Diving/Simulation

rob316

This is a cliché at this stage but it really is the scurge of the game. Im not going to name and shame as we all know who dives, but it just seems to be getting worse.

I like to think its a physical, tough sport, football but watching players at any level throw themselves on the floor with zero or minimal contact is ruining the game.

What can be done to eradicate from the game? Red cards seem a bit much.
Its not cut and dry either, its seems to be a matter of opinion who dived and who didn't.

Andersonisgod

Things that I hate: When people say "it's a man's sport" it never fails to sound sexist and remarkably pig-headed. There is actually female soccer, it's the same sport. It never fails to amaze me how the phrase has survived and how often it's thrown around. It makes it sound as if women are damsels in distress who can't stay on their feet for more than a minute.

Agueroooo

rob316 wrote: »

Red cards seem a bit much.

exactly what is needed and would stop it over night.

also retrospective action if the Ref has seen it or not would help.

Soups123

rob316 wrote: »

This is a cliché at this stage but it really is the scurge of the game. Im not going to name and shame as we all know who dives, but it just seems to be getting worse.

I like to think its a man's sport, football but watching players at any level throw themselves on the floor with zero or minimal contact is ruining the game.

What can be done to eradicate from the game? Red cards seem a bit much.
Its not cut and dry either, its seems to be a matter of opinion who dived and who didn't.

It should be retrospective action, bans, fines in an accumulative nature. Football is no longer a Mans sport it's a business driven by results and players are adapting to that

rob316

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Things that I hate: When people say "it's a man's sport" it never fails to sound sexist and remarkably pig-headed. There is actually female soccer, it's the same sport. It never fails to amaze me how the phrase has survived and how often it's thrown around. It makes it sound as if women are damsels in distress who can't stay on their feet for more than a minute.

Your right wrong wording, ive editing my post but you know what I mean.

mike65

Just ban every player who is carded be it at the time or retrospectively, or less harshly bring in the 10 minute sin-bin a la Rugby Union.

CSF

Agueroooo wrote: »

exactly what is needed and would stop it over night.

also retrospective action if the Ref has seen it or not would help.

Red cards would just lessen the amount of offences being punished. Would any ref really have the bravery to send off Oscar for that one the other day? Even against the extremely handsome Southampton.

oldyouth

While the reward can be huge and the consequences insignificant, there will always be divers. The game needs a panel to view incidents retrospectively and hand out lengthy bans

brevity

Personally I don't think retrospective action could ever work, in certain circumstances, it's too much of a grey area. Just because someone falls down doesn't mean its a dive or a foul.

Only in the really obvious cases can you actually determine if someone has dived or not and in those cases the ref should take action. Yellow card would suffice.

GavRedKing

On clear dives with no contact people shoul be warned once by the FA, we have access to multiple camera angles to see if there was contact or not, if a player gets caught again after the warning they should be banned for 2 games and fined.

Its the only way to stamp it out, in those "dives" when a player looks to go down after slight contact its a very grey area, I mean there is contact sometimes but not enough to make a guy go down unless you engineer it yourself so thats the part thats hard to judge and happens more often than guys going down with no contact.

PhlegmyMoses

Genuinely don't get the massive hysteria surrounding diving. So many other types of cheating that are just as bad. Holding players at corners, hacking somebody down in a 4 on 2 counter attack etc.

I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when West Ham played United. James Collins deliberately moved into De Gea's way after a corner when he was trying to launch a quick counter that would have seen a 3 on 1 situation. He blocks the ball as it's being kicked, crisis averted, no card. He's such a professional is James. Did it for the team.

5 minutes later, Collins swings a leg at Januzaj, having kicked lumps out of him all game, and Januzaj dives. Cue Collins, Noble and the likes screaming at and pushing Januzaj as if he has committed an atrocity. Dirty diving Januzaj, scourge of the sport, what a cheat, yellow card.

The narrative is strange.

Timmyctc

Simply put the refs need an overhaul on what constitute a free kick, and it needs to be consistent. The diving with no contact is, imo, as bad as the people who feel the tiniest bit of contact and go down, to which the commentators say "Well there was contact" FFs its a contact sport, a bit of jostling is permitted. Not ever Giving these 'fouls' would have to lead to players realising there is no yeild in going down softly and bucking up and playing fair.

