Diving - When is it allowed?

Ormus

The way I see it, there are several kinds of dive:

1. The outright dive - player isn't touched but goes down clutching his leg/face

2. The half dive - player "draws contact" ie he makes his leg/foot connect with opponents and then he goes down clutching his leg/face

3. The contact dive - player doesn't draw the contact but slight contact is made and even though it isn't a foul and doesn't really impede the player and wouldn't be enough to make him go down if he didn't want to, he goes down anyway

4. The fouled dive - player is fouled in a discrete way which the ref probably won't see (eg jersey pulled on the ref's blind side). To "help" the ref with his decision, player goes down clutching his leg/face

How many of those are cheating? Should a player be awarded a penalty for any of these?

MD1990

When your a good honest Englishman

SickBoy

Ormus wrote: »

The way I see it, there are several kinds of dive:

1. The outright dive - player isn't touched but goes down clutching his leg/face

2. The half dive - player "draws contact" ie he makes his leg/foot connect with opponents and then he goes down clutching his leg/face

3. The contact dive - player doesn't draw the contact but slight contact is made and even though it isn't a foul and doesn't really impede the player and wouldn't be enough to make him go down if he didn't want to, he goes down anyway

4. The fouled dive - player is fouled in a discrete way which the ref probably won't see (eg jersey pulled on the ref's blind side). To "help" the ref with his decision, player goes down clutching his leg/face

How many of those are cheating? Should a player be awarded a penalty for any of these?

They are all cheating.

Lord TSC

None should be allowed.

It would just help if referees did their job properly and didn't require players to go down dramatically to give legit fouls.

GavRedKing

Suarez (forgeiner) = Diver
Bale (British) = Avoiding contact/injury

And so is the way with the world, the dirty foreginers brought in the diving and cheating but the honest British lads arent to blame.

Kylo Ren

GavRedKing wrote: »

Suarez (forgeiner) = Diver
Bale (British) = Avoiding contact/injury

And so is the way with the world, the dirty foreginers brought in the diving and cheating but the honest British lads arent to blame.

I don't really know anyone who holds that view. Everyone I talk to sees Bale as a diver.

Ormus

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

None should be allowed.

It would just help if referees did their job properly and didn't require players to go down dramatically to give legit fouls.

I think it's pretty clear that refs will never be able to see everything.

In my opinion thats why diving started.

It's a flaw and a disease in the game because it can't be stamped out.

Ormus

Keno 92 wrote: »

I don't really know anyone who holds that view. Everyone I talk to sees Bale as a diver.

Definitely. He's got dogs abuse for it this season.

Bale's problem is that he isn't as good a diver as the likes of Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is very skillful at waiting for the contact and then throwing himself on the ground. Bale hasn't got his timing down yet, with the result that he tends to go down a split second before he draws the contact.

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to talk about football like that.

Goes to show how amazing Messi is that he doesn't even need to dive.

iDave

Its amazing to think Jurgen Klinnsman was one of the first 'great' divers 20 years ago and in that time nothing has been done about it.

Slattsy

In a swimming pool.

GavRedKing

Keno 92 wrote: »

I don't really know anyone who holds that view. Everyone I talk to sees Bale as a diver.

The media for the best part of 2 seasons glossed over it, its only this season hes being punished for it.

Hes picked up the most cards this season for simulation and in some cases when hes genuinely fouled he gets nothing, which is a by product of his diving.

Any instance a player can get an advantage he'd be mad not to try and take it, it's the way of the game now, some players are more honest then some but diving is rampant across every league and its not going to go away, ref's have to deal with incidents that happen in a flash and judge them onthe spot, only way of stopping it IMO is to bring in replays for incidents but the game would be stopped every few mins while its debated by the officials.

Al Capwned

Ormus wrote: »

Definitely. He's got dogs abuse for it this season.

Bale's problem is that he isn't as good a diver as the likes of Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is very skillful at waiting for the contact and then throwing himself on the ground. Bale hasn't got his timing down yet, with the result that he tends to go down a split second before he draws the contact.

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to talk about football like that.

Goes to show how amazing Messi is that he doesn't even need to dive.

