Cure for diving?

breadmonkey

Right I'm not sure how this will be received but anyway my (simplistic)idea is this:

Set up a citing committee that review matches and if a player is adjudged to have dived he gets a one match ban. Thoughts?

Guy:Incognito

3 things are needed for an instant cure.

1. Mr T
2. A tank
3. Chocolate bar.


But seriously, yes, retrospective bars for diing ftw.

Dubit10

Give em 100 lashs.That'll sort them:)

gucci

simple, if they go down clutching their knee, issue a retrospective knee injury as a punishment, break their ankle if they hold their ankle, nose if they hold their face and so on and so forth.

_blank_

Yep, ban 'em.

But only for blatant dives, not for "going down easy"

Difference?

Torres "went down easy" vs Inter.

Adebayor dived against ManYoo in the FA Cup recently.

Ronaldo sometimes goes down easy, but he dived to win that penalty, I forget which game it was in though.


(please note, I am not trying to start a "who dives more" scenario, that has been done to death, but these are the most high profile example I can think of)

Tusky

DesF wrote: »

Yep, ban 'em.

But only for blatant dives, not for "going down easy"

Difference?

Torres "went down easy" vs Inter.

Adebayor dived against ManYoo in the FA Cup recently.

Ronaldo sometimes goes down easy, but he dived to win that penalty, I forget which game it was in though.


(please note, I am not trying to start a "who dives more" scenario, that has been done to death, but these are the most high profile example I can think of)

I agree with this. Example. Player x fouls player y but its not a bad foul and player y can stay on his feet but is unlikely to get a free kick if he does. so player y goes down 'easy'. This was the case with Torres against Inter. He was held back but could have easily stayed on his feet but instead he fell to the ground to win the free.

Diving is going to the ground trying to get a free/penalty when there hasnt been a foul of any sort. I definitely think a 1 match ban should be implemented for this.

Eirebear

DesF wrote: »

Yep, ban 'em.

But only for blatant dives, not for "going down easy"

Difference?

Torres "went down easy" vs Inter.

Adebayor dived against ManYoo in the FA Cup recently.

Ronaldo sometimes goes down easy, but he dived to win that penalty, I forget which game it was in though.


(please note, I am not trying to start a "who dives more" scenario, that has been done to death, but these are the most high profile example I can think of)

Tusky wrote: »

I agree with this. Example. Player x fouls player y but its not a bad foul and player y can stay on his feet but is unlikely to get a free kick if he does. so player y goes down 'easy'. This was the case with Torres against Inter. He was held back but could have easily stayed on his feet but instead he fell to the ground to win the free.

Diving is going to the ground trying to get a free/penalty when there hasnt been a foul of any sort. I definitely think a 1 match ban should be implemented for this.

And there lies why this idea would never work.
Its all about opinion.

We have all seen our teams concede "soft" penalties and shouted Oh FFS ya dirty divin bastard there was never enough contact to make you go down!" or word to that effect.
We have all seen our teams given "soft" penalties and made the statement that "there was contact, so the player had every right to go down and "win" the penalty"

Where is the line drawn?
I hate diving as much as the next person, but we can all rationalise it or just blatantly ignore it when it suits us.

Tusky

Eirebear wrote: »

And there lies why this idea would never work.
Its all about opinion.

We have all seen our teams concede "soft" penalties and shouted Oh FFS ya dirty divin bastard there was never enough contact to make you go down!" or word to that effect.
We have all seen our teams given "soft" penalties and made the statement that "there was contact, so the player had every right to go down and "win" the penalty"

Where is the line drawn?
I hate diving as much as the next person, but we can all rationalise it or just blatantly ignore it when it suits us.

Thats what Im saying. It should only be given for blatant diving. Diving in which no argument could be had in regards to if it were a dive or not.

DerekD Goldfish

Retrospective bans for diving have already been given in Seire A most notably to Adriano

Eirebear

Tusky wrote: »

Thats what Im saying. It should only be given for blatant diving. Diving in which no argument could be had in regards to if it were a dive or not.

