When does it cross the line..

SDTimeout

Just something i've been thinking about here. I'd just like peoples opinion on it

Eduardo dived against celtic and got slaughtered.
Yet imo park knew he was going to go down as we see pundits alike say that wouldn't have knocked him down eg franco against west ham.

So it becomes diving when the penalty is given, but even if there is the most minimalistic contact but it's still intended as a dive it becomes acceptable.

Of course im basing this out of the united match as imo park had nothing on his mind but going down and trying to win a penalty.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Playing for the penalty, ie. going at the defender, getting a lot of contact and going down, is not a dive.
A dive is when you pretend that the defender made contact with you and you go down shouting and roaring for a foul.

Mr Alan

wat park did today wasn't a dive, he went down theatrically to try and force the refs hand. backfired for him though.

flahavaj

Predicts a Rooney or Gerrard you tube video by end of page 2.:pac:

abouttobebanned

Pointless trolling thread tbh

monkey9

The problem is that players are given license to dive because it seems to be that any contact whatsoever warrants a foul once you fall to the ground.

Therefore, you have situations where players anticipate the tackle and go down even before the tackle is made. But once contact is indeed made, even if only when the player is on the way down already, then it's excused.

Of course, it happens occasionally where the anticipated contact doesn't arrive and the diving player looks stupid!!

Referees need to take the blame for this as well though. There are times when you can be tackled and contact with the ball is not made. But the contact is enough to stop you getting near the ball. Yet, if you stay on your feet, the ref won't blow for the foul. So, sometimes you need to fall to the ground in order to get the free that you should be entitled to anyway.

Just in terms of the incident today with Park. It was a clear, nailed on peno. He didn't dive. He just made it look more theatrical than it needed to be and this may have worked against him!!

Peyton Manning

There's a hell of a difference between fabricating make-believe contact and making the most of actual contact. While one is clearly worse than the other, you don't like to see either. Disappointed in Park, of all the players in the league, he's one of the last you'd expect it from.

Mr Alan

i like Park myself. Tbh, i understand why players do it and don't have much of an issue with it.

SDTimeout

It's far from a trolling thread. I also like park but everyone is so against cheaters in the game. So surely knowing the slightest contact allows you to go down and potentially get a penalty is as bad as going down to make it look like there was contact.

OPENROAD

monkey9 wrote: »

The problem is that players are given license to dive because it seems to be that any contact whatsoever warrants a foul once you fall to the ground.

Therefore, you have situations where players anticipate the tackle and go down even before the tackle is made. But once contact is indeed made, even if only when the player is on the way down already, then it's excused.

Of course, it happens occasionally where the anticipated contact doesn't arrive and the diving player looks stupid!!

Referees need to take the blame for this as well though. There are times when you can be tackled and contact with the ball is not made. But the contact is enough to stop you getting near the ball. Yet, if you stay on your feet, the ref won't blow for the foul. So, sometimes you need to fall to the ground in order to get the free that you should be entitled to anyway.

Just in terms of the incident today with Park. It was a clear, nailed on peno. He didn't dive. He just made it look more theatrical than it needed to be and this may have worked against him!!

Which is wrong

OPENROAD

SDTimeout wrote: »

It's far from a trolling thread. I also like park but everyone is so against cheaters in the game. So surely knowing the slightest contact allows you to go down and potentially get a penalty is as bad as going down to make it look like there was contact.

Only when it impacts on your team, if it is one of your own players involved it is not called cheating.

Spiritoftheseventies

Ive said it before and Ill say it again. Officials from what i can see are not treating incidents on their merits. Park was fouled but because he went down a bit too easily ref waved play on. There has to be some sort of situation where when ball subsequently goes out of play, ref can consult with a tv official.

Boskowski

Both Park and Anelka were clear cut penalties. Parks would have been softish but a penalty nonetheless. Anelkas was outrageous I'd say even Neville couldn't believe he got away with that one. It wasn't given obviously because parks wasn't given only minutes before.
To the point: I don't think Park took a dive and I don't think his only intention was to go down in that situ either. He may have lost posession anyway, he may not have. But he was clearly brought down by contact to knee/thigh by a player who was nowhere near the ball (can't remember who). It was right in the line. Therefore penalty.

This is from someone who doesn't like either Utd or Chelsea btw.

SantryRed

SDTimeout wrote: »

It's far from a trolling thread. I also like park but everyone is so against cheaters in the game. So surely knowing the slightest contact allows you to go down and potentially get a penalty is as bad as going down to make it look like there was contact.

But the problem is that if you do get contact and don't go down you will not get the penalty. Whereas if it happened anywhere else on the pitch it would be free without having to go down.

Guy:Incognito

Personally I hate to see any player going down unless they have been forced off their feet by someone else and cant stay up. That's a foul.

Whether it's a Liverpool player or not is irrelevant.

Half the penalties given that people are happy with are the attacker flicking their leg or themselves into the defender rather han the defender catching them.

It's never occured to me when playing to do anythign other than jump over another player if they stick ou a leg or something. I hate that players first reaction now is to basically kick the defenders leg and go down. How may time s, when looked at in slo motion , can you see a player go down under a keeper slidign out, then when you look properly the first bit of contact is with the attackers knees as he more or less falls on the keeper? It's pathetic.

Iago

SDTimeout wrote: »

Just something i've been thinking about here. I'd just like peoples opinion on it

Eduardo dived against celtic and got slaughtered.
Yet imo park knew he was going to go down as we see pundits alike say that wouldn't have knocked him down eg franco against west ham.

So it becomes diving when the penalty is given, but even if there is the most minimalistic contact but it's still intended as a dive it becomes acceptable.

Of course im basing this out of the united match as imo park had nothing on his mind but going down and trying to win a penalty.

