football Association rule change predicated on match officials being deceived into incorrectly awarding a penalty or sending a player off.

Published on Friday, those written reasons of a three-strong panel, chaired by Blackburn Rovers' championship-winning winger Stuart Ripley and featuring fellow ex-players Paul Raven and Marvin Robinson, found Niasse had “exaggerated the effect of a normal contact in order to deceive the referee”.

Effectively branding Niasse a cheat, the commission deemed the 27-year-old's body movement when he and Palace defender Scott Dann had come into contact “were simply not consistent with the amount of force exerted upon him”.

The panel added: “The nature of the contact made by Dann was minimal and would not have thrown Niasse off balance and knock him down in the way he portrayed.”

Confirming Taylor had stood by his penalty award after watching replays of it following the game, Everton caretaker manager David Unsworth added: “When we find out the referee after the game has reviewed the incident again from several angles and he continues to state it is a penalty, that is where the problem is.

“I think it is very dangerous, not from the FA point of view, but for the game in general.”

» Read the full article at The Telegraph


Reader Comments (37)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Peter Lee
1 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:33:00
So what's the process? Who decides to refer a decision the referee is happy with for review?
Stephen Jones
2 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:46:35
Gary Lineker and his MotD chums so it seems..
Winston Williamson
3 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:52:25
Hypocrisy of the highest order...chaired by a winger who would drop at the slightest of touches (if my memory is not playing games).

Can wait to see if this utter shite is applied to Hazard, Ali, Firmino, Sterling, Ozil etc... or if it's a rule just for the mere peasants of the game.

Brent Stephens
4 Posted 25/11/2017 at 08:56:02
Peter, my thoughts as well - who is allowed to refer this to the FA, and then, within the FA, to a panel?

And if the ref says he wasn't conned...! Well, if that's true, then this case really is a shambles. I suspect the procedure might be amended in future to allow initial consultation with the ref after the game?

Other codes make good use of instant replays with TMOs, for critical incidents. And, by the way, use of the sin bin.

Ajay Gopal
5 Posted 25/11/2017 at 09:02:04
If they (FA) have any sense of shame and remorse, they should immediately rescind the suspension and issue an apology to Oumar and Everton FC. Ditto for those so-called TV 'pundits'.
Dale Rose
6 Posted 25/11/2017 at 10:05:49
AJ, this is the problem the FA have no sense of shame. It's the country's biggest trough of all. Bunch of out of touch nearly men.
Stan Schofield
7 Posted 25/11/2017 at 10:41:32
Seems to be the end of the principle that the ref's decision is final, even when the ref is happy with his decision following his review of video footage.

That seems a major change from established practice, but it would be interesting to hear what ref's on ToffeeWeb have to say.

Chris Gould
8 Posted 25/11/2017 at 10:52:14
This is utter madness. The FA have made a massive error in judgement. Absolute imbeciles.

Ayew's dive last night was worse as there was no contact and it was never a penalty. Will he be charged? Probably not, because the ref didn't give the pen and therefore wasn't deceived.

So Ayew gets off without punishment even though his intention was to deceive the ref? That's ridiculous. The whole situation has now become ridiculous.

How the hell have they punished Niasse when the ref has stated he wasn't conned?! Who the hell are the panel to say that he was conned if the ref says he wasn't?

This is mental. Absolutely bloody laughable. Except it isn't funny at all!!

Kim Vivian
9 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:05:08
What a shambles.
Martin Nicholls
10 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:09:00
It seems that the FA trusts the judgement of three ex-footballers more than that of one of their own current elite group of referees. When then will we see Messrs Ripley, Raven and Robinson (the new "three R's"?!) fast tracked to become referees themselves?
Christine Foster
11 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:25:33
Disgraceful... who set the benchmarks for determining a cheat? Normal contact?? Are you kidding me? If you are running at pace and you are even brush with a shoulder it can send you flying.. it doesn't have to be a body check!!

Why the hell should three no mark players be adjudicating when we have a referee panel for reviews anyway? What was their opinion?

So now someone, please tell me, what is normal contact? An arm around the throat in the penalty box?

It's an absolute shambles and the problem is they are only applying it to offenders who conned the ref to win a penalty, so it wont stop it the simulation or exaggeration anywhere else on the field ( thinking about it, it's a law for defenders not attackers..) Licence to spill.

Pete Clarke
12 Posted 25/11/2017 at 11:42:26
Worse still. Niasse is going to get hounded by all opposing supporters when he plays and it's going to get to him for sure. He's had enough rotten luck since he came to us and he's probably the most down-to-earth player in the Premier League.

I have always hated the FA and for them to create a panel made up of non-officiating people makes them the biggest dickheads in world football.

