Simulation

the kelt

Its a blight on the game to be honest.

I like the idea of a yellow card for a blatant dive outside the box and a straight red and one game ban for a dive inside the box trying to win a penalty.

Also use retrospective punishment. If a player has dived but its been missed then enforce the same punishment. One game ban if it was inside the box for example.

I tell you what id like to see though is the likes of defenders getting the same punishment. How many times have we seen a centre back in a spot of bother under pressure fake a dive to get him out of trouble and 95% of times he gets the free, thats as bad as Di Maria trying to win a free on the edge of the penalty area.

Or you could go the whole hog, if a player dives to win a free on the edge of the area, give the opposition a free on the edge of their area in the same position, if he dives to win a penalty, give a penalty to the opposition, now that would end it once and for all!!

TheDoc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Some people have no concept of what fair play or being a sportsperson is supposed to be.

In fairness I've seen enough reaction from parents and managers at kids level to realise there is plenty who have no concept of the game and what their kids should be learning and doing at that level.

I'm not one of those who advocates that scores not be kept, or mental cotton wool stuff like that. But to see a parent (typically father) completely ignore their son taking a dive, or acting the clown after an innocuous challenge, then roar at the ref shouting " thats a ****ing dive" when an opposing player get's tackled, it's mad stuff.

I see all this stuff on SSN about initiatives in England to have parents keep quiet on the sideline, and would laugh thinking how extreme that is. But having gone to games now as a spectator with some vested interested on the pitch as an uncle(and I'm sure down the line my child will take up football possibly) it's incredible watching how parents and managers react to things.

When I was that age myself I never really took head of it and ignored it. My Da and Grandad used to come watch me and they'd never say a thing during the game, would have a chat after in the car on the way home praising what was good and telling me what I was doing poorly.

Like for some perspective(and it was used as a bit of a story at the club to ensure lads wore shinguards) under 15's I played a match where I made a perfectly good tackle and on the follow through shattered a fellas shinguard. He got up in a relatively short time afterwards, I apologised and did the whole " **** are you alright" lark and we shook hands, on with the game. Ref didn't even blow a foul, it was a perfectly good tackle, just my momentum went through.

I'd say if that happened now I'd get a massive ban....

OwaynOTT

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It's always a legit comparison though.

The refs have the respect from the players.
The refs have the technology to support there decisions.
Rugby players don't feign injury / simulate.

Cian Healy took at head to the face against France, got back up straight away.
Soccer player has a hand brush of his chin and he's rolling around like he's shot.

Rugby players don't feign injury as it doesn't gain them an advantage. But they will certainly cheat to gain an advantage in the game.

OwaynOTT

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, I'm seemingly forced to use the point because apparently fans of the game don't have a problem with elite athletes throwing themselves to the ground at every opportunity and rolling around pretending they're hurt in an effort to get opposition players booked. I mean that is absolutely and utterly indefensible and unmanly behaviour, yet it's greeted by a shrug of the shoulders.

So maybe it might drive home how wrong it is when people realise that 10 year olds are starting to do the same thing. Or maybe not. Some people have no concept of what fair play or being a sportsperson is supposed to be.

I'd much rather ten year olds to dive and simulate that is a part of modern football, than follow the example of previous generations where some players went out to take players out of the game with serious injuries. Where any sort of physicality was okay as long as the ref didn't see it.
In my younger days playing underage football, yes I played the game so my point is more valid apparently, I saw some horrific stuff that was influenced by contemporary soccer that glorified physicality and traditional masculinity role models.
At one particular match, I was substituted as I was a bit of a Scholes tackler and saw from the side line one of my teammates smash the jaw of a kid two years younger than him because he was shoved by that kid in the back.
Kid was rushed to hospital and I would have much preferred my teammate to have dropped to the floor and simulated/exaggerated injury.

A dive is harmless and to show or exaggerate pain\injury is not a bad thing it just goes against the traditional ideas around masculinity. It doesn't help support hegemonic masculinity.
What is manly behaviour?

Personally I live seeing great athletes compete against each other, using every sinew and ounce of desire to win,to push themselves further to achieve their goals.
I have no problem with cheating as it's just another weapon being utilised,when it's done right. It's the use of your brain and intelligence when done right.

If anything it teaches kids a valuable lesson, that no matter if you do everything by the rules, there will be injustice in the world and you will lose out.
Cheating represents reality. people cheat all the time, speeding up for orange lights, not paying for parking, taking 'supplements' to achieve more physicality in rugby, pretending they were fouled in a match, etc.