Park didn't dive, but once contact was made he looked for the penalty. There was more to that penalty claim than to 2 of the penalties given against Spurs yesterday afternoon and countless others up and down every country that football is played in.

Over the last 5-10 years the game has changed dramatically, players have become so much fitter and faster. As a result there are a number of challenges/incidents both inside and outside the box that happen almost too quickly for the human eye to see.

The immediate reaction of fans inside the ground is to scream for a penalty/free kick and the offended/offendee to claim they were fouled/innocent. This has led to more and more players trying to make it obvious to the officials that there was contact made and the defender should be penalised for it. They do this by throwing their hands up in the air, screaming as though they've been shot and rolling around as though they were lying on a bed of hot coals rather than grass.

That doesn't mean they're always trying to con the referee, they are trying to ensure that his attention is drawn to the incident. Sometimes the theatrics are for a good reason, and sometimes they aren't. In my opinion Park was fouled yesterday, in fact if you compare it to the Modric/Campbell incident it's hard to fathom why the latter was given and the former wasn't.

Unfortunately this is another example of where TV technology is required in order to keep up with the modern game which has sped up so much as to be impossible to officiate correctly without the help of technology.

greendom

A lot of it is down to the Press. Gerard or Rooney diving will never cause as much outrage as the same dive by a foreign player

SDTimeout

Iago wrote: »

Park didn't dive, but once contact was made he looked for the penalty. There was more to that penalty claim than to 2 of the penalties given against Spurs yesterday afternoon and countless others up and down every country that football is played in.

Over the last 5-10 years the game has changed dramatically, players have become so much fitter and faster. As a result there are a number of challenges/incidents both inside and outside the box that happen almost too quickly for the human eye to see.

The immediate reaction of fans inside the ground is to scream for a penalty/free kick and the offended/offendee to claim they were fouled/innocent. This has led to more and more players trying to make it obvious to the officials that there was contact made and the defender should be penalised for it. They do this by throwing their hands up in the air, screaming as though they've been shot and rolling around as though they were lying on a bed of hot coals rather than grass.

That doesn't mean they're always trying to con the referee, they are trying to ensure that his attention is drawn to the incident. Sometimes the theatrics are for a good reason, and sometimes they aren't. In my opinion Park was fouled yesterday, in fact if you compare it to the Modric/Campbell incident it's hard to fathom why the latter was given and the former wasn't.

Unfortunately this is another example of where TV technology is required in order to keep up with the modern game which has sped up so much as to be impossible to officiate correctly without the help of technology.

Bad choice of works on my part re park, he didn't dive but he was trying to trick the ref if you get me.

The one thing i don't like is the players on the ref, imo it was a red on Rosicky yesterday and another example of Arsenal don't like it up them tactics. Fast , reckless and none of the ball it was a red imo and rightly so but rosicky wasn't play acting he was hurt. Yet you see players who aren't react the same way and then it brings legimate cases like yesterday with people saying it was a yellow at most.

But going on from that i especially don't like players getting involved with the ref, i don't mind say like TV 5 dont yesterday and bit of push and shove with the wolves player who was screaming at the ref. But hounding the ref imo has to stop and i would support yellow cards for players who even went up to the ref ( assuming they aren't the captain )

Spiritoftheseventies

greendom wrote: »

A lot of it is down to the Press. Gerard or Rooney diving will never cause as much outrage as the same dive by a foreign player

Klinsmann generated a lot of publicity when he was over there.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Klinsmann generated a lot of publicity when he was over here.

When did he play in the LoI?:pac:

Spiritoftheseventies

baz2009 wrote: »

When did he play in the LoI?:pac:

Who mentioned League of Ireland. AUL division six Saturday

gosplan

The Eduardo thing was the biggest joke ever - the British football media really sets the lowest standards worldwide.

The only way to look at this is as follows ..... Obviously, no-one means to dive badly,they expect contact that doesn't come. Either players look for contact (Ronaldo was the master - dribble into the box, nick it away just before the defender and await the late defender), or they try to exaggerate contact when it comes their way(Park yesterday).

Time either of these incorrectly and you've got a dive that looks bad. I guess you could say that the first is less in keeping with the spirit of the game but tbh, when you're paid 100K per week, the spirit of the game is the 100K you're paid per week. So, you've a professional responsibility to win as many penalties as possible, regardless of how it's done.

O.P.H

Diving = Major problem for soccer

Only solution imo is post game reviewing, if found diving ya get game bans etc. Refs are only human and will always make mistakes.

Way to many problems in soccer these day like divinig, arguing with ref, wrong calls by linesmen etc etc etc. Unless soccer begins to embrace technology like pretty much all other sports we are always gonna have crap like this.

PHB

Players have to dive to get fouls given to them. Refs are ****ing terrified of decisions because the press slaughters them for it if anything goes wrong. As such, they are wary of giving it unless very sure. There's lots of times we've all seen where a player tries to play on and stay up, takes his shot, and misses, and no penalty is given despite it being a clear foul. If he had fallen over, he would have got the foul.

Look at it this way. Ronaldo is one of the best footballers on the planet. He will do absolutely anythign to win, that's how he acts. Do you really think he would dive if it wasn't in his self interest to do it?

The rules give the players massive incentives to dive atm. Until that changes, nothing will change. IMO, refs need to give more fouls irrespective of whether the player falls over and there needs to be retrospective 5 match bans for any definate dive that is shown.

RandolphEsq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GKXAKQY-0Y

Glico Man

flahavaj wrote: »

Predicts a Rooney or Gerrard you tube video by end of page 2.:pac:

RandolphEsq wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GKXAKQY-0Y

Who needs mystic meg when there's flah

Tick a boo son