They all do it.

Ormus

GavRedKing wrote: »

The media for the best part of 2 seasons glossed over it, its only this season hes being punished for it.

Hes picked up the most cards this season for simulation and in some cases when hes genuinely fouled he gets nothing, which is a by product of his diving.

Any instance a player can get an advantage he'd be mad not to try and take it, it's the way of the game now, some players are more honest then some but diving is rampant across every league and its not going to go away, ref's have to deal with incidents that happen in a flash and judge them onthe spot, only way of stopping it IMO is to bring in replays for incidents but the game would be stopped every few mins while its debated by the officials.

Yeah, stopping the game would be far too tedious and not possible at all levels of the game without cameras, so not a realistic option.

Retrospective punishment would be more feasible where games are televised, as it wouldn't slow the game down. Not as satisfactory because it can't change the result of the game, but might prove a deterrent.

But the crux of the matter is that the world of football still doesn't have agreement on which dives should go unpunished and which should be punished.

With regard to the Premiership, most people seem to accept these days that if a player is fouled he is entitled to go down like he has been shot.

In South America, it's part of the game to try to con the ref, drawing contact, and even just going down where there is no contact.

I saw a bit of Wales v Scotland the other day and Joe Ledley put his leg over the defenders and dived. The commentator said that he "was entitled to go down there because he got close enough to the defender".

EdenHazard

GavRedKing wrote: »

Suarez (forgeiner) = Diver
Bale (British) = Avoiding contact/injury

And so is the way with the world, the dirty foreginers brought in the diving and cheating but the honest British lads arent to blame.

Or the old 'its the pace he's running at' which was never ever ever heard before.

Remember Ian Wright said after Stevie G dived 'they all do it' basically implying the english lads are good honest lads who have had to succumb to diving because of other countries habit of cheating.

S28382

They never allowing diving in my local swimming pool.....nor bombing........the bast*rds.

dreamers75

When its your team and it wins a peno vs someone you hate.

Seems it fine then

That_Guy

I hate diving. Pisses me off no end... Unless they play for Bohs or Newcastle. Then I don't give a fúck. :pac:

Morzadec

I think you've left one out, or need to modify number 4 - the contact dive.

A lot of 'dives' are also fouls and the player tries to bring the refs attention to it by going to ground (see Gary Neville's video), when perhaps he could've stayed on his feet. Welbeck did this against Montenegro, but did it really really poorly (his dive wasn't convincing). However I do believe he was clipped inside the box and that's a penalty, and if he had fell more naturally he might well of got it.

At the end of the day it's very hard to prove what exactly is a 'dive'. The outright, obvious dives are few and far between. This makes retrospective banning almost impossible as it's rarely black and white.

LuckyLloyd

Retrospective video reviews; three match ban for any clear dive. Problem sorted. Do the same thing for bad fouls that are missed aswell.

Ormus

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Retrospective video reviews; three match ban for any clear dive. Problem sorted. Do the same thing for bad fouls that are missed aswell.

But you still haven't said what a dive is.

Is it a dive if a guy is fouled by having his jersey pulled in the box, and he screams out in pain and jumps on the ground clutching his face?

In my opinion that is cheating and no peno should be given. But that would mean defenders will be able to pull jerseys pretty much whenever they like.

As much as you can say it's the ref's job to see it, they simply can't see it most of the time.

You can say that linesmen will have to start making those calls to the ref, but linesmen have long ago figured out that they get less abuse for not calling attention to a foul that is than they get for incorrectly calling a foul that isn't. So they keep their mouths shut.

Lawrence1895

Go to some lower divisions in Germany, they play on sand, like on a Tennis court, no diving there

Morzadec

But how what type of 'dives' would you retrospectively punish? Like I said a real, 100% dive is hard to find, amongst all the 'half-dives'. You set a dangerous precedent if certain 'dives' are not retrospectively cited and therefore seen as fair game.

There's many types of foul that get labelled a 'dive' but are hard to classify/prove as such.