And if anything if a great athlete still comes out on top despite the cheating of other players, victory is even more sweet.

Hegemonic masculinity, traditional male role models and being manly is all a load of cods wallop. An invention of past ages that some people nowadays take as the only reality for being a man.
It all a load of bull****ing.
Boys use to be dressed in pink as kids, as it represented a more powerful colour and girls were in blue as it was seen as more feminine. Different nowadays and masculinity is likewise an invention.

Kirby

We wont be rid of it until the governing bodies take a hard stance against it and start banning players for it. Until that happens, all the talk in the world is irrelevant.

That wont happen. It doesn't help that apparently some fans and pundits enjoy a good dive. They use phrases like "he was clever there" or "there was contact" to excuse it. Whether a player has been touched, or fouled has no bearing on whether he has simulated falling over.....and some people just cant quite grasp this.

And sure we cant ignore the ever populur "he was moving at pace!" Because we all know the laws of gravity change when a person runs and a pull back of your shirt causes you to fall forwards.

Damn gravity!

LuckyLloyd

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Rugby players don't feign injury as it doesn't gain them an advantage. But they will certainly cheat to gain an advantage in the game.

As predicted, you'll always have someone focussing on extreme outliers in threads like this. You do know that Rugby imposed a massive unprecedented penalty on those involved in the above incident?

LuckyLloyd

OwaynOTT wrote: »

I'd much rather ten year olds to dive and simulate that is a part of modern football, than follow the example of previous generations where some players went out to take players out of the game with serious injuries. Where any sort of physicality was okay as long as the ref didn't see it.
In my younger days playing underage football, yes I played the game so my point is more valid apparently, I saw some horrific stuff that was influenced by contemporary soccer that glorified physicality and traditional masculinity role models.
At one particular match, I was substituted as I was a bit of a Scholes tackler and saw from the side line one of my teammates smash the jaw of a kid two years younger than him because he was shoved by that kid in the back.
Kid was rushed to hospital and I would have much preferred my teammate to have dropped to the floor and simulated/exaggerated injury.

A dive is harmless and to show or exaggerate pain\injury is not a bad thing it just goes against the traditional ideas around masculinity. It doesn't help support hegemonic masculinity.
What is manly behaviour?

Personally I live seeing great athletes compete against each other, using every sinew and ounce of desire to win,to push themselves further to achieve their goals.
I have no problem with cheating as it's just another weapon being utilised,when it's done right. It's the use of your brain and intelligence when done right.

If anything it teaches kids a valuable lesson, that no matter if you do everything by the rules, there will be injustice in the world and you will lose out.
Cheating represents reality. people cheat all the time, speeding up for orange lights, not paying for parking, taking 'supplements' to achieve more physicality in rugby, pretending they were fouled in a match, etc.

And if anything if a great athlete still comes out on top despite the cheating of other players, victory is even more sweet.

Hegemonic masculinity, traditional male role models and being manly is all a load of cods wallop. An invention of past ages that some people nowadays take as the only reality for being a man.
It all a load of bull****ing.
Boys use to be dressed in pink as kids, as it represented a more powerful colour and girls were in blue as it was seen as more feminine. Different nowadays and masculinity is likewise an invention.

The type of brutal targeting you talk about at the top of the above post is long gone from the game.

Female athletes with a good sense of sportmansship don't dive or feign injury. The fact that the elite level of the women's game is ahead on this point is so very damning. Forget being a man, being a decent human doesn't involve the kind of ridiculous behaviour you are attempting to defend above.

Qualities like honesty, bravery and Inherant fair play are worth fighting for in the face of weakness like the above.

OwaynOTT

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

As predicted, you'll always have someone focussing on extreme outliers in threads like this. You do know that Rugby imposed a massive unprecedented penalty on those involved in the above incident?

There's diving in football because it gains an advantage. There's no diving in ruby as it doesn't really give them an advantage but rugby isn't free from cheating. That was the point and sometimes it is useful to use extreme examples and sensationalise something which you yourself are not adverse to.

Diving is no worse than refusing to roll away, handling on the ground, making second moments.
Actually making second movements is akin to diving. The player is pretending that he hasn't been grounded to gain an advantage, so he is simulating that he kept his feet.
Diving is simulating not be able to keep your feet.


And no surprise that you ignored that football in the past with its extreme physicality and reckless violence being a poor example to kids.
Rather you feel diving is to be iradicated because it sets a poor example because it go against this notion of manliness.

