Not sure the increasing use of retrospective bans are such a good thing

[Yesterday Once More]

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.

[bbrian]

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.

Explain that double jeopardy bit again YOM

[Yesterday Once More]

Explain that double jeopardy bit again YOM

double jeopardy

the prosecution or punishment of a person twice for the same offence.
or
risk or disadvantage incurred from two sources simultaneously.

Disadvantage 1 - the award of a penalty which results in a goal
Disadvantage 2 - the absence of the key player against their next opponents, potentially your chief rivals at the top or bottom

[redgunamo]

How does this in any way compensate the team who were the original victims of the offence which was missed?

Simply, that Crystal Palace's next game may actually be against us, rather than one of our rivals. These things will even themselves out over the course of time and a' that, as the man said.

It's essentially a simple game, and everyone really wants to keep it that way.

[Yesterday Once More]

When in the modern era do you ever play the same opposition home and away consecutively? Save for the very unlikely even that you draw them in the cup, that doesn't happen.

[Monty92]

When in the modern era do you ever play the same opposition home and away consecutively? Save for the very unlikely even that you draw them in the cup, that doesn't happen.

Whoooosh!

There speaks a man unfamiliar with Redgunamo's cryptic style of posting.

Made me laugh, anyway.

[redgunamo]

Whoooosh!

There speaks a man unfamiliar with Redgunamo's cryptic style of posting.

Made me laugh, anyway.

What the *******s is cryptic about that! Youse is all just thick ****s, imo.

[redgunamo]

When in the modern era do you ever play the same opposition home and away consecutively? Save for the very unlikely even that you draw them in the cup, that doesn't happen.

No, stupid. It just means sometimes it will work in our favour and sometimes it won't. I don't think anybody can expect any more from the authorities than that.

[Yesterday Once More]

Instead of being needlessly insulting try to provide a plausible reason why it will 'sometimes" favour the team disadvantaged by the original offence which went unpunished on the day....

[Monty92]

Instead of being needlessly insulting try to provide a plausible reason why it will 'sometimes" favour the team disadvantaged by the original offence which went unpunished on the day....

Sometimes we'll be disadvantaged by the rule (as in the Zaha case you presented) and sometimes we'll benefit by facing teams deprived of a player who has been retrospectively banned for a dive against one of our direct competitors.

I can't think of much in the universe simpler than this concept. You may think that on balance it still isn't the optimum solution, but that's a separate conversation