Cheating - a cure?

[JammyP]

Refs make mistakes - or they are unsighted, or blind, or evil. Everyone is not caught on the day, but...

if Raheem Sterling must have known he was over the line,

or e.g. Germany's keeper knew Lampard had scored

- and every footballer knows where the lines are -

would it encourage fair play for a player who knows he has done wrong to be investigated and banned after the match if found guilty of deliberately cheating - bringing the game into disrepute?

Or is it just part of the game, and we would not moan if it was us, if it ever was?

 

[Mogwai]

Refs make mistakes - or they are unsighted, or blind, or evil. Everyone is not caught on the day, but...

if Raheem Sterling must have known he was over the line, View attachment 17508

or e.g. Germany's keeper knew Lampard had scoredView attachment 17512

- and every footballer knows where the lines are -

would it encourage fair play for a player who knows he has done wrong to be investigated and banned after the match if found guilty of deliberately cheating - bringing the game into disrepute?

Or is it just part of the game, and we would not moan if it was us, if it ever was?

It would be so hard to convict someone. If the refs didn't spot it then the player can use the same excuse

 

[royalbalou]

No need...we already have the technology to avoid mistakes...but not using it serves the big boys well

 

[Cultured right foot]

Come on lad.

 

[JammyP]

It would be so hard to convict someone. If the refs didn't spot it then the player can use the same excuse

I disagree - Sterling was looking at the ball, so was the keeper. And disciplinary hearings are decided on the balance of probabilities - more likely than not, not the criminal standard of proof - i.e. satisfied so you are sure.

 

[dead_soft]

I disagree - Sterling was looking at the ball, so was the keeper. And disciplinary hearings are decided on the balance of probabilities - more likely than not, not the criminal standard of proof - i.e. satisfied so you are sure.

We lost a game due to a bad decision. Sterling played to the whistle. Nothing more to it

 

[daza_1973]

The ref / linesman is the only culpable party... I dare say geri would of done exactly the same had it been up the other end.

 

[Mogwai]

I disagree - Sterling was looking at the ball, so was the keeper. And disciplinary hearings are decided on the balance of probabilities - more likely than not, not the criminal standard of proof - i.e. satisfied so you are sure.

Yeah I get where you are coming from. But there are so many calls each week they ain't going to bother putting players on trial all the time. There are better ways to control it. Technology is the best solution. You will always have cheats. In an ideal world players would referee themselves!

 

[royalblue66]

At first I thought this thread was about someone spreading it about

 

[dublinbluenose]

Players have no moral responsibility in cases like this, it would be different in the case of intentionally hurting an opponent or something. I'd be furious if one of our players stopped and didnt cross the ball.

Think of the case of Henry when he handled the ball against Ireland in the 2010 World Cup playoff. He had no responsibility to call foul, its the officials responsibility.

While the legislature of the game refuse to use technology this thing will continue and generate headlines and conspiracy theory. Perhaps thats a better outcome for them.

 

[The Cowboy]

This would be taking it way too far. Players are entitled to 'get away with it' if the ref doesn't see it, so long as they are not breaking the rules. Sterling did nothing wrong here.

 

[The Cowboy]

This would be taking it way too far. Players are entitled to 'get away with it' if the ref doesn't see it, so long as they are not breaking the rules. Sterling did nothing wrong here.

 

[JammyP]

Yeah I get where you are coming from. But there are so many calls each week they ain't going to bother putting players on trial all the time. There are better ways to control it. Technology is the best solution. You will always have cheats. In an ideal world players would referee themselves!

But disciplining a few could help encourage a culture of fair play all round IMHO

 

[JammyP]

This would be taking it way too far. Players are entitled to 'get away with it' if the ref doesn't see it, so long as they are not breaking the rules. Sterling did nothing wrong here.

but isn't the rule that when the ball crosses the line it is a goal kick? Seems to me he broke that rule.

 

[JammyP]

Yeah I get where you are coming from. But there are so many calls each week they ain't going to bother putting players on trial all the time. There are better ways to control it. Technology is the best solution. You will always have cheats. In an ideal world players would referee themselves!

you could limit it to where opposition make a formal complaint, which will not be often