Dwight Gayle Banned For Diving

[CaaC (John)+]

Quote

West Bromwich Albion striker Dwight Gayle has been banned for two matches after accepting a charge of "successful deception of a match official".

The charge related to Tuesday's draw with Nottingham Forest, when Gayle won an 89th-minute penalty which was converted by Jay Rodriguez.

Gayle, 28, is on a season-long loan from Newcastle United and has scored 16 goals in 27 outings for the Baggies.

He will miss Championship games against Aston Villa and Queens Park Rangers.

Gayle will be available to return from his suspension against Sheffield United on Saturday, 23 February.

Laws introducing the power to retrospectively punish "clear acts of simulation" were introduced in May 2017.

A three-person Football Association review panel has to make a unanimous decision before any charge is made against a player.

The first suspension for deception imposed by the Football Association was in October 2017, when Carlisle forward Shaun Miller received a two-match ban.

Everton's Oumar Niasse became the first Premier League player to be similarly punished the following month.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47245351

 

 

[Stan]

Good in the sense that he's been retrospectively banned and sends out a message to him and other players this is the punishment if you continue to do it.

Not so good in that it hardly helps Forest. Oh well.

[RandoEFC+]

On 14/02/2019 at 18:22, Stan said:

Good in the sense that he's been retrospectively banned and sends out a message to him and other players this is the punishment if you continue to do it.

Not so good in that it hardly helps Forest. Oh well.

Does it send out a message? Is this the third case of clear diving working in a teams favour since the start of last season? Niasse, Lanzini and Gayle have been randomly chosen as the FA favour making an example out of someone reasonably high profile but not big enough that there'll be significant kickback, rather than tackling the problem with a consistent approach.

[Honey Honey]

It's about time Gayle got caught. 

[Bluewolf]

On 14/02/2019 at 18:22, Stan said:

Good in the sense that he's been retrospectively banned and sends out a message to him and other players this is the punishment if you continue to do it.

Not so good in that it hardly helps Forest. Oh well.

 

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Does it send out a message? Is this the third case of clear diving working in a teams favour since the start of last season? Niasse, Lanzini and Gayle have been randomly chosen as the FA favour making an example out of someone reasonably high profile but not big enough that there'll be significant kickback, rather than tackling the problem with a consistent approach.

If they really wanted to send out a strong message to players and teams about cheating then I would dock the team any points they gained through it. In this case the last goal West Brom scored would be stricken and Forrest would have been awarded all 3 points, there is absolutely no deterrent otherwise, if it's proven that cheating or deception was involved that had a direct result in changing the game ( the penalty in this case ) then it should be null and void for that club.. 

[Large]

21 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

If they really wanted to send out a strong message to players and teams about cheating then I would dock the team any points they gained through it. In this case the last goal West Brom scored would be stricken and Forrest would have been awarded all 3 points, there is absolutely no deterrent otherwise, if it's proven that cheating or deception was involved that had a direct result in changing the game ( the penalty in this case ) then it should be null and void for that club.. 

Although I understand why you suggest it, I’d hate to start seeing games decided by committee rather than on the pitch. Unfortunately there is no consequence that I can think of that works well for everyone. I like what the league our First Team play in do. Generally most grassroot league’s will give points to teams that played against a team who fielded an inelgible player. Our league replays the game, but only if the unoffending team wants to. So in this instance Forest would be given the choice to keep the result as it is or play the game again, and all the cost for the rearranged game would be picked up by the offending club.

[Bluewolf]

15 minutes ago, Large said:

Although I understand why you suggest it, I’d hate to start seeing games decided by committee rather than on the pitch. Unfortunately there is no consequence that I can think of that works well for everyone. I like what the league our First Team play in do. Generally most grassroot league’s will give points to teams that played against a team who fielded an inelgible player. Our league replays the game, but only if the unoffending team wants to. So in this instance Forest would be given the choice to keep the result as it is or play the game again, and all the cost for the rearranged game would be picked up by the offending club.

I don't disagree with that... games should be decided on the pitch, I just don't think that the punishment fits the crime and it's difficult to know what does.. fines and a couple of game bans for these players has about as much impact as me sending a letter to your house asking you to be more thoughtful about how you recycle household items.. makes no difference at all, although I think my suggestion would help clamp down on it I also wouldn't be too chuffed if we had a player in the side that kept bringing the whole side down because he is a bit of a cock... Maybe longer bans should be in place and a deduction of wages for however long that length of time is for the offender?? It just seems all a bit of a waste of everyone's time for what gets dished out and more a token gesture than a proper solution..