Carlisle striker charged with successful deception of ref....

[SwalePie]

Could be banned for Saturday...

What are your thoughts on the fact that the result doesn't get changed in addition to the player being punished?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41680847

[MAD_MAGPIE]

Could be banned for Saturday...

What are your thoughts on the fact that the result doesn't get changed in addition to the player being punished?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41680847

If it was Notts who had a player charged I would be relieved that it meant we would not suffer points deduction, but if it meant a key player being out it would be a blow in the coming games. If the boot was on the other foot and it was an opposition player then it would be annoying and frustrating as we would feel robbed if found guilty.

The problem is we can't keep going back to incidents after the event, otherwise where would it end? That game has now gone. So the only way forward is to punish the team retrospectively so the player in this case misses two games. That is potentially 3 hours of playing time that he could and may have the opportunity to score a goal, which obviously with him being banned he won't be able to.

This is good for the clubs in the up and coming games if a key player is banned.

[caj85]

Have you seen it?

From the angle it looks suspiciously like he dived but he didn't appeal for a penalty and appeared to carry on. I doubt he will be found unanimously guilty.

[andy6025]

The article didn't clarify if the goal scored from the penalty kick is then taken away (if he were to be found guilty) - and thus changing the outcome of the match. Is it correct to assume that the final score remains the same?

[sidders]

Have you seen it?

From the angle it looks suspiciously like he dived but he didn't appeal for a penalty and appeared to carry on. I doubt he will be found unanimously guilty.

He already has been found unanimously guilty - that's why he was charged!

[macse15]

He already has been found unanimously guilty - that's why he was charged!

No he hasnt. You cant be found guilty of something you havent been charged with

[tarquinbeech]

I cannot see why each side cannot have one appeal each against a serious decision.....there are enough tv cameras now at every game....penalties, sendings-off, balls kicked off the line and serious foul-play off the ball (Gazza's elbow in Harding's face springs to mind)

You get one appeal per game, the ref, linesmen and 4th official have a tv monitor on the touchline....and the decision can only be reversed if there is a genuine reason to overturn it....it works in baseball

[Oldstripy]

No he hasnt. You cant be found guilty of something you havent been charged with

First two sentences of the article.

Carlisle United's Shaun Miller is the first player to be charged by the Football Association since simulation laws were introduced in May.

Miller, 30, is charged with "successful deception of a match official", after an alleged "clear act of simulation" against Wycombe on Tuesday.

I think we can take it that he has been charged.

Carlisle scored with the penalty.

[LaxtonLad]

If it was Notts who had a player charged I would be relieved that it meant we would not suffer points deduction, but if it meant a key player being out it would be a blow in the coming games. If the boot was on the other foot and it was an opposition player then it would be annoying and frustrating as we would feel robbed if found guilty.

The problem is we can't keep going back to incidents after the event, otherwise where would it end? That game has now gone. So the only way forward is to punish the team retrospectively so the player in this case misses two games. That is potentially 3 hours of playing time that he could and may have the opportunity to score a goal, which obviously with him being banned he won't be able to.

This is good for the clubs in the up and coming games if a key player is banned.

I think we can and should keep going back to events such as this, I don't see it as a problem and it could end with clubs stopping their players from cheating. I, for one, do not like to see blatant diving from a Notts player and how could we feel robbed if he was found guilty of it and we have seen it? Clubs such as Leeds United and Man. City were doing it all the time forty years ago, if the laws about "simulation" had been alive then, those clubs would not been half as successful as they became.

It was Lee Dixon (I think) who, a few years ago, said there was no need to need to book a "diver", the ref should just ignore it and it would soon stop! Of course, with the player and club having nothing to lose, it carried on. It's got worse.

Retrospective punishments should reflect how much a team has gained from their player cheating the laws and spirit of the game. If a team has won a game and gained three points by cheating then they should have six points deducted and the player AND the manager fined and/or suspended with three points given to the other team.

[macse15]

First two sentences of the article.

Carlisle United's Shaun Miller is the first player to be charged by the Football Association since simulation laws were introduced in May.

Miller, 30, is charged with "successful deception of a match official", after an alleged "clear act of simulation" against Wycombe on Tuesday.

I think we can take it that he has been charged.

Carlisle scored with the penalty.

I know;That wasnt my point - Sidders was saying he had been found guilty unanimously without being charged which I stated was not possible