THE FA has
published its findings into an incident in the match between Crystal Palace and Everton on November 18 in which
referee Anthony Taylor (pictured) awarded a penalty to the visiting side.
A three-man
panel chaired by former Blackburn Rovers player, Stuart Ripley, now a
solicitor, ruled that Oumar Niasse of Everton FC “exaggerated”
his fall to gain the decision.
Niasse’s
punishment was a two-match ban.
Below are the
findings of the panel after the FA brought a charge of misconduct against Oumar
Niasse.
Regulatory Commission Decision
1.
These are
the written reasons for a decision made by an Independent
Regulatory Commission which sat on Wednesday 22 November,
2017.
2.
The
Commission members were Mr S.Ripley (Chairman), Mr P. Raven
and Mr. M. Johnson.
3.
Mr. M. Ives
of the FA Judicial Services Department acted as Secretary to the Regulatory
Commission.
4.
Mr Niasse was
charged by The FA with misconduct for a breach of FA Rule E3.
The FA
alleged that, in or around the 5th minute of the Crystal Palace FC v Everton
FC, Premier League Fixture on 18th November 2017, Mr Niasse committed a clear act of
simulation which led to a penalty being awarded and that his behaviour amounted
to improper conduct.
5.
Mr Niasse
denied the charge by way of The FA’s Disciplinary Proceedings Reply Form, dated
21st November 2017and requested
that documentation be put before the Regulatory Commission.
6.
The FA
relied on Email correspondence between Mr. N.Dutton of
the FA’s Regulation Department and the threeSimulation
Panel Members, dated 20th
November 2017;
the Guidance for Panel Members; and Video clips of the incident.
7.
Everton FC
submitted a letter from Mr David Harrison, Club Secretary
and Head of Football Operations, dated 21st November
2017 and a witness statement from Mr Niasse, dated 21 November
2017 both
of which the Commission noted the contents of and footage of the incident from various
different angles as to that submitted by the FA.
8.
The
Commission noted the comments of the Premier League Delegate whose report on
the Match Officials was contained within the documentation submitted by Everton
FC who wrote: “The glaring example of simulation was the penalty award on 4
mins against Palace. In my view, Everton’s Niasse has dived to earn his team a
penalty and Mr Taylor was successfully deceived. I accept there was contact
made by Palace’s Dann. However the contact made is minimal - certainly not
enough to make Niasse fall to the ground in the way he did.”
9.
For the
avoidance of doubt the Commission also considered the pointsubmitted by
the Club that Mr Taylor (the Match Referee) “reiterated his view that he had
made the right call because of the contact made.”
10.
In contrast
the Commission also noted that the Simulations Panel was composed of an
experienced manager and ex-player, another experienced ex-player and an
experienced ex-referee who all came to the conclusion that Mr Niasse had
committed an act of simulation.
11.
The
Commission considered the written guidance provided to the Panel Members
which read as follows: For a panel member to conclude that simulation has
occurred they must conclude that there is clear and overwhelming evidence.
In judging
these incidents, there are five key questions that should beconsidered
in the decision-making process.
To identify
whether an act of simulation has occurred, the following should be considered:
1. Is there
contact between the players involved? Simulation is more likely in cases where
a player attempts to deceive the referee when no contact occurred between the players.
2. Is there
fair/normal contact between the players, resulting in no offence being
committed?
3. Is a
player legitimately avoiding contact with his opponent to prevent injury?
4. Has the
player initiated the contact between his opponent and himself in order to
deceive the referee?
5. Does the
player exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive
the referee?
The
Commission were unanimous that the video footage gave clear and overwhelming
evidence that the player had exaggerated the effect of a normal contact in
order to deceive the referee.
13
The
Commission noted that there was contact between Scott Dann and Mr Niasse, but
the Commission considered the contact to be normal, fair and expected contact
in the situation that arose with Mr Niasse ‘taking on’ Mr Dann.
14.
The Commission
unanimously agree that the nature of the contact
made by Scott Dann was minimal in nature and would not have thrown Mr Niasse off
balance and knock him down in the way that Mr Niasse portrayed it to have done.
15.
To the
minds of the Commission members, the movements of Mr Niasse’s body, in
particular the arching of the back and the collapsing of both legs, were simply
not consistent with the amount of force exerted upon him by Mr Dann and in exaggerating
the effect of the contact made between himself and Mr Dann, Mr Niasse deceived
the referee and this led to a penalty being awarded by the referee.
16.
As such the
FA charge brought against Mr Niasse for simulation is found proven
and therefore Mr Niasse will serve an automatic two-match suspension.
17.
This decision
is final and binding and not subject to any further right of appeal.
Stuart
Ripley
Regulatory
Commission Chairman
22nd November, 2017
* Photo: Courtesy, Match of The Day, BBC-TV