This attitude of "Oh he could have gone down there" Also needs to be eradicated as its entirely pathetic. If the contact wasn't enough to distrupt the player's stride unfairly nor was it enough to put him to the ground, then he doesnt NEED to go to ground. That is diving, contact or not.

rob316

But what if the ref gets it wrong and there was contact, we have all seen it happen. Red cards for diving could seriously effect the outcome of games.

If I was in charge I would have a panel set up to review any players booked for simulation in a game. If the panel decides there was simulation and it was a blatant attempt to con the referee the player should be fined and banned for 3 games.

Oranage2

The fans should Also have a zero tolerance even towards their own players, for example, people defending jacuzzai last night doesn't help.

Morzadec

Agueroooo wrote: »

exactly what is needed and would stop it over night.

also retrospective action if the Ref has seen it or not would help.

I've posted on this before - retrospective action would not work IMO, and there's a good reason it hasn't been introduced (and won't be IMO).

You can take countless examples every week of the difficulties that retrospective action would encounter, but I'll take one that's fresh in the memory and go for Welbeck's dive (?) yesterday.

With this incident there was contact. There is a case to be made for a penalty. There's also a case to be made that he was looking for it, left his leg in, and went over easily. It's difficult for anyone to be sure if the contact was enough to send him over or not, and people will have different opinions.


My point is that only a very small percentage of "dives" are stonewall - the vast majority are grey areas.

If Welbeck's one gets reviewed, then what is the verdict? It's very hard to retrospectively ban him when there was clearly contact. Do they then decide to let him off? In that case are they justifying leaving a leg in and going down easily? Are they essentially giving free reign to players to fall under contact, with referees feeling they have to give a penalty?

The problem with the diving debate is that people forget that the vast majority of "dives" are far from black and white. Therefore retrospective action would probably only serve to encourage the sneaky grey area "dives".

Remember the Gary Neville video? "Dive? Yes. Penalty? Yes." He basically nailed it, and I would like to hear what retrospective action would be taken in the examples he gives by those advocating it.

rob316

Timmyctc wrote: »

Simply put the refs need an overhaul on what constitute a free kick, and it needs to be consistent. The diving with no contact is, imo, as bad as the people who feel the tiniest bit of contact and go down, to which the commentators say "Well there was contact" FFs its a contact sport, a bit of jostling is permitted. Not ever Giving these 'fouls' would have to lead to players realising there is no yeild in going down softly and bucking up and playing fair.

This attitude of "Oh he could have gone down there" Also needs to be eradicated as its entirely pathetic. If the contact wasn't enough to distrupt the player's stride unfairly nor was it enough to put him to the ground, then he doesnt NEED to go to ground. That is diving, contact or not.

Agreed commentators/pundits applauding someone for not going down and staying on there feet is ridiculous.

3 match ban on retrospective action.

5 game ban for 2nd offense.

Pretty extreme but it would almost certainly clear it up immediately.

Agueroooo

GavRedKing wrote: »

On clear dives with no contact people shoul be warned once by the FA, we have access to multiple camera angles to see if there was contact or not, if a player gets caught again after the warning they should be banned for 2 games and fined.

Its the only way to stamp it out, in those "dives" when a player looks to go down after slight contact its a very grey area, I mean there is contact sometimes but not enough to make a guy go down unless you engineer it yourself so thats the part thats hard to judge and happens more often than guys going down with no contact.

good idea.

and those warned should be made known public.

Timmyctc

Morzadec wrote: »

I've posted on this before - retrospective action would not work IMO, and there's a good reason it hasn't been introduced (and won't be IMO).

You can take countless examples every week of the difficulties that retrospective action would encounter, but I'll take one that's fresh in the memory and go for Welbeck's dive (?) yesterday.

With this incident there was contact. There is a case to be made for a penalty. There's also a case to be made that he was looking for it, left his leg in, and went over easily. It's difficult for anyone to be sure if the contact was enough to send him over or not, and people will have different opinions.


My point is that only a very small percentage of "dives" are stonewall - the vast majority are grey areas.