Yeah but where does the line between blatant diving, and falling over under slight contact start?
Fotball players are generally big guys, yet when they get into a penalty area their balance seems extremely wobbly after a a slight brush against them from someones arm...

PHB

I have no problem with going down easy.
I have a huge problem with full stop diving. Ronaldo did it recently (against Fulham I think?), my favorite one was Ashley Cole against United, where he literally jumped 2 metres into the air.

The line can be drawn very simply at contact or no contact. If there is no contact, and they fall over of their own accord looking for a foul, it is a dive.

The review committee, if they decide that it is a dive, should issue a 5 game ban. If they did this, diving would be cut down incredibly overnight.
Not only would all those obvious dives but cut out, but because the players couldn't be sure that they will be able to dive correctly without contact. If they **** it up, they risk a 5 game ban, hence most won't do it.
You can address the going down easy by addressing the flat out dives, not perfectly, but the best we can do.

As I said, I've no problem with going down easy to be honest. I think in some cases, it's utterly justified. Saha did that a while ago. It was a foul, the ref wasn't going to give it unless he fell over, so Saha fell over. I'm ok with this in general, when other players do it too, from other teams. Once it's a foul, I'm ok with people doing whatever.
Just flat out diving is another question imo, and needs to be aggressively attacked.

I don't blame the players. They want to win, will do anything to win, and I want my players to do the same. The authorities have to step in and fix this.

Eirebear

PHB wrote: »

As I said, I've no problem with going down easy to be honest. I think in some cases, it's utterly justified. Saha did that a while ago. It was a foul, the ref wasn't going to give it unless he fell over, so Saha fell over. I'm ok with this in general, when other players do it too, from other teams. Once it's a foul, I'm ok with people doing whatever.
Just flat out diving is another question imo, and needs to be aggressively attacked.

I don't blame the players. They want to win, will do anything to win, and I want my players to do the same. The authorities have to step in and fix this.

But theres a difference between an actual foul and going down as soon as there is any contact whasoever, which to my eyes is diving.

A player who is having his shirt pulled wont generally be forced to fall over, but if he does than theres a chance he will win the foul...i dont mind that in the slightest.
A player who goes down ever time there is the slightest bit of contact is a diver, but under this idea he would get away with it.

pd101

If they are caught diving in a match, the punishment is a yellow card. Would it not make more sense to give them a yellow card retrospectively?

PHB

He would 'get away with it'.
But there's nothing you can do about that.

However, if you ban people for doing it with no contact, then those people who do it with very very little contact will think twice about it.
Personally, I think if there was a 5 match ban, pretty much all the regular divers would stop doing it instantly. It's not an inherent character trait, it's something they choose to do to win.

One yellow card is not enough. People will always choose the possibility of a yellow card and dive rather than not. Especially since people who dive tend to be attacking players who normally get booked less.

MrJoeSoap

+1 for retrospective bans.

Its quite clear for most people to tell a blatant dive from just someone who went down a bit too easily. A three man panel who have to all agree on it would do the trick I'd say.

PHB wrote: »

I have no problem with going down easy.

Ooh ooh ooh, I wanna say something here!

Eirebear

PHB wrote: »

It's not an inherent character trait, it's something they choose to do to win.
.

I dont agree, it is taught to players at a very very young age, i have seen this first hand with continental youth teams, it has become part of the culture of football and is every bit as instinctive as the tricks and turns they learn at the same age.

I do agree something needs to be done about it, but i really dont see how.

pd101

PHB wrote: »

One yellow card is not enough. People will always choose the possibility of a yellow card and dive rather than not. Especially since people who dive tend to be attacking players who normally get booked less.

Yeah but you cant have one punishment for a player caught diving by the referee and another for a player who wasn't.

Pigman II

Stekelly wrote: »

3 things are needed for an instant cure.

1. Mr T
2. A tank
3. Chocolate bar.


But seriously, yes, retrospective bars for diing ftw.

Snickers bars? Or perhaps Marathons because they're retrospective?