Diving is only cheating and as such is no worse than grappling in the box.

OwaynOTT

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Rugby players don't feign injury as it doesn't gain them an advantage. But they will certainly cheat to gain an advantage in the game.

Cheating may exist but much less that soccer. Let's be honest. **** all leverage for a rugby player to cheat because the correct systems are in place.

#15

OwaynOTT wrote: »

If anything it teaches kids a valuable lesson, that no matter if you do everything by the rules, there will be injustice in the world and you will lose out.

It is important that children learn that lesson. But there are better ways to approach it than in the middle of a sporting contest.

Speaking from personal experiences of coaching kids, diving is having a negative influence on the way children play soccer these days. We have one particularly gifted player in our setup at the moment, but he is impeding his own and his team's progress by flinging himself to the ground at every opportunity and even resorting to fake crying at times. It's at the stage where it is affecting his friendships with some of the other kids. Admittedly, this is probably an extreme case but I wouldn't be surprised to hear other coaches experiencing similar things with their kids.

It is very difficult to explain to the children that they shouldn't dive when almost every top level player is at it.

Soccer as a whole has become blind to this issue - it's so commonplace that people don't even see how ridiculous it looks anymore.

It's absolutely pathetic to see elite level athletes, all in prime physical shape, collapsing and feigning injuries on a regular basis. Pathetic.

#15

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Diving is only cheating and as such is no worse than grappling in the box.

Kirby pointed out a key difference earlier.

Kirby wrote: »

That wont happen. It doesn't help that apparently some fans and pundits enjoy a good dive. They use phrases like "he was clever there" or "there was contact" to excuse it.

Shirt-tuggers are generally not defended to anywhere the near same extent as divers.

On respecting referees... Chelsea players last night surrounding the ref. There's a good image of it in the humour thread
Last nights match highlighted a lot of the same issues

OwaynOTT

M!Ck^ wrote: »

On respecting referees... Chelsea players last night surrounding the ref. There's a good image of it in the humour thread
Last nights match highlighted a lot of the same issues

Treatment of the refs needs to be sorted more so than anything else. It would help alleviate a lot of the instances of cheating.

AdamD

Treatment of the refs starts with punishments. Rugby players would be just as bad if it wasn't a guaranteed penalty against them and possible yellow card for any chat back. Its not as if they're all somehow morally superior, its just that the rules are different.

grumpymunster

I thought referees were allowed to book players for unsporting behaviour? That being the case the power is in their hands with regard to being surrounded by players book them it is that easy, and if they do it again send them off. Oliver set a great example with Di Maria the other night but it means nowt if other referees do not do the same. Any player being abusive to a ref should have sanction but if the referees allow it to happen then by and large they only have themselves to blame.

grumpymunster

grumpymunster wrote: »

I thought referees were allowed to book players for unsporting behaviour? That being the case the power is in their hands with regard to being surrounded by players book them it is that easy, and if they do it again send them off. Oliver set a great example with Di Maria the other night but it means nowt if other referees do not do the same. Any player being abusive to a ref should have sanction but if the referees allow it to happen then by and large they only have themselves to blame.

I don't want to single out Chelsea here but they are the worst for surrounding refs on any big decision
Joses disrespect for decisions / refs influences this on the pitch
John Terry as captain should be the only man near the ref going by the rules but looks like he also encourages this mob tactic

Iused2likebusts

defenders going OTT in pretending that a player dived has also become very prevalant in recent years and is nearly as bad as diving.

bad2dabone

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I don't want to single out Chelsea here but they are the worst for surrounding refs on any big decision
Joses disrespect for decisions / refs influences this on the pitch
John Terry as captain should be the only man near the ref going by the rules but looks like he also encourages this mob tactic

Don’t take it that I’m having a go Mick, cos I’m not, but United were famous for badgering referees under Ferguson’s reign. And Ferguson used to engage in similar tactics to mourinho of using the media and his pressers to pressurise refs. I think Mourinho and Chelsea have taken that behaviour to the next level.
I’ve never seen the entire team bar the goalie surround a ref.
I fully agree that only the captain should be allowed approach a ref, but until refs start dishing out cards and being more assertive to the players this tactic will continue to be used to gain an advantage.

grumpymunster

You dont want to single out Chelsea so you do single out Chelsea excellent work there.