If Welbeck's one gets reviewed, then what is the verdict? It's very hard to retrospectively ban him when there was clearly contact. Do they then decide to let him off? In that case are they justifying leaving a leg in and going down easily? Are they essentially giving free reign to players to fall under contact, with referees feeling they have to give a penalty?

The problem with the diving debate is that people forget that the vast majority of "dives" are far from black and white. Therefore retrospective action would probably only serve to encourage the sneaky grey area "dives".

Remember the Gary Neville video? "Dive? Yes. Penalty? Yes." He basically nailed it, and I would like to hear what retrospective action would be taken in the examples he gives by those advocating it.

But herein lies another issue. Just because there was contact does in no way, imply it very nearly could have been a penalty. Welbeck dived. Simple as. If you leave your leg in and force contact, dive. Even if there was contact and it didnt upset Welbeck's balance (Which btw yday it did not) Dive.

Now I mean minimal contact here, theres too many times a defender's toe might hit a players shinguard and the defender reduces contact by pulling his leg out and the player still :rolleyes: Somehow :rolleyes: goes down as a result of the contact and the commentators get into a tizzy over how "there was contact so it should/could be given"

EuropeanSon

I don't really know what can be done. I do think that some people vastly exaggerate how many dives there are, and are now suspicious of anything and everything.

My father saw the incident where Wilshere was kicked down in the box yesterday and immediately said "that was a dive, he went down too easy". For anyone who didn't see it, he was in the Cardiff box, dribbling through, was kicked about three times by a man on the ground and eventually fell. Anyone with eyes to look knew it was a penalty (except the referee) and on setting replays not one of the commentators disputed that it was a foul, yet my father kept insisting "no way, no way, he went down too easily". I think this attitude is quite prevalent.

Morzadec

Timmyctc wrote: »

But herein lies another issue. Just because there was contact does in no way, imply it very nearly could have been a penalty. Welbeck dived. Simple as. If you leave your leg in and force contact, dive. Even if there was contact and it didnt upset Welbeck's balance (Which btw yday it did not) Dive.

Now I mean minimal contact here, theres too many times a defender's toe might hit a players shinguard and the defender reduces contact by pulling his leg out and the player still :rolleyes: Somehow :rolleyes: goes down as a result of the contact and the commentators get into a tizzy over how "there was contact so it should/could be given"

But what if I'm through on goal, I'm a top striker and I have a chance that I would score 80% of the time. A defender comes across me, illegally impedes me (let's say he gives me a very small shove and a slight tug of the shirt). It is probably not enough to make me go down and I can stumble and stay on my feet. However, it is enough to put me quite badly off balance and off my stride, and my chances of scoring have reduced to about 30% as a result of my opponents (illegal) interference.

I know that the ref will consider it advantage if I make the effort to stay on my feet and I will have poor odds on scoring, but if I follow my momentum and allow myself to fall, I should probably get a penalty that I arguably deserve. What should I do?

Th problem with going too far the other way is that we encourage cynical fouls that essentially break the rules, but are not so obvious that hey can be called out

Timmyctc

Morzadec wrote: »

But what if I'm through on goal, I'm a top striker and I have a chance that I would score 80% of the time. A defender comes across me, illegally impedes me (let's say he gives me a very small shove and a slight tug of the shirt). It is probably not enough to make me go down and I can stumble and stay on my feet. However, it is enough to put me quite badly off balance and off my stride, and my chances of scoring have reduced to about 30% as a result of my opponents (illegal) interference.

I know that the ref will consider it advantage if I make the effort to stay on my feet and I will have poor odds on scoring, but if I follow my momentum and allow myself to fall, I should probably get a penalty that I arguably deserve. What should I do?

Th problem with going too far the other way is that we encourage cynical fouls that essentially break the rules, but are not so obvious that hey can be called out

If its a foul outside the box its a foul inside the box tbh that needs to be encouraged on the other side. The fact defenders a la Sktrel for example, manage to get away with two fistfuls of an attackers shirt from near on every corner is a farce considering were it the other way around, or in the middle of the park the players would be punished.

