[Coup]

Quote

by Lindsay Herron

LYON captain Juninho will escape punishment by UEFA for his blatant dive in last Tuesday's remarkable Champions League match - because it did not have a serious effect on the match.

The Brazilian midfielder conned Norwegian referee Tom Henning Ovrebo at a crucial stage in the game when he dived as Davie Weir went to challenge him just outside the box in first half injury time.

Ovrebo not only awarded a free kick, he issued a yellow card to Weir. Juninho then took the free kick and came within inches of levelling the match as his shot hit the underside of the bar.

UEFA have insisted that they are trying to eradicate "simulation" from the game but they have told rangers.co.uk today that they will only take action in a more serious situation - ie when a penalty is awarded as a result of deception.

This happened recently, of course, with the two-match suspension handed out to Hearts player Saulius Mikoliunas for his blatant dive to earn Lithuania a penalty - which they scored - in the 3-1 Euro 2008 defeat by Scotland.

Weir has no avenue of appeal against his caution - even although it has been proved to have been issued as a result of deception - but he had the last laugh as Rangers humbled the French side with their historic 3-0 victory.

A UEFA spokesman told rangers.co.uk today: "There will be no case according to a preliminary analysis by a Disciplinary Inspector.

"The player's action did not detoriate the regularity of the match as it resulted in a yellow card, which cannot be protested against, as well as a free-kick. Only serious acts of deceiving the referee are prosecuted such as diving resulting in a penalty."

Now...correct me if i'm wrong Mr I work for uefa and my head is up my c**t, but yellow cards are counted up and reulst in a ban if you reach the limit...therefore if you admit it was simulation, the yellow card shuold be recinded and handed to Juninho. Yes it didnt have a serious effect on the game but hindsight is a wonderful thing. He cheated and if the roles were reversed then i would bet my bottom dollar that this outcome would have been different.

UEFA = Cocks

That is all

This post has been edited by craigcouper: 06 October 2007 - 15:02

[dave258]

Does this mean that they wont take any action against Dida since his antics didnt't affect the outcome of the game either then? Even tho he's a cheating c**t?

[Weekender]

The footballing authorities always fail to clamp down when it actually matters.If they really are serious about cutting 'cheating' out the game then they should be jumping at this oppertunity to send out a clear message.

Not good enough !

[Mr. Brightside]

What the f**k do uefa know?

They are a bunch of w**kers, who couldn't make the right decsion if had to put a bet on faddy scoring against the french

[longjohn]

Incorrect rule but not surprising.

[Ric]

Does anyone else think this is UEFA trying to stop a flood of similar claims? Juninho's dive was blatant and he probably should be given some sort of sanction, but similar incidents happen up and down the country every weekend. For a governing body to open itself up to claims of simulation it could be swamped by clubs claiming foul. I also don't think it would do referees any good either knowing every decision they make can be appealed.

In fact, I was surprised that they did take action against Mikolunas albeit they were already under pressure to do something about simulation and it's interesting one of the most outspoken advocates of retrospective action, Gordon Smith, is also the head of the football association that benefited from the first major decision of this type. A dangerous precedent to make.

The reasoning, perhaps it is lost slightly in translation if it was given in another language, is odd. Mikolunas dived to gain a set piece that could easily have been missed, saved or scored. The same can be said for Juninho. UEFA can hardly take into consideration what happened after the offence has taken place, although it seems like they are which is another dangerous precedent to set.

[bluetooner]

XaaronPrimus, on Oct 6 2007, 11:29, said:

If they don't, it makes a total Mockery of their stance on ridding the game of simulation. Miko might be able to demand compensation of some sort as well, as he can say that he was discriminated against for playing for a 'diddy' team.

Especially since it never affected the outcome of the game (since we went on to win despite the penalty being scored)


edited to add:- the Miko ruling may actually affect the outcome of the group however, but in a negative way towards Scotland

This post has been edited by bluetooner: 07 October 2007 - 22:23