United are the worst team in the PL for diving but that is immaterial every team does it. Every team tries to influence referees, every manager is critical of decisions that go against them United under Fergie made an art form of it and he was possibly the best PL manager ever. To say any team is worse at it is at best biased but being a Chelsea supporter I am fairly well used to hearing that levelled against us. The same as the days of ABU's it is just jealously which is very pleasing for me.

But in all honesty what does it matter if referees do not take action then teams will do as they please be it Chelsea, United anyone that I would have thought is blindingly obvious. I am also a big rugby fan most referees do encourage dialogue but not disrespect. As you quite rightly pointed out only captains have the right to discuss a decision and even then only if the referee allows him for example Nigel Owen does but Leighton Hodges does not (maybe because he is a poor ref but it is the case). But it is not unusual to see a player discuss a point with a referee during a break in play.

Liam O

grumpymunster wrote: »

You dont want to single out Chelsea so you do single out Chelsea excellent work there.

United are the worst team in the PL for diving but that is immaterial every team does it. Every team tries to influence referees, every manager is critical of decisions that go against them United under Fergie made an art form of it and he was possibly the best PL manager ever. To say any team is worse at it is at best biased but being a Chelsea supporter I am fairly well used to hearing that levelled against us. The same as the days of ABU's it is just jealously which is very pleasing for me.

Ha, United get 2 players booked for diving this year and they are suddenly the worst. I don't think you've seen much of United in the last few years with some of those statements tbh.

Mickeroo

Can we drop the point scoring/your club is worse than mine stuff before it excalates and washes the thread down the drain?

It's very easy to use a specific incident as an example without having to tack on "<club I don't support> is the worst for <controversial incident of the day>" hyperbole on the end.

Up until the last few posts there was actually a proper debate happening about the actual sport this forum is dedicated to, which was pretty refreshing I have to say. So let's try and keep it that way?

Pro. F

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Not feasable unless the referee is supported by video technology. Diving in football can be very difficult for a referee to judge. Then to give somebody a red card within any form of supporting evidance just won't work.

I agree, asking referees to take on more responsibilities by giving reds for diving wouldn't work. The job of the referee is already nearly impossible to do well because of the lack of information they have and the high stakes of every decision they make. Upping the stakes in their decision making would result in them making more errors.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Another point on this;
Somebody mentioned retrospective banning. I believe this wouldn't work either. For arguments sake a player dives and is awarded a penalty, the team score from that penalty and it effects the outcome of that game. The decision has already been made during the match. Then after match its deemed that the player has dived and is retrospectively given a red card. What good is that to the opposing manger and of course the player who has made the tackle, was the player who made the challenge sent off also for example? This would also bring dispute to all other decisions after each match. You would end opening up a constant barrage of decisions being disputed and would only end up adding more confusion.

In your example it wouldn't help the team that lost a penalty and/or got a player sent off because of the dive. And you know what? That is not a problem. It's not even slightly a problem. The point you are missing is that a solution doesn't need to be perfect in order to reach a beneficial outcome.

- Retrospective banning of divers and injury feigners would result in a much reduced frequency of diving and feigning without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

- Giving red and yellow cards for bad tackles results in a much reduced frequency of bad tackles without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

- Banning drink driving results in a much reduced frequency of alcohol related road deaths without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

- Introducing health and safety regulations results in a much reduced frequency of work place accidents without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

You could use your argument of how the rule under discussion is an imperfect solution because of a particular hypothetical situation against all of the rules I mentioned above. Your argument works equally well against those other rules. The only reason that you don't use that argument against the other rules is because you have already experienced the positive outcomes that they produce. With a proposed rule, like retrospective punishment for diving, you have to actively think about what the positive outcome would be.

With regards to your second argument, that retrospective punishment for diving would bring dispute to all other decisions made in a game, that already happens. Every single bit of football punditry and the vast majority of manager interviews is already dominated by criticism of refereeing decisions from the game under consideration.

GBXI

The problem (diving, over-reacting, simulation, intimidating refs) is down to the referees, and more specifically the higher powers, i.e. UEFA/FIFA.

The culture of diving and feigning injury after a tackle in an attempt to influence the ref came from the Latin countries, in my opinion. They view this as a part of the game, whereas in this part of the world it is totally unacceptable. These countries, outside of the British Isles and Ireland, have the most pro footballers and a huge influence on the game. Then with the globalization of football you have UCL games, like last night, where refs from outside the British Isles/Ireland officiate the game very different to what we are used to. You have Ibra getting a red card that just wouldn't have been given by an English ref, for example.