AdamD

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Genuinely don't get the massive hysteria surrounding diving. So many other types of cheating that are just as bad. Holding players at corners, hacking somebody down in a 4 on 2 counter attack etc.

I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when West Ham played United. James Collins deliberately moved into De Gea's way after a corner when he was trying to launch a quick counter that would have seen a 3 on 1 situation. He blocks the ball as it's being kicked, crisis averted, no card. He's such a professional is James. Did it for the team.

5 minutes later, Collins swings a leg at Januzaj, having kicked lumps out of him all game, and Januzaj dives. Cue Collins, Noble and the likes screaming at and pushing Januzaj as if he has committed an atrocity. Dirty diving Januzaj, scourge of the sport, what a cheat, yellow card.

The narrative is strange.

There's just something wholly more pathetic about a player throwing themselves to the floor without being touched by anybody.

PhlegmyMoses

AdamD wrote: »

There's just something wholly more pathetic about a player throwing themselves to the floor without being touched by anybody.

So it's fundamentally subjective and borderline irrational. Neither of which should be taken into account when writing laws and regulations.

Morzadec

Timmyctc wrote: »

If its a foul outside the box its a foul inside the box tbh that needs to be encouraged on the other side. The fact defenders a la Sktrel for example, manage to get away with two fistfuls of an attackers shirt from near on every corner is a farce considering were it the other way around, or in the middle of the park the players would be punished.

I agree with the principal but to be honest it's not true,nor will it ever be true. It's something we all like to agree on in theory, but we all know in practice it's a different issue. if refs started giving penalties forthe type of infringements given on the half way line there would be riots in the stands at the "soft" penalties going against their team.

We would have probably 4 or5 peons every match.

Giving at penalty is a huge decision and it's kind of an unwritten rule that a couple of small things are let slide in the box.

It could be changed but refs would have to be very well briefed and I don't think fans would be happy when they start seeing every little shove blown up for a peno

ArmaniJeanss

Ultimately what makes any of the suggestions here impossible to implement is that football isn't just an English game, so the FA can't arbitrarily invent new punishments without the approval of the worldwide game.

And at this moment its really only in the UK (and Ireland) that people have this massive problem with diving and belief that its the major scourge of the game. From what I can gleam through admittedly limited reading of newspapers and forums in other countries, its generally regarded as just another offence, no worse than a standard foul or a jersey pull, no more ungentlemanly than claiming a handball when you can clearly see the ball hit the players chest or claiming a corner when you know you've hit the ball last yourself (interestingly these latter bits of attempted blatant cheating take place every EPL game without being commented on).

So until such time as the rest of world has the same attitude as us we don't get to be the moral guardian.

death1234567

The "injuries" during a game where the player goes down rolling around like he's been shot, then the physio runs on and does the square root of f^*k all and the player has a lazarus like recovery bothers me alot more than the diving, cheating and poor sportsmanship that's rife in the game.

Speak Now

Sneakiest divers of them all are the defenders :P amount of soft free kicks giving to them is outrageous.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Diving is cheating, but there is plenty of other cheating going on in the game. The only reason people hate it so much is because it's not 'manly'.
I don't like diving, I hate it, but I don't hate it any more than the other forms of cheating that are also common in the game.

Kirby

rob316 wrote: »

But what if the ref gets it wrong and there was contact

Contact is irrelevant. Being fouled shouldn't give people carte blanche to dive. "Oh, I've been fouled. I'll highlight this to the ref by diving.....just to make sure he see's it." That's diving, chief. It's not engineering contact or being clever or going down easy. It's diving.

People need to get rid of this idea that "Dive + Contact = fine".....but if there is no contact suddenly its a cardinal sin. A ref might get the call on a foul wrong, but a dive is a dive. It's blatant and can be spotted every time.

We see a dozen genuine fouls in every game followed by ridiculous crumpling to the floor. Or a shirt pulled backwards and he dives forwards. It's embarrassing. And it will keep happening until the governing bodies grow some balls and start warning and then banning players for it.

Morzadec wrote: »

My point is that only a very small percentage of "dives" are stonewall - the vast majority are grey areas.

If Welbeck's one gets reviewed, then what is the verdict? It's very hard to retrospectively ban him when there was clearly contact. .