I like the idea, but I'd prefer if Martin Taylor was in the tank. "Meet my friend pain"

BaZmO*

Pigman II wrote: »

Snickers bars? Or perhaps Marathons because they're retrospective?

Never mind Marathons, he wants to give bars for diing!! What good is a bar after you've died?

Pigman II

BaZmO* wrote: »

Never mind Marathons, he wants to give bars for diing!! What good is a bar after you've died?

Just because you've changed your hair colouring doesn't mean you can't still enjoy the delicious sugary taste of a Marathon/Snickers.

PHB

pd101 wrote: »

Yeah but you cant have one punishment for a player caught diving by the referee and another for a player who wasn't.

Indeed, but there's no reason for the rule, if the ref saw it and already punished it. The ref should be alllowed to review his decisions, and is in the case of yellow and red cards given out, as in he can take them back, but he can't change a yellow to a red for some absurd reason.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

The ref should be alllowed to review his decisions,

Seriously dodgy territory imo.

You start letting the refs review stuff, then why not let them review EVERY decision they make, post-match.

Goal line calls?

PHB

That's different, and you know why.
They are already allowed review stuff! They can review yellow cards they give and riscend them!!!

RealJohn

I have an idea on this one, though part of me thinks it's stupid. I played amateur football (as I'm sure most of you probably have at some point) and it was rare I fell over at all. Same was true of the other people I played with and the people I played against. Now sure, the intensity wasn't the same as it would be in the premiership but if a bunch of amateur players can stay on their feet, surely bringing in limits to the number of times professional athletes are allowed to fall over during a game isn't unreasonable.

Of course, this should be a matter of judgement for the referee to a point but if a player was only allowed to fall over say three times during a game and get booked for every subsequent fall unless the referee decided it was unavoidable, we'd see diving drop dramatically.

I know it sounds like a stupid plan but it'd be pretty easy to enforce. Falling over is easier to spot than a dive and it would reduce both diving and "going down easy" (which if you ask me is almost as bad and just compounds the problem anyway).


Failing that, definitely retrospective bans should be brought in, as well as increasing the sanction for a dive to a straight red card and a three match ban. Soccer used to be a man's game. Now it's being laughed at and it's getting harder and harder to defend it.

vorbis

exactly RealJohn, soccer must be one of the few sports where the pro version of it is drastically different to the amateur version. Even when you're playing a casual game of soccer, you don't fall over with little contact. You would be laughed at by your friends. Yet its acceptable at the highest level of the sport!

Imo, the rot started when this idea of contact being all important set in. Its not basketball ffs. The aim should be for players to stay on their feet rather than dive to the ground if slight contact is made.

BaZmO*

Get Real John!!! That's a ridiculous idea.

Guy:Incognito

PHB wrote: »

I have no problem with going down easy..

I do. A footballer should be doing his best to stay on his feet. "allowing" going down easy encourages players to push he boundries.

The George best one where Ron Harris tries to take him down on the edge of the area is the best example I can think of of this. 99 times out of 100 nowadays , players go down under that tackle. A free on the edge of the area seems to be more acceptable to a player nowadays than a 70/30 chance of scoring if they stay up.

BaZmO* wrote: »

Never mind Marathons, he wants to give bars for diing!! What good is a bar after you've died?

Giving a body a good clubbing lets he family know that theres no escaping punishment for cheating.

RealJohn

BaZmO* wrote: »

Get Real John!!! That's a ridiculous idea.

Why exactly?

PHB

Well here's my problem with that.

Refs are not consistant and don't like to give penos in case they get it wrong. Best staying up was great, but imagine that he had missed?
Saha 'dived' a while ago, and it was a foul, it impeded his chances of scoring significantly, and he fell down more than he naturally would have.
In an ideal world, the ref would have given the penalty either way.
But because he won't, the player has two choices
A. Be 'Honest', and try to continue
B. Go down easy and win the penalty

I know which one I would choose and which one I would want my players to choose.

Guy:Incognito

PHB wrote: »

Refs are not consistant and don't like to give penos in case they get it wrong. Best staying up was great, but imagine that he had missed?
.