1. Exxagerated contact/Drawing the referee's attention to a foul

A player is through on goal, gets a hand in the back which pushes him off balance. He has been impeded, yet it isn't enough to make him fall. However, his scoring chances have been significantly reduced to to the foul (the push in the back).

A real rather than hypothetical example - Gerrard's 'dive' (or was it a foul?) in Istanbul.

There's a slight pull back of Gerrard's left arm by Gattuso, and some arguable contact on the heel as the Italian runs across him. However, Gerrard probably goes down easy.

But if he felt he was fouled and didn't go down, he almost certainly wouldn't have been awarded a penalty. The simple fact is players have to go down if they want to win a penalty. In a case in which you feel you have been impeded, your chances of scoring a goal have decreased as such and you know you have to go down in order to get the call, is it not natural that players do this?

For those calling for retrospective bans, would Gerrard be cited here? Would incidents in which players running at pace have their shirt tugged or get a slight push and then fall to the ground be cited?


2. Leaving the leg in.

Players sometimes leave their leg in, in order to receive contact ala Young in this video.

This one seems likely that Young has conned the referee, but technically there is contact, Clarke has left in a lazy foot, and, retrospectively, it might be difficult to call that an undisputed dive. After all, contact in the box is a penalty and there is undisputed contact here.

There are certainly other examples less obvious than this, that are probably dives but difficult to prove because there is contact. How can you prove that an attacker has deliberately left his foot in to con the referee?

Do you retrospectively ban Young for this?

3. Anticipated contact/avoiding contact dive.

Remember N'Gog a few years ago?

The fact is, Carlesly is coming in with a potentially dangerous tackle, a tackle which would have missed the ball and may have hit N'gogs foot had he not jumped over it. This was denounced as a dive. However, I have sympathy for players in this situation and it was a reckless attempt at a tackle by Carseley. Does N'Gog have to leave his foot in and potentially damage his ankle in order to prove this to the ref?

There are several other examples of this - a player goes over with no contact. However, there would have been contact had he continued running as normal, due to the opposing player fouling him. Rooney against Almunia a couple of years back for example - Rooney starts falling before contact, but contact would have been made if he had kept running as Almunia was blocking his path. Bale has been guilty of this recently, and while some of his have been more obvious dives, it can be difficult to prove that a player is not anticipating contact and simply trying to avoid injury.

So again a question for those advocating retrospective banning - would N'Gog be banned for this?

The fact is there are very few dives like this in football:

There are very few dives which you can 100% say the player has deliberately attempted to con the referee and there is definitely no infringement from the defending player.

So what will happen with retrospective diving? Well if the case has to be proved black and white then the above 'dives' (Gerrard, N'Gog, Young) will potentially have to be considered as not dives.

This is when we get into dangerous territory - by not deciding to retrospectively ban these types of 'dives', players will be further encouraged to perform them. They will have essentially have been told it is okay to exxagerate contact, leave a leg in or dive to avoid potentially hurting themselves.

Alternatively, an FA panel will have to subjectively decide whether the player has intentionally conned the referee or not, and base their decision on what is most likely, allowing for grey areas and not definite proof (like the Suarez racism case). Suddenly we'll have accusations of club bias, English player bias, and numerous dive shítstorms.

Even in this scenario it will occasionally be very very difficult to make a judgement call on the likes of Gerrard's 'dive' and we will have the same problem as in the other scenario - 'dives' of this sort will be vindicated if the retrospective decision finds in favour of Gerrard.


TLDR: Retrospective banning is just not feasible in my opinion. For those advocating it, which of the above dives would be retrospectively punished and on what grounds?

LuckyLloyd

Morzadec wrote: »

TLDR: Retrospective banning is just not feasible in my opinion. For those advocating it, which of the above dives would be retrospectively punished and on what grounds?

Ormus wrote: »

1. The outright dive - player isn't touched but goes down clutching his leg/face

Let's just start with the simple stuff. Removing Busquet's "peekaboo" from the game for ever more would be a great step in the right direction.

Lawrence1895

dreamers75 wrote: »

When its your team and it wins a peno vs someone you hate.

