Not sure the increasing use of retrospective bans are such a good thing
In years gone by, retrospective bans for incidents missed by refs were used very sparingly and only under the most extreme of circumstances (think Paul Davis/Glenn Cockerill in the 88/89 season...). Now it seems they are being used every other week.
While we all want to see "simulation" stamped out, I am not sure that applying retrospective bans on the offenders is the best way to prevent it. My main problem is that it is likely to apply a "double jeopardy" punishment to the team who suffered as a result of a diver winning a penalty.
Let's assume, for example, that Wilfried Zaha is the simulator and dives to earn his side a penalty against Arsenal which he converts to salvage a lucky point (and rob us of two). By banning him for the next two matches, Palace are significantly weakened against their opponents. One or both of them are likely to be teams we are competing with for European places. How does this in any way compensate the team who were the original victims of the offence which was missed? Quite the reverse - it doubles the punishment.
What's my solution? I'm not sure. One idea might be to ban the player from the next fixture against the team who suffered as a result of the incident, though I realise this might be flawed if either team is promoted/relegated. Another may simply be to a hefty fine. But the current system is fundamentally flawed, and the more it is applied the more apparent the flaws will become.