I still dont see the problem. He'd have gotten his shot off honestly and missed. Cant see anythin wrong here.

PHB

But the defender who fouled him would be let off. It was a foul, it impeded his shot, but the ref is never gona give it.

Eirebear

PHB wrote: »

But the defender who fouled him would be let off. It was a foul, it impeded his shot, but the ref is never gona give it.

Not if referees play the advantage rule properly.
If the referee sees fit he could pull the play back.

In the mentioned example Best would have got his shot off and missed, but he would have still had the opportunity of the shot, therefore there should be no problem. He could have scored.

If the referee however sees that the Best was illegally impeded enough to put him off his shot, then he has every right to pull it back and give the free kick.

We are always talking about making the game "more of a spectacle" for me it is far more of a spectacle to watch players try and stay on their feet and use their wits and skills in order to outplay the opposition than it is to watch a player go down easily every time he gets anywhere near the opposition penalty box and hope his teammate can hit a decent freekick.

BaZmO*

RealJohn wrote: »

Why exactly?

Because a referee already has it in his power to decide if a player is gone down rightly or wrongly. If it's the former he awards a freekick, if it's the latter he punishes the player with a yellow card with simulation.

Also, it just adds more unnecessary American Football / Basketball type rules into the game.


The biggest problem within the game is consistency, or the lack there of.


Also, using Best as an example is pointless because times were different back then. Defenders were allowed to hack the legs off players.

redspider

I would propose a 1 to 3-match ban, depending on the 'severity'. eg: if a dive for a penalty, a 3 match ban, a dengerous free kick near the box, a 2-match ban, elsewhere on the field, a 1-match ban. There has to be a deterrent. A one match ban is just a rest these days. Players dont mind that.

Also, other issues should be jdged post match. eg: if a player scores by a foul, hand, etc, a 3 match ban. All this post match forensic scrutin should act as a deterrent for the top levels of the sport.

Yellow ards and Red cards need to be post-match reviewed as well, and withdrawn if given because of a dive.

Also, 100 lashes sounds like a good idea ....

Eirebear

redspider wrote: »

I would propose a 1 to 3-match ban, depending on the 'severity'. eg: if a dive for a penalty, a 3 match ban, a dengerous free kick near the box, a 2-match ban, elsewhere on the field, a 1-match ban. There has to be a deterrent. A one match ban is just a rest these days. Players dont mind that.

Also, other issues should be jdged post match. eg: if a player scores by a foul, hand, etc, a 3 match ban. All this post match forensic scrutin should act as a deterrent for the top levels of the sport.

Yellow ards and Red cards need to be post-match reviewed as well, and withdrawn if given because of a dive.

Also, 100 lashes sounds like a good idea ....

Christ a certain Japanese international would miss most of the season....and have a very sore back!

And what happens if the diver gets away with it during the match...lets say for an 86th minute free kick just outside the box.
The player gets up and scores from said free kick, but post match scrutiny shows that the said player dived...leading to the winning goal.

Do the team which includes the offending player the get deducted a goal, and in retrospect 2 points?

PHB

Eirebear wrote: »

Not if referees play the advantage rule properly.
If the referee sees fit he could pull the play back.

But they don't. That's why IMO its ok to go down easy in order to get the free kick that you deserve.

Eirebear

PHB wrote: »

But they don't. That's why IMO its ok to go down easy in order to get the free kick that you deserve.

Surely then changes to the rules arent what we need...but to sort the referees out?
IMO it really is about time ref's had someone to answer to

RealJohn

BaZmO* wrote: »

Because a referee already has it in his power to decide if a player is gone down rightly or wrongly. If it's the former he awards a freekick, if it's the latter he punishes the player with a yellow card with simulation.

Fair enough, to a point but don't you think that in the current situation, the pressure is on the referee not to book the player in case he didn't dive? If this were changed to a simpler question of "did he fall or not", there would be much less pressure on the referee.

I don't think the referees are worried about punishing players so much as punishing players in the wrong and looking incompetent. This would help avoid that excuse I think.

Not that it will ever happen.