Just downloaded the PDF from the FA into why they upheld the ban even though the ref on a second viewing again concluded it was a pen.
1. These are the written reasons for a decision made by an Independent
Regulatory Commission which sat at on Wednesday 22th 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 2017 and 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 three Simulation Panel Members, dated
November 2017; the Guidance for Panel Members; and Video clips of
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 21st 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 point
submitted 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 be
considered in the decision-making process.
To identify whether an act of simulation has occurred, the following should be
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 palyers.
2. Is there fair/normal contact between the players, resulting in no offence
3. Is a player legitimately avoiding contact with his opponent to prevent
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?
12. 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’
14. The Commission unanimously agree that the nature of the contact made
by Scott Dan 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
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 2 match
17.This decision is final and binding and not subject to any further right of
Regulatory Commission Chairman 22nd November 201