It's poor officiating, makes for horrible viewing, and badly needs to be sorted out. But it can only be sorted out by those at the top and unfortunately, as I said, they don't see it as a problem in the first place.

Pro. F

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Rugby players don't feign injury as it doesn't gain them an advantage. But they will certainly cheat to gain an advantage in the game.

This is so important. Rugby is a great example of how proactive rule making can result in positive outcomes. Lot's of people think that rugby players are inherently more honest. They aren't, but they play under a ruleset that is infinitely more effective at achieving the desired results and a governing body that are ready to try new rules and adjustments as the opportunities arise.

LuckyLloyd

Pro F: brilliant. It doesn't need to be perfect or eliminate every loophole or edge case to be worth doing. Football fans are forever paralysed by over analysis when it comes to proposed rule or structure changes.

And let's leave the club biases aside, who gives a ****. This topic is bigger than that.

grumpymunster

I would have little issue with retrospective action but I am not sure simulation should be a red card offence, yellow certainly but red no. I would like to see verbal abuse of a ref a red card to be honest. Thing is whatever they do (FIFA, UEFA, FA whoever) it needs to be fair if a player is going to get a retrospective yellow for diving then where it is shown the ref made a mistake and booked a player when he was fouled then that should be rescinded. At some stage it has to be recognised that referees are human professional football at the top level things can happen very quickly so they will make mistakes. There are shed loads of cameras at top flight professional games, there are cameras at pretty much every professional game in the major leagues. When the ref makes a mistake it will be spotted and if a serious error it will be debated if the outcome of the game is affected.

For example if PSG had lost last night they would have had every justification to feel hard done by with regard to the red card but by and large it is not being discussed because they won thus the card did not have a direct effect on the game (hopefully it will be rescinded would be unfair on PSG in the first leg of the quarter otherwise).

Also it needs to be addressed is the simulation or crowding of a ref a club thing or a player thing? A yellow card may not bother the player more than the club so would a card and a fine be appropriate? For me yes fine the player every time regardless of simulation or abusing the ref, fine the club every time for abusing the ref and the club also if more than a certain amount of simulations per season.

The really sad thing is there are already rules there which could be applied but they are not and that makes a mockery of the so called respect campaign.

LuckyLloyd

Grumpy, totally agree - a review board should work both ways.

The refs are there to make the best call they can make at the time. But we shouldn't be locking ourselves into those decisions from a punishment / non punishment perspective after the final whistle blows.

=============

Another simple positive change on top of only allowing Captains to talk to referees would be having a 4th official or 5th official act as timekeeper and take that responsibility off the referees.

Bridge93

Retrospective action has to come in. You can't red card as you do see people being booked for diving when they haven't. A red card for this would lead to a few cases of people being sent off when they should not be. So ban them after the game heavily. Has to be heavy to scare off cheats who see no problem potentially wrecking other teams seasons if they win penalties etc.

Separate note is retrospective action must come in for tackles etc too. This nonsense that if the ref sees it you can't be punished after is terrible, basically saying refs are never wrong (and by God is that way off.) refs can be wrong (Ashley Barnes) and there should be cover like every other sport even if the ref "sees it" but clearly not well enough.

MythicalMadMan

Article on drugs in sport focusing on Rugby

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/13/uk-anti-doping-chief-worried-by-teenage-steroid-abuse-and-rugby

Kirby

Bridge93 wrote: »

Retrospective action has to come in. You can't red card as you do see people being booked for diving when they haven't.

When? This almost never happens. Perhaps once a season, if that. If you can point me to an example of this I'd appreciate it. I would remind you that a dive is still a dive whether a foul has occurred or not.

When people talk about players being booked for diving when they haven't, they are usually incorrect and letting their bias take over. Jose likes to bring the Fabregas incident up as an example of a player wrongly booked for simulation and he's way off. He has done so repeatedly in press conferences this season and on Goals on Sunday. Fabregas was caught, yet he chose to go down. Was he fouled? Yes. Did he dive? Yes. If you stay on your feet, you wont get booked. He isn't getting any sympathy from me for getting a booking.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Can we drop the point scoring/your club is worse than mine stuff before it excalates and washes the thread down the drain?

It's very easy to use a specific incident as an example without having to tack on "<club I don't support> is the worst for <controversial incident of the day>" hyperbole on the end.

Up until the last few posts there was actually a proper debate happening about the actual sport this forum is dedicated to, which was pretty refreshing I have to say. So let's try and keep it that way?

To note: This wasn't my intention. Only used an example because it came to light during the week, I admit I could have worded it better.