Jack Convery
13 Posted 25/11/2017 at 12:58:18
Niasse, please sue the sods. The ref backs you and all at EFC back you. You are not a cheat – go prove it in court.

By the way, well done to Taylor for coming out and saying this. At least someone has some gonads and doesn't brown nose the media types and hypocritical self-elected.

Tony Everan
14 Posted 25/11/2017 at 13:43:40
Where is the transparency?

Who refers this to the FA?

Who makes the decision what to review and what not?

Who decides whether Ayew or others need reviewing?

How can it be fair if even the referee says he was not deceived?

Peter Barry
15 Posted 25/11/2017 at 14:00:21
What a typical football fuck-up!
Alan J Thompson
16 Posted 25/11/2017 at 14:41:52
And other than the video what other evidence was sought or heard? From what we've read it seems only pre-determination.
Paul Kelly
17 Posted 25/11/2017 at 16:42:04
What a shambles of a situation. Absolute joke.
Tony McNulty
18 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:07:37
Niasse did seem to make a bit of a meal of it.

Nevertheless he was touched, and by the letter of the law (and according to the official, even after due reflection) a penalty it was.

This decision is going to cause the FA quite a few problems, I think.

Incidentally, a fascinating second-rate panel was formed to adjudicate on this. Does anyone know what the principal pie seller at United thinks? I'm sure the three card boys outside Selfridges will have a view. Had has anyone asked Mugabe? And what about that guy in the peaked cap and dirty raincoat who used to wander about central London with a placard saying, "More nuts, less meat, less passion"?

James Stewart
19 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:08:28
Idiots.
Tom Bowers
20 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:35:18
I think the refereeing is poor across the board in the Premier League and a lot of it stems from indecision at crucial incidents. The linesmen are in constant touch with the man in the middle and yet still far too often they don't put in their two cents worth when they are clearly in better positions.

Seems to me these changes in rules create more confusion for the officials and although we Evertonians may be biased about this precedent setting incident and we can only hope the same will apply from now on to all such incidents but you just know the big clubs at the top will never be penalised for such things.

Question, if a player is clearly offside, plays on and then scores, has he conned the officials?

Barry Thompson
21 Posted 25/11/2017 at 17:46:53
Kangaroo Court. Was there any complaint made by Crystal Palace? And if not, why was this referred to a panel of no-marks to sit in judgement – especially as the referee had backed his initial decision and as such does not feel that he was conned by Niasse? The game has gone mad.
Andy Riley
22 Posted 26/11/2017 at 01:24:45
Seems to me that they make the rules up as they go along particularly when it's anything involving Everton.

I remember Tim Cahill getting sent off on his Everton debut for a second yellow awarded at Man City when scoring a last minute winner and everyone agreeing it was wrong but the ban not being lifted because they couldn't agree a “form of words” that was acceptable to the referee.

And they wonder why we are bitter?

Don Alexander
23 Posted 26/11/2017 at 01:48:23
Alan Shearer is in Oumar's corner, and if Shearer ain't an expert when it comes to what is and what isn't diving, I don't know who is.
Paul Corbett
24 Posted 26/11/2017 at 02:00:36
Watching the highlights from the Man Utd v Brighton game and the lead up to the Utd goal.

Lukaku deceived both the linesman and referee by finger pointing to the corner flag when clearly the defender didn’t get the last touch. They scored from the resulting corner.

If the FA want to carry on this sham ruling then it has to be consistent but I’m guessing this won’t be brought before the panel.

Clive Mitchell
25 Posted 26/11/2017 at 02:12:53
FA bringing the game into disrepute. How do they do it? Every time you think they can't possibly become more idiotic, they do. Next they'll be bringing in a panel to decide whether drawn games were really won by one of the two teams. Brains of a tomato.
Neil Copeland
26 Posted 26/11/2017 at 09:28:14
If the referee and Crystal Palace did not make a complaint to the FA then the only conclusion that can be drawn is they reviewed it based upon media attention via MotD and/or match reports.

Surely, the match officials' and both clubs' (including the players') views have to be taken into consideration otherwise all angles cannot possibly have been considered. Without disclosing the full evidence and "witness" statements, there is no case to answer is there?

Doesn't there have to be a complainant in such cases

So, how can any panel find Oumar guilty when no complaint has been made in the first place?

It won't happen I know but EFC should threaten the FA with formal legal action based upon this evidence. The whole situation is a complete farce and makes EFC seem like an immaculately run organisation when compared to the FA.

As n aside, can EFC or Oumar not refer this to UEFA or FIFA? May not not achieve anything but it would at least help highlight the total incompetence of the FA.

