The Laws of the game - Law 12

[Blue Bear 7]

Much has been written and said about the alleged dive by Sone Aluko v Dunfermline, covered by BBC Scotland from every possible angle and discussed at every opportunity (the reasons for this are discussed elsewhere, particularly by the excellent Chris Graham).

However, I have seen little commentary on the supposed breach of the laws of the game, although there has been some inference that Aluko was guilty of "simulation". So, that seems to relate to Law 12 - Fouls and misconduct.

Law 12 covers the issue of unsporting behaviour "… a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:

- attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)".

Law 12 also lists 10 offences when a direct free kick shall be awarded and includes where "a player commits any of the following three offences:

- holds an opponent

- spits at an opponent

- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)"

Law 12 makes no reference to the player falling, stumbling or throwing himself to the ground - the offence is holding an opponent. Hardie held Aluko, the ref saw that and awarded a penalty (direct free kick in the penalty area), the incessant BBC Scotland replays show Hardie holding Aluko, the press pictures show the same thing clearly. And, most baffling of all, the SFA Committee agreed that Hardie made contact with Aluko (contact = he held him) yet they have found Aluko guilty of "simulation".

We can only conclude that they deemed the player falling to the ground as simulation having ignored the contact from the opposing player - that makes no sense! The offence is holding, they have acknowledged that, so whatever happens next (falling down) is of no relevance. The only fair decision to be made from this is to agree that the ref, Mr Conroy, got it right, there was contact (an offence), the result was correctly a direct free kick in the penalty area - that is the Law.

Or is there a different law for the Rangers?

[GaryMc 2,394]

He dived to get an advantage. There was contact but he still dived. He could have easily stayed up.

If a team got that penalty against us I'd be fucking raging.

The reason I can't accept the punish is because of the inconsistency of this fast track thing and how we are the only ones getting down. How Hooper, O'Connor and Stack got away with there incidents is shocking.

[TheKingObv 10,649]

He went down easily, but it isn't a dive in the true sense of the word, considering there was contact.

[gunslinger 270]

Much has been written and said about the alleged dive by Sone Aluko v Dunfermline, covered by BBC Scotland from every possible angle and discussed at every opportunity (the reasons for this are discussed elsewhere, particularly by the excellent Chris Graham).

However, I have seen little commentary on the supposed breach of the laws of the game, although there has been some inference that Aluko was guilty of "simulation". So, that seems to relate to Law 12 - Fouls and misconduct.

Law 12 covers the issue of unsporting behaviour "… a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:

- attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)".

Law 12 also lists 10 offences when a direct free kick shall be awarded and includes where "a player commits any of the following three offences:

- holds an opponent

- spits at an opponent

- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)"

Law 12 makes no reference to the player falling, stumbling or throwing himself to the ground - the offence is holding an opponent. Hardie held Aluko, the ref saw that and awarded a penalty (direct free kick in the penalty area), the incessant BBC Scotland replays show Hardie holding Aluko, the press pictures show the same thing clearly. And, most baffling of all, the SFA Committee agreed that Hardie made contact with Aluko (contact = he held him) yet they have found Aluko guilty of "simulation".

We can only conclude that they deemed the player falling to the ground as simulation having ignored the contact from the opposing player - that makes no sense! The offence is holding, they have acknowledged that, so whatever happens next (falling down) is of no relevance. The only fair decision to be made from this is to agree that the ref, Mr Conroy, got it right, there was contact (an offence), the result was correctly a direct free kick in the penalty area - that is the Law.

Or is there a different law for the Rangers?

exactly he was fouled. so its a penalty. so who did he con?

[Blue Bear 7]

He dived to get an advantage. There was contact but he still dived. He could have easily stayed up.

If a team got that penalty against us I'd be fucking raging.

The reason I can't accept the punish is because of the inconsistency of this fast track thing and how we are the only ones getting down. How Hooper, O'Connor and Stack got away with there incidents is shocking.

It doesn't matter if Aluko had done a backward flip with pike, the offence was that he was held by Hardie, what happens next it irrelevant, the correct decision was a penalty. There was no contact on O'Connor when he went down, thus he was guilty of simulation. However, I agree with you that there certainly is inconsistency because O'Connor was reprieved and Aluko found gulity.

[GaryMc 2,394]

It doesn't matter if Aluko had done a backward flip with pike, the offence was that he was held by Hardie, what happens next it irrelevant, the correct decision was a penalty. There was no contact on O'Connor when he went down, thus he was guilty of simulation. However, I agree with you that there certainly is inconsistency because O'Connor was reprieved and Aluko found gulity.

So any contact at all means a penalty? Did not know that. I thought the contact had to be sufficient enough to prevent the player from having an advantage or stopping him. I don't think Hardie's little tickle on Aluko's arm did this.

I still maintain it was not a penalty. In that case there should be a penalty at every corner taken in every league throughout the World.

I'm delighted we got the penaly in all honesty because we probably wouldn't have won the game but I see it as a dive or at the very least he went down under the most minimum of contact when he could have easily just stayed on his feet.

[GOAT 30,449]

At the end of the day he dived, it won us three crucial points so im happy.

I just fail to see how a yellow card offence can be a two game ban and how othera get off for with the same offence. It's a joke, infact it's a disgrace.