Dive (noun): to pretend to have been tripped or impeded by an opposing player in order to win a free kick or penalty (Collins English Dictionary).
The Premier League has its first victim for the new “successful deception of a match official" law. After winning a controversial penalty in Saturday's 2-2 draw against Crystal Palace, Everton striker Oumar Niasse is now likely to receive a two-game ban under the directive, which focuses on a player's intent to deceive the referee into making an incorrect decision.
The incident, which resulted in Leighton Baines' coolly-dispatched equaliser, was reviewed by a three-man panel of experts who unanimously decided that Senegal international Niasse had chosen to go to ground to win a penalty. A similar panel was unable to reach the same verdict over earlier incidents this season involving Watford's Richarlison and Manchester City's Bernardo Silva- both widely deemed to have been dives in the eyes of most football supporters and pundits alike.
And so, it's particularly strange in light of past cases that the Everton forward has been singled as unique out here. Niasse, did not 'pretend' to have been pushed, as the above definition from the Collins Dictionary suggests is necessary for a case of simulation. Replays clearly showed Palace defender Scott Dann making contact with the forward in an attempt to block his run into the box. No attention was paid to winning the ball itself by Dann. It looked soft, and contact was minimal, but is this enough to make a crucial distinction between Niasse and, say, Silva? Or for three people to say for absolute certain that he was trying to get an unfair advantage?
The two players, of course, have very different interpretations of the incident in question. Dann, for his part, believes Niasse 'conned' the referee by 'diving', with Niasse pointing to 'contact on my upper body because I was running so quick'. He also added that it would 'be a shock' if he was charged.
It's no surprise that the two accounts are markedly different- that's just the way confirmation bias works. Niasse is also extremely unlikely to incriminate himself in front of the national media. Yet it's worth highlighting some of Dann's other comments post-game for a fuller picture.
"If there was (contact) it was minimal," he told reporters. "I haven't tried to tackle him." If the Palace player accepts that there was no attempt to play the ball, and that, more importantly, is not able to say for certain if he made contact or not, then how can a panel know for certain that Niasse didn't receive enough of a touch to go to ground? Would a smaller player in Aaron Lennon, for example, have been justified in falling under the same contact? Such issues muddy the water for something that is already worryingly subjective.
The problem is that a precedent has already been set over Richarlison and Silva, where there was no consensus on whether 'clear and obvious simulation' was at work. Subjectivity plays a significant role in each of the three cases, and yet there appears little to distinction to make between the incidents. If anything, Niasse arguably suffers more contact than the other two players mentioned.
If it was indeed a dive - and we cannot know this for certain - then the role of referee Anthony Taylor must also be called into question. Taylor was just behind play and clearly saw the incident, choosing to give a penalty for Dann's push. In the end, his blunder may result in an arbitrary two-game ban for what is typically a yellow card offence. So why two games? And does the punishment fit the crime?
Under the new directive, such cases are only assessed by the Premier League panel if they result in either a penalty or a sending off. The message is that game-changing advantages are to be cut out completely. But had the Niasse-Dann tangle happened five yards further back - outside the box - and Leighton Baines converted the resulting free-kick, no charge could have been brought despite the end result being the same. Procedural flaw for a flagship new law. Cesc Fabregas was banned for diving at the weekend, but because Niasse's alleged simulation went unpunished, a yellow card offence has become a two-match ban. The 27-year-old is paying for the failings of others.
Everton will now challenge the prospective ban - and are right to do so. Putting aside the distinction that has been made between Niasse and Richarlison and Silva, there is also a substantial risk that this becomes milestone around the attacker's neck; that Niasse becomes the standard by which we measure supposed deception in the Premier League. Whatever happens between the player and opposition defenders in the penalty area, the legacy of the decision is that the 27-year-old will struggle to win even the most blatant of penalties. Richarlison and Silva will suffer no such ignominy.
That Everton are prepared to challenge the decision at all also tells us something about Niasse's increased importance to their cause. He has, ironically, become the talisman the club cannot afford to be without for two crucial games against Southampton and West Ham- rivals at the bottom of the Premier League table. The arbitrary ban would deprive the Blues of their most in-form finisher, and someone who has earned them more points than any other player so far this season.
Assessing the situation cynically, it appears as though the Premier League need an exemplar case for their new initiative. After all, the precedent that has been set already would mean that the Everton player has suffered unequal treatment- and that the law is not being applied evenly. Niasse could well end up being the unfortunate player who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