Alex Short
28 Posted 26/11/2017 at 12:25:50
When Taylor comes to Goodison he should be given a round of applause. He has had the bottle to stand up to the FA, his employers, nice one.
Neil Copeland
29 Posted 26/11/2017 at 21:08:44
Alex, spot on
Tom Dodds
30 Posted 26/11/2017 at 22:55:54
I think it's all a ploy by 'them' to keep the chattering classes chattering..

Sort of keeps our eyes off 'their' ball so to speak.
Er good job I didn't mention the betting.

Imagine them having the nerve to brimg Man City players to book !!...What ? and have the Sheik/Saudis cancel their weapons contracts with us ????

I don't think so.


Brian Porter
32 Posted 27/11/2017 at 07:07:09
Anthony Taylor is a liar! Bet that got your attention guys? But, the Drumhead court-martial panel is saying exactly that by its deliberate refusal to accept his decision, even after he has confirmed it following numerous video replays of the incident.

If he had said, after watching it again, that he had even a modicum of doubt about his original penalty award, then that would have given some legitimacy to the FA holding a review of the behaviour of Niasse. We all know that Oumar is like Bambi on ice at times, and it is well known amongst the Everton faithful that he doesn't have the greatest balance in the world when running at speed. Add that to the fact that his run into the box was being impeded not just by Danny but by a second defender who was effectively sandwiching Niasse between two players, leaving him nowhere to go when contact was made.

Were the members of the panel holders of degrees in Applied Physics? Er... I thought not. Were they not aware that very little contact is needed to reflect a moving object travelling at speed? The simple fact is that if Dann had been a mere six inches closer to Niasse when the contact took place, Niasse would have been blocked off and a penalty would still have been awarded. If no contract had taken place, Niasse would have been past him and through on goal.

The FA, have, as I stated above, effectively called their own referee a liar, calling into question his integrity, his decision making and his veracity. Not to mention calling Niasse a cheat and also questioning his integrity and called him a liar too. Those who know what he went through under Ronald Koeman will I think agree that Niasse is a young man of high integrity and to brand him a cheat is way off the mark.

In my opinion the FA has allowed a bunch of rank amateurs to inflict an unjust punishment for no other reason than to satisfy a gang of media pundits, baying for blood.

Nitesh Kanchan
33 Posted 27/11/2017 at 11:24:59
How did FA not investigate the Ramsey incident? Please someone hold a banner against these fools during West Ham game. They don't want Video Action Replay in the game and now they are investigating incidents involving us but not Arsenal.
Mark Boulle
34 Posted 27/11/2017 at 15:45:53
Oh and look – Lukaku has been let off a ban after kicking out at an opponent, an incident the referee did not see. What a surprise given who he now plays for...
Karl Brightman
35 Posted 28/11/2017 at 09:11:46
I always thought the referee's decision was final. I'm not a fan of players diving but the problem with this review is it's undermining the referee. I foresee this ending up like cricket players appealing and pointing to big screen replays and traffic lights.

Rubbish decision – even if he dived, the referee has made his decision period. This is what makes football special – it all evens itself out over the course of a season.

Eric Hardman
36 Posted 29/11/2017 at 22:50:14
I can see a logic to a retrospective ban when a ref doesn't see an incident that would have been a red card if he had seen it. This only applies if it is clear from the ref's report that he missed it. It upholds the integrity of the ref and gives the same punishment for the offence as would result if the ref had seen it.

In the case of an alleged dive such as this, if the ref had seen it as a dive it would only have been a yellow card at most anyway so the ban is the wrong punishment. As others have said it also contradicts the logic of supporting the ref as in the above case.

Both cases have the drawback that the victim team gets no benefit from the retrospective action.

Mike Allison
37 Posted 30/11/2017 at 21:31:42
Will we see the two West Ham players guilty of appalling dives last night banned for two matches?

No, we won't.

Keith Glazzard
38 Posted 01/12/2017 at 20:36:26
Anywhere on the field if someone put their arm across my chest I would have expected for a foul to be awarded, whether I was knocked over or not. It didn't always happen of course, because the ref never always had a clear view, no matter how good or crap he was.

If I was running into the box (I think that happened once) and was thus fouled, I would expect a penalty to be awarded.

The FA have just told one of their refs, closer to the incident than anyone, who pointed directly to the spot that he can't be trusted. Quite a step forward in the game?

William Cartwright
39 Posted 05/12/2017 at 14:14:20
Yes, Keith, you are right. I would see it as a giant step forward in the game only and if the FA (acronym for "fucking arseholes") discuss that very salient point with their referee and report the outcome of those discussions. Logically should be they acknowledge their error, issue an apology, and then they offer to pay Niasse's salary for the 2 week period.

Do you see that happening? Absolutely no chance.

Will we see any other team being treated as Everton have been treated over this incident. Absolutely now chance, unless it is Everton (again) or another team with the potential to undermine the top 6.


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.