There have been a few dives so far in the prem, I certainly wouldn't say Robert dived rather extracted a foul from the keeper but Keone, Lilly etc took a dive to win a pen & get another player sent off. Are the rules wrong?

Hypothetically...

A forward is in the area, he's put it past a defender/keeper but control let him down. Does he try to retrive the ball to try & make the most of it? Does he take a dive, after all if he fools the ref he gets a pen & a good chance of playing against ten men. If he doesn't fool the ref, the most he can get is a yellow. Surely it has to be a red or the ref should have the opportunity to use his discretion and award a yellow to the last line of defence if he believes there was no malice in the foul.

For example, the Boro keeper (like Shay) genuinely went for the ball, mainly down to Robert's skill & speed he fouled him. It's right to give a Penalty but under the rules the ref had to send him off, his punishment is the same as for Gerrard (or Keane Last season) who intended to break bones not just dispossess the player. Should the rules be changed.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2001

Answers

I see what you are getting at and I agree, but one difference is that Gerrard will probably get a 3 match ban and possibly an FA fine whereas Schwarzer will only get a 1 match ban.

I think the rules don't necessarily need to be changed, they just need to be consistently abided by. Look at Dyer's sending off against Spurs last season. Sent off for telling the linesman to f**k off. How many times do you see it at games live and on the telly where that and worse has been said, yet no punishment.

It has been said hundreds of times, but consistency is the vital thing missing. If keepers knew that they'd be sent off every time for challenges such as Schwarzer's they wouldn't do it, but if they think there is a chance that they will get away with it they may well take a risk. Also that Charlton keeper - Dean Kiely - should have walked for his kick to the chest on Saha today, the ref saw it but why he stayed on the pitch we'll never know.

At the end of the day, a red card can be given out for a number of things, but I suppose the length of the ban is what matters.

Boro will miss Schwarzer for one game, but Gerrard will be a huge loss to Liverpool if he's missing for three games.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2001

I know you can't 'uninvent the bomb', but it seems to me there wouldn't be half the 'did he, didn't he' problems if Sky etc hadn't the ability to rerun controversial situations ad nauseum.

No wonder referees hardly have a leg to stand on.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2001

Surely with the speed that Sky re-run incidents, there could be a bloke in the stands with a TV monitor who can officiate some of the borderline decisions, eg for potential sendings off and the like

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2001

Paul - a gree and I disagree! Today, every EPL team has a squad of players which can (generally) lose one player for a game or three. The length of the ban is not necessarily what matters. Having a player sent off is only a major problem if it happens relatively early in the game (like at Smoggieside yesterday). Blackie will miss one game, but would Boro suffer more if it were three? I doubt it as Crossley is a capable stand-in. Had the punishment been less severe (eg only a penalty and a yellow) then they could have battled on. Schwarzer's dismissal was the turning point in that game - no question. Even Liverpool can manage without Gerrard. They have a decent squad.

Where I agree with you is in the use of technology. It exists and is present at every EPL game. FFS, use it. I also agree about the cards. A red can be issued for too many wide-ranging offences. The infamous Solskjaer hack at Bob Lee a few seasons back showed that. Less than 10 mins to go and certain defeat so the "professional" foul is committed and two points are saved. ManUre suffered for less than 10 mins. No question, they were as stong, if not stronger, in their next ame without him. ThatIMHO has to be stamped out by the FA. At the time, I suggested that the sending off should last for 90 mins. In other words, ManUre should have played the next 80 mins of their next game with 10 men. No benefit to us directly, but it would probably have made OGS think before he robbed us of two points.

-- Anonymous, September 09, 2001

As Screacher says, the problem is a sending off early in the game usually, but not always, proves pivotal. I've seen far too many games spoiled as a contest by an early sending off, and Schwarzer's red card on Saturday was indeed the turning point in the game.

Having watched the incident maybe 10 times now, I have come to believe the Referee actually interpreted the rules correctly. However, I really don't believe there was a clear intent by the keeper to bring Robert down, and therefore feel the punishment was very harsh. Whether Robert fell over the keeper deliberately I'm still not sure about.

I'm just not sure what rule change could improve this situation. The denying of a clear goalscoring opportunity - which this was - by foul play, should be severely punished. Expecting the Referee in addition to interpret 'intent' on the foul would be asking an awful lot, and probably introduce greater inconsistency.

While I'm all in favour of using technology where possible, I'm not totally convinced it would have helped in this particular case, and could have introduced a 5 minute delay while the replay was viewed several times only to confirm that 1) Robert was denied a clear goalscoring opportunity, and by the last defender 2) it was unclear whether Robert had deliberately fallen over the keeper. I suspect the Ref's initial decision would have stood.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Personaly I don't think that a goalkeeper should be sent off if he comits a foul, unless it is a dangerous one. A penalty is punishment enough.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Robert didn't dive but he did drop his legs to ensure contact with the keeper. Is that a dive?