There is no grey. He either went down on purpose or he didn't. If a player can stay on his feet but chooses to go down, he's simulating. And that's what we see all the time.

If Welbeck's one was to get reviewed, there would only be one verdict. It was a dive. It's not even a subtle one. The contact or foul is irrelevant. He trailed his leg, got the contact he wanted, and flung himself to the ground. Like about 75% of the rest of the players in the league. And they will keep doing it until they get punished for it. It's not up to the players or the clubs. They will keep doing what it takes to win. It's up to the guys in charge to stamp it out. And they wont.

Guy:Incognito

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Things that I hate: When people say "it's a man's sport" it never fails to sound sexist and remarkably pig-headed. There is actually female soccer, it's the same sport. It never fails to amaze me how the phrase has survived and how often it's thrown around. It makes it sound as if women are damsels in distress who can't stay on their feet for more than a minute.

What if we're only talking about the mens game?

oldyouth wrote: »

While the reward can be huge and the consequences insignificant, there will always be divers. The game needs a panel to view incidents retrospectively and hand out lengthy bans

The dubious goals panel could double up. I doubt they're particularly snowed under

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Genuinely don't get the massive hysteria surrounding diving. So many other types of cheating that are just as bad. Holding players at corners, hacking somebody down in a 4 on 2 counter attack etc..

You get punished for that though. every time.

I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with refs giving fouls for people being pulled around the box either.

PhlegmyMoses

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What if we're only talking about the mens game?



The dubious goals panel could double up. I doubt they're particularly snowed under



You get punished for that though. every time.

I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with refs giving fouls for people being pulled around the box either.

So let's just punish divers. With yellow cards, like we already do. Refs will make some poor calls in the same way that they do with bad tackles and cynical shirt pulling and everything else. They'll also get loads right. Why go nuclear on diving? The provisions in place are enough. Maybe refs need to use them more but that's another discussion.

Seaneh

There's the grey area here too.

Some players dive, without contact, a lot, they should be punished with bans and fines for repeat offences.

And then there the others, players who draw contact and then go down, even though they could have stayed on their feet.
Is it a dive, yes. But, they were, technically, fouled. Players like Balotelli are masters at it, they get between the ball and the defender, force the defender to commit and then go down the second there is contact. It's not cheating, but it is diving. What do you do with players like this?

Omackeral

It was mentioned that it would be easy easy to implement retroactive action or on the spot video evidence to nail divers/cheats. That's fine for the EPL where multiple cameras and angles are available but how far down the totem pole do you go?

The beauty of the game is that it can be played by anyone nearly anywhere, one of the few sports that doesn't require much equipment or that. If you start bringing in things like this, it creates a difference in rules and regulations between differing levels of the game.
It's just a small point I think is worth mentioning.

764dak

The awkward moment when people realize female soccer players dive and fake injuries less than their male counterparts.

AdamD

Omackeral wrote: »

It was mentioned that it would be easy easy to implement retroactive action or on the spot video evidence to nail divers/cheats. That's fine for the EPL where multiple cameras and angles are available but how far down the totem pole do you go?

The beauty of the game is that it can be played by anyone nearly anywhere, one of the few sports that doesn't require much equipment or that. If you start bringing in things like this, it creates a difference in rules and regulations between differing levels of the game.
It's just a small point I think is worth mentioning.

Its really not, every other sport that uses technology manages fine. The professional game is always going to be different due to the resources available, it shouldn't be held back based on that logic. Football will still be able to be played everywhere, how in the world would retrospective action change that?

COYVB

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Things that I hate: When people say "it's a man's sport" it never fails to sound sexist and remarkably pig-headed. There is actually female soccer, it's the same sport. It never fails to amaze me how the phrase has survived and how often it's thrown around. It makes it sound as if women are damsels in distress who can't stay on their feet for more than a minute.

People usually say "it's a man's sport" when referring to men's football though, which, last time I checked, was a sport exclusively for men...

COYVB

Omackeral wrote: »

It was mentioned that it would be easy easy to implement retroactive action or on the spot video evidence to nail divers/cheats. That's fine for the EPL where multiple cameras and angles are available but how far down the totem pole do you go?