Seems it fine then

Ah c'mon...football and 'hatred'. what about sportsmanship and fair play and all that stuff

It's especially nice, if the other team gets relegated, or looses the title

Gbear

Morzadec wrote: »

TLDR: Retrospective banning is just not feasible in my opinion. For those advocating it, which of the above dives would be retrospectively punished and on what grounds?

Good post.

I think that one option would be to acknowledge first that they are all dives.
If it can also be shown that the person that they "dived against" committed a foul (should be straight forward) then they are not banned. If the other party did not commit a foul, they are banned.

I'm not sure whether the other player commits a foul in any of those videos above but a ref should be.

greendom

Diving headers are legit

WoollyRedHat

If the pitch is badly waterlogged, I think it's only fair.

Winston Payne

Was there contact?


Enough to bring the player down? No? Then get the **** off the floor!!!/old fashioned

Jarrod

Ormus wrote: »

Definitely. He's got dogs abuse for it this season.

Bale's problem is that he isn't as good a diver as the likes of Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is very skillful at waiting for the contact and then throwing himself on the ground. Bale hasn't got his timing down yet, with the result that he tends to go down a split second before he draws the contact.

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to talk about football like that.

Goes to show how amazing Messi is that he doesn't even need to dive.

Messi does dive, it's one of those ever growing myths in football that he's somehow more honest than everyone else. Didn't he punch the ball in for a goal in a La Liga game a couple of years ago? Against Espanyol, I think. It was brushed off because it clearly showed he was on his way to being the next Maradona.

Anyway, back to diving. If you hit the ground without being forced there, it's a dive. There's the odd case where someone's trying to avoid taking a tough tackle but, really, if you aren't forced down, it's a dive. That's not to say you should have to hit the deck to get a free. Say someone's through one on one being chased back, gets a shove in the back and stumbles but doesn't go down but looses the chance/chance is diminished then it's a foul.

The thought process of a player should (in an ideal game) be: Right I'll do everything I can to score and if I'm fouled the ref will give a free/peno. Not, well I should probably score here but that defender looks like he might touch me in the box so I'll just wait until he does and then I'll go down.

theoneeyedman

iDave wrote: »

Its amazing to think Jurgen Klinnsman was one of the first 'great' divers 20 years ago and in that time nothing has been done about it.

Michel Platini says hello ...

Paully D

When it benefits my team. Otherwise, not at all.

Liam O

Until it's less rewarding to win a penalty than get a yellow card, it's quite simple really.

monkey9

Diving isn't allowed!

markie29

theoneeyedman wrote: »

Michel Platini says hello ...

franny lee says hello too ....diving has been a part of the game for a long time its only being highlighted more because of the numerous camera angles at the stadiums now.

greendom

Diving will be around for as long as deliberate fouling is. They're pretty equal crimes in my book and I don't understand why "divers" get such a bad press in comparison to their fouling counterparts.

LuckyLloyd

greendom wrote: »

Diving will be around for as long as deliberate fouling is. They're pretty equal crimes in my book and I don't understand why "divers" get such a bad press in comparison to their fouling counterparts.

Because the latter is punished far more consistently, efficiently and harshly than the former. Because diving is an inherently unmanly act.

Sgt Pepper 64

Only off the 6 metre board

Liam O

greendom wrote: »

Diving will be around for as long as deliberate fouling is. They're pretty equal crimes in my book and I don't understand why "divers" get such a bad press in comparison to their fouling counterparts.

Because deliberate fouling isn't trying to con the ref, it's making a choice that you know you will be punished for. Diving is trying to gain an advantage by committing a foul that a lot of the time isn't appropriately judged.

greendom

Liam O wrote: »

Because deliberate fouling isn't trying to con the ref, it's making a choice that you know you will be punished for. Diving is trying to gain an advantage by committing a foul that a lot of the time isn't appropriately judged.

So deliberate fouling is an inherently decent and honest act? when did you ever see a player put his hands up and ask for a free kick to be awarded to the opposition when the ref didn't spot a deliberate foul?

The main difference between them is that a dive is harder to spot than most fouls (although a lot of shirt-pulling seems to get away scott free). It's probably easier to get away with a dive than a foul but they are both equally dishonest acts.