IMHO opinion it is a form of cheating but the question remains if he tries to hurdle the Keeper and falls over and the chance is lost what has he gained?

A lot of pros now deliberately invite contact and before you say that it is only foreigners who do it. Have a look at the two penalties "earned" by the saintly Gary Lineker in the Cameroon game in Italia 90 or Owen in recent Eng. games.

It is now part of the game and if a defender or keeper makes a rash challenge in the box they are inviting players to make the most of it and go down for a penalty. I do not applaud this cheating but I know how I felt when CB avoided a rash challenge against the makems and the ran the ball out of play. I weas screaming at the telly "go down you idiot"

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

I spend too much of a match screaming at our forwards to get into the box, and at our defenders to keep them outside the box.

I so loved Dyer and Shola last season getting into the box and scaring the opposition defenders. Dyer's pace and Shola's wriggling makes it horrendous for a defender to tackle them. I hate it when our players hand back and don't try and get into the box.

Similarly one (!) of my concerns about our WB is that he backs off and backs off until the opponent is inside our box then he can't dare tackle him in case he mistimes it. If he is going to mistime it he's better off doing it outside the box than in it. Obviously not mistiming it at all is best, but we can't have everything.

I felt Robert dropped his foot and stood on Schwarzer as he knocked the ball passed him, much the same as I recall Tino doing in a European game once.

We all have to remember last Saturday when we get the wrong side of a bad referee

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Clarky's point about the time it would take to reach a decision based on technology is the one reservation I have on it's wholesale introduction.

The pace of games like cricket is such that 2 or 3 minute breaks while the tech evidence is examined aren't all that noticeable.

When the state of a football match can change from a team being say 1 nil down to 3 - 1 up, in a matter of even seconds, similar breaks would probably have the supporters (at least) tearing their hair out.

I even reckon that if technology isn't going to be more widely used, the FA could calm things down a lot by ensuring that next time the viewing contracts are negotiated, they make it a condition that no re- runs of controversial incidents are allowed.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

PB/Clarky - playt was delayed for five minutes in the melee that ensued when Poll gave the penalty. With the instant replay available, a 4th orificial could have made the decision on the card colour without any further significant delay.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Debatable point Screach - most of the time was taking by the Ref sorting out the melange of whinging players, and getting the keeper off the field. That would still have occurred - even if the 4th, 5th and 6th Officials had ruled it was a penalty and a sending off - and the delay would probably have been 8-10 minutes.

I'm far from convinced the 4th Official would have changed the decision, and in general I'm not in favour of using technology for such incidents where interpretation of the rules is the critical issue. IMO Poll applied the current rules correctly in this instance - having watched it several times.

Again, having watched it several times, I'm not convinced Robert dived either. The keeper tried to get the ball, and failed. While attempting to get the ball, he deliberately placed his body between Robert and the ball, and remember, Robert was going full tilt towards goal. IMO it was inevitable Robert would be brought down by Schwarzer, even though I thought the keeper made a genuine attempt to get the ball - the plain fact is he didn't get it.

In addition, I don't think Robert had either the time or the space to hurdle the keeper. He may have exxagerated the fall somewhat, but I do believe the correct decision was made, according to the present rules.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Good point Screach. Problem is they'd have to make a better job of the mic and earpiece sets than they did with the last lot they tried.

Or has the problem been solved and they're still using them, can't say I've noticed in any of the footy I've seen up to now this season ?

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Clarky - the 5 mins was made up by a number of components, not the least of which was eventually getting round to taking a player off (Windy @rse) after Crossley had gone between the sticks! The melee would have happened anyway. The Monsters of Smog were always going to complain about a penalty.

Still makes me wonder why the rule is as it is. Given got booked for a foul and had a penalty awarded against us. Schwarzer got sent off for a foul and a penalty awarded agaisnt them (due to him being the last man). If an outfield player had committed a foul (not the last man), he wouldn't have been booked unless it was (i) dangerous or (ii) persistent. Given's challenge was neither of these. I think the Penalty Area should be renamed the Double Whammy Area.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Screach, Poll said that Robert had a "goalscoring opportunity" and that Ince didn't. That was his opinion and I agree with him. If a defender had brought a player down the same judgement applies.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001

Geordie, I wasn't on about the Schwarzer/Robert incident. I accept that (as the rule stands) it was a sending off. But wrt Shay, why was he booked for a clumsy attempt to get the ball when otherwise, had Barton got close enough to challenge, outside the box (or perhaps even inside) it would simply have been a free kick (or penalty)?

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2001