The beauty of the game is that it can be played by anyone nearly anywhere, one of the few sports that doesn't require much equipment or that. If you start bringing in things like this, it creates a difference in rules and regulations between differing levels of the game.
It's just a small point I think is worth mentioning.

There's a universe of difference between top level football and grass roots football. They've got much the same rules, but they're completely different games. I don't think the use of technology in the professional game would be to the detriment of the lower levels, which would continue on exactly as they are right now

764dak

Omackeral wrote: »

It was mentioned that it would be easy easy to implement retroactive action or on the spot video evidence to nail divers/cheats. That's fine for the EPL where multiple cameras and angles are available but how far down the totem pole do you go?

The beauty of the game is that it can be played by anyone nearly anywhere, one of the few sports that doesn't require much equipment or that. If you start bringing in things like this, it creates a difference in rules and regulations between differing levels of the game.
It's just a small point I think is worth mentioning.

Cricket and tennis use replays at the highest levels but most tennis and cricket matches would not have technology like that.

Turtyturd

Think I mentioned this on the last thread but retrospective bans bring in their own problems. What happens if a team are relegated by a penalty resulting from a dive...do you just say tough sh*t?

'Yeah we know you are losing millions but chin up he is going to receive a ban during the week.'

AdamD

Turtyturd wrote: »

Think I mentioned this on the last thread but retrospective bans bring in their own problems. What happens if a team are relegated by a penalty resulting from a dive...do you just say tough sh*t?

'Yeah we know you are losing millions but chin up he is going to receive a ban during the week.'

That's not a problem brought on by retrospective bans, its just one not solved by them.

Kirby

Turtyturd wrote: »

Think I mentioned this on the last thread but retrospective bans bring in their own problems. What happens if a team are relegated by a penalty resulting from a dive...do you just say tough sh*t?

'Yeah we know you are losing millions but chin up he is going to receive a ban during the week.'

That's just part of the game though with everything. Be it an offside, or a red card, or a penalty given or not given etc. It's not a reason to refrain from punishing diving retrospectively.

For example, they retrospectively rescind incorrect red cards......it doesn't help the team who lost because of it but that's done now. They at least try to amend the mistake. Should they let the red card stand because "sure the points are gone anyway?" Of course not.

GLaDOS

Omackeral wrote: »

It was mentioned that it would be easy easy to implement retroactive action or on the spot video evidence to nail divers/cheats. That's fine for the EPL where multiple cameras and angles are available but how far down the totem pole do you go?

The beauty of the game is that it can be played by anyone nearly anywhere, one of the few sports that doesn't require much equipment or that. If you start bringing in things like this, it creates a difference in rules and regulations between differing levels of the game.
It's just a small point I think is worth mentioning.

Targeting it at the top level would go a long way towards tackling it at all levels. Schoolboy footballers dive because they see their heros doing it on TV.

Cypher_sounds

rob316 wrote: »

This is a cliché at this stage but it really is the scurge of the game. Im not going to name and shame as we all know who dives, but it just seems to be getting worse.

I like to think its a physical, tough sport, football but watching players at any level throw themselves on the floor with zero or minimal contact is ruining the game.

What can be done to eradicate from the game? Red cards seem a bit much.
Its not cut and dry either, its seems to be a matter of opinion who dived and who didn't.

If we eradicate diving from the game where would that leave goalkeepers?

srfc19

Am I the only one who appreciates a good dive??

I also like last man fouls that save goals and players punching balls off the line.

Playing football at any level from about U-14 up is about winning. If you don't complain when your team does it you're a filthy hypocrite. If you complain when your team does it then you don't have a clue what supporting/playing for a team is actually about.

Andersonisgod

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What if we're only talking about the mens game?



The dubious goals panel could double up. I doubt they're particularly snowed under



You get punished for that though. every time.

I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with refs giving fouls for people being pulled around the box either.

The all encompassing term "sport" was used and then followed up by the rather sexist phrase in the original post. It's nothing major, I'm not trying to make a big thing of it and credit to the OP who realised the issue with such a phrase and promptly edited the post. It's an interesting topic, my issue was a small one but one which I felt needed to be addressed, the OP kindly obliged, it's over, the discussion on the topic can continue.

