pete 2,499 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 After reading this I can't see what the offence was - Aluko didn't ask for the penalty but in HIS opinion it was one. If, as according to the author, it's just about opinions Aluko did absolutely NOTHING wrong. To PROVE Aluko was just acting would take a lot more evidence than there was and require NO contact. He has done less cheating than someone who claims for a decision but the referee decides against him. Shouldn't Lunny get a ban for getting the O'Connor decision "wrong"? By getting it wrong was he cheating? For me the Aluko cheating offence doesn't exist - and as I've said before if you want to punish someone you have to set the rules accordingly rather than making them up subjectively after the fact. All it would need is cement the rule is to have the referee to ask the player if he believed he was fouled and whether the evidence would pass muster. If he says he was but the evidence does not correlate then a punishment is due to prevent players from lying and cheating. Aluko didn't have that luxury. He thought he was felled, the referee agreed and so he accepted the ref's decision. It happens all the time in all areas of the pitch from throw-in to free kick. Keepers touch the ball round post and then accept the goal kicks etc. THAT is cheating but goes unpunished. We were once put out of the world cup when our player was fouled, yet Italy received the free kick and scored from it. What punishment does that player deserve? With Aluko he is being punished for two immensely subjective assessments - the first is that there was not enough contact to send him to the floor and the second huge leap of imagination - that his motives were to gain a penalty by cheating. That is an incredibly difficult conclusion to come to at the best of times, but almost impossible given the evidence. Where is the professional benefit of the doubt as it is nowhere near beyond reasonable doubt that Aluko was guilty? Having seen it, to me it is all inconclusive and the best decision at the time would be to wave play on. However, I think the problem they have here is that you can't go back and undo a penalty when it is scored. However, we told time and time again that that is football and these decisions even out, which is why they won't introduce tv evidence during a game. I don't get the argument that you can't use it in a game but can use it so cavalier-like afterwards. If TV cameras were used at the time, I think they would agree with my assessment of play on and at worst a yellow card. Yet in their wisdom to misuse technology, they instead give him the same punishment as he would receive for being caught diving in twelve games... All I can say is that, even if he did deliberately dive, he's been totally shafted. As Ergatrude says this should be posted on the main site. Class Cal! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Cheers for the nice feedback - but I think I'd have to make it a lot less disjointed before publishing... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Cheers for the nice feedback - but I think I'd have to make it a lot less disjointed before publishing... Made perfect sense to me, a good read Cal :smile: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.