Liam O

greendom wrote: »

So deliberate fouling is an inherently decent and honest act. Are you saying that when a ref doesn't spot a deliberate foul, the player will put his hands up and ask for a free kick to be awarded to the opposition.

The main difference between them is that a dive is harder to spot than most fouls (although a lot of shirt-pulling seems to get away scott free). It's probably easier to get away with a dive than a foul but they are both equally dishonest acts.

Well when a player fouls he doesn't fall on the ground, roll around and look like a baby most of the time. It's not that I think diving is as bad as is made out but it's hugely worse than fouling.

machiavellianme

Wow. Over 40 posts and no one has posted it.
This is the only place diving should be allowed:
http://www.muffdivingclub.ie/

Though I suspect a lot of people have a similar attitude to "That Guy" and will turn a blind eye when it suits their team?
Personally I hate it. Almost as much as I detest tippy tappy football.
I miss the good old days of lumping the ball upfield for a big lad to knock it down to a poacher. Cant see that ever coming back whilst all this diving carry on is rewarded.

atilladehun

Retrospective punishment will seem useless when it's the champions league final and the player gets a penalty.

I get more frustrated when a foul is not given to my team and the player hasn't dived than if a player dives against my team.

Players should dive for the gentle push in the back or the lazy leg. They're guaranteed ways to put a player off shooting well.

All those defenders are purposely breaking or pushing the rules to get an advantage why shouldn't forwards be allowed to do that too? It's up to the ref to call it.

Dangerous play that rules a player out for a long time is far more frustrating. That and the bloody offside rule. Too many potential goals called back incorrectly.

Morzadec

atilladehun wrote: »

Retrospective punishment will seem useless when it's the champions league final and the player gets a penalty.

I get more frustrated when a foul is not given to my team and the player hasn't dived than if a player dives against my team.

Players should dive for the gentle push in the back or the lazy leg. They're guaranteed ways to put a player off shooting well.

All those defenders are purposely breaking or pushing the rules to get an advantage why shouldn't forwards be allowed to do that too? It's up to the ref to call it.

Dangerous play that rules a player out for a long time is far more frustrating. That and the bloody offside rule. Too many potential goals called back incorrectly.

You won't find many agreeing with you but I think you're making some very valid points.

Liam O

atilladehun wrote: »

Retrospective punishment will seem useless when it's the champions league final and the player gets a penalty.

I get more frustrated when a foul is not given to my team and the player hasn't dived than if a player dives against my team.

Players should dive for the gentle push in the back or the lazy leg. They're guaranteed ways to put a player off shooting well.

All those defenders are purposely breaking or pushing the rules to get an advantage why shouldn't forwards be allowed to do that too? It's up to the ref to call it.

Dangerous play that rules a player out for a long time is far more frustrating. That and the bloody offside rule. Too many potential goals called back incorrectly.

So putting a player off shouldn't be allowed now? Maybe every player should have their own zone on the pitch that no other player is allowed in so there's no threat of a tackle? Some people really want to make it a non-contact sport it would seem and eliminate defending from the game.

RandolphEsq

Going down easily is the only form of 'diving' 'allowed'. Frowned upon for purposely not being strong enough but isn't cheating. Soft foul AKA.

atilladehun

Liam O wrote: »

So putting a player off shouldn't be allowed now? Maybe every player should have their own zone on the pitch that no other player is allowed in so there's no threat of a tackle? Some people really want to make it a non-contact sport it would seem and eliminate defending from the game.

Like netball!:D

I know what you're saying but if we're drawing a line between honest and dishonest forward play then we can also look at honest and dishonest defender play. IMO it's all fair game as long as no-one gets hurt. Defenders should try slight pushes and shirt pulls if they can't get the ball fairly. Forwards should dive if they can get away with it and it's their best option. It's up to the ref to call it.

My major problem with dangerous play is down to my own experience. Some defender went for a dirty stamp on my foot and put me out of work for 3 months and playing for a year. There was no need for that. It's no different for pro's - try to gain any advantage but don't try to hurt anyone.