COYVB

Turtyturd wrote: »

Think I mentioned this on the last thread but retrospective bans bring in their own problems. What happens if a team are relegated by a penalty resulting from a dive...do you just say tough sh*t?

'Yeah we know you are losing millions but chin up he is going to receive a ban during the week.'

The current system is that they're relegated anyway, and the player isn't banned

pickarooney

i can't even watch games any more when do much time is taken up with this bollocks of "well there was contact..."

Morzadec

I find it hard how those who advocate retrospective banning can see the issue so black and white.

Someone mentioned Balotelli earlier and how he's great at drawing fouls. Suarez is an expert too - turns his body in front of the ball and draws contact. It's a foul no doubt, but it's very clever (some would say devious) by Suarez who knows he's going to be hit.

What do we do with these types of plays under retrospective banning?

The problem is that if you ban one, and not the other, you are essentially saying to the players "that's ok. We endorse that." in relation to ll the half-dives, all the grey areas (which are the majority of "dives" we talk about.

The problem then gets worse IMO.

I posted on this a while back. Here there are 4 grey-area dives. I would honestly be interested in hearing how people think they should be retrospectively punished (if so), imagining that the rule was in effect:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83876376&postcount=22

GLaDOS

Banning the obvious dives will make players think twice about trying it at all, in case it doesn't come off the way they planned.

It's not a perfect solution but it's better than doing nothing because you can't cover every single dive. I can't see how it would make the situation worse, it's essentially endorsed anyway because most of the time they're not picked up on anyway.

Morzadec

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Banning the obvious dives will make players think twice about trying it at all, in case it doesn't come off the way they planned.

It's not a perfect solution but it's better than doing nothing because you can't cover every single dive. I can't see how it would make the situation worse, it's essentially endorsed anyway because most of the time they're not picked up on anyway.

Because if you only ban the very obvious, stonewall, 100% no doubt, dives (which are very rare), and then make the decision not to ban the half-dives and grey areas (which I believe are hard to ban) then it constitutes an official review, a study of the "dive" in slow motion, various angles etc... At the end of that if the diving commission say 'there was no dive' then they are saying it should have been a penalty, calling into question the referees decision and essentially saying that is fair game.

For example, the Gerrard in Istanbul one in the post I put up. What would you do with that?

A) We can decide it was a dive and ban Gerrard, and say that the ref got it wrong.

Quite harsh considering he was probably somewhat impeded (illegally) by Gattuso. Also we need to consider the stigma that comes with the label "diver", which has already been discussed as being seen by most as by far the worst type of cheat. Gerrard will have been unequivocally and officially labelled a diver and a "cheat" and all that it connotes - how might this affect his image, which is very important to a top footballer? Also the CL has been won by "cheating" in this scenario - what does that say for the sport? People calling for video reviews during the match... Then the debate gets messier and messier.

Difficult to make such a big decision when there was clear contact, arguably enough to send someone running in full flow to the floor, so definitely not ideal.

We can decide that it was not a dive or at least not a conclusive dive and vindicate the refs decision to award the penalty.

That equates to UEFA basically saying "if a player feels he has been in any way impeded by the opposition, it's fair game to fall over to draw the referees attention to the fact he has been impeded. The referee should give the free kick/penalty in this situation".

Far from ideal either, and I would say it would encourage players to go over more easily and also encourage referees to blow up more (if their decision will later be adjudged incorrect by an official diving commission).

Also far from ideal, and in case B you most certainly encourage further half-dives, all so you can punish the very small handful of stonewall divers that we very occasionally see.

Also it's been mentioned before that the game is not played exclusively in Britain and Ireland. We have a very different footballing culture to many nations, particularly Spain, Portugal, Italy and South American countries. If you watch any of La Liga you will notice the league is refereed completely differently. Aspas at Liverpool is finding out how hard this is as he has looked up in shock several times when an aggressive challenge sends him to the floor and he does not get a free kick.

Going back to the Gerrard example, I imagine that if you asked a hundred British refs and 100 Spanish refs if the referee made the right decision, the majority of British refs would disagree, whereas the Spaniards would say the right decision was made.