Is it okay for Saints players to dive and cheat?

[tajjuk]

I think you need to accept that some people have a different opinion on this.

 

I have seen a few dives from Lallana and other Saints players in recent seasons which have been quite frankly embarrassing but this for me was different. IMO uppermost in JRod's mind was to nick the ball away from the defender and avoid the oncoming challenge. By doing this (and you need to look at the position of his left leg), then he could do nothing but go down. It was not a penalty, quite clearly, but I don't think you can blame the ref as from his position it looked like one.

 

 

Thing is though wtf is doing if he isn't diving? The challenge wasn't in the slightest bit dangerous to him and if he'd just continued his run he'd either have got a stonewall pen or he might have got a shot at goal.

 

Instead he just looked a bit of an idiot, I give hime some credit for not rolling aorund or claiming anything so I don't think he set out to cheat, but he difficult to call it anything but a dive. A huge slice of luck for us.

[The Kraken]

Thing is though wtf is doing if he isn't diving? The challenge wasn't in the slightest bit dangerous to him and if he'd just continued his run he'd either have got a stonewall pen or he might have got a shot at goal.

 

Instead he just looked a bit of an idiot, I give hime some credit for not rolling aorund or claiming anything so I don't think he set out to cheat, but he difficult to call it anything but a dive. A huge slice of luck for us.

 

Agreed. And even if he was getting out of the way of the incoming challenge he was still diving to do so. So it still can be a justified penalty and a dive from JRod, and its certainly not my intention to call the player a cheat. I just think he saw the challenge coming and dived for a penalty.

 

I've read 3 or 4 different newspapers yesterday and a couple this morning, plus all of the TV commentary. I'm yet to hear any neutral pundit or reporter call it as anything other than a dive. That can't all be because of biassed opinion against Saints or clueless reporters. The only place being given credence that it wasn't a dive is seemingly on here.

 

Oh well. Not that it matters a great deal, some people think it was a dive and some don't. I don't claim to understand the not a dive viewpoint and certainly don't agree with it, but that's their opinion and so be it. I am just quite surprised at the sheer amount of people that don't think it was a dive.

[Big Bad Bob]

I think its funny also how literally everyone (MOTD, Goals on Sunday etc) ignore the fact Halsey has said the penalty was for the Guzan challenge on Puncheon.

 

Thing is we only have one Twitteratti claiming Crosby said this. Shouldn't Halsey himself come out and say what the penalty was for??

[Whitey Grandad]

Agreed. And even if he was getting out of the way of the incoming challenge he was still diving to do so. So it still can be a justified penalty and a dive from JRod, and its certainly not my intention to call the player a cheat. I just think he saw the challenge coming and dived for a penalty.

 

I've read 3 or 4 different newspapers yesterday and a couple this morning, plus all of the TV commentary. I'm yet to hear any neutral pundit or reporter call it as anything other than a dive. That can't all be because of biassed opinion against Saints or clueless reporters. The only place being given credence that it wasn't a dive is seemingly on here.

 

Oh well. Not that it matters a great deal, some people think it was a dive and some don't. I don't claim to understand the not a dive viewpoint and certainly don't agree with it, but that's their opinion and so be it. I am just quite surprised at the sheer amount of people that don't think it was a dive.

The Sunday Times yesterday was quite equivocal about it. Personally I don't think it was a dive in the sense of 'simulation', rather a deliberate sprawl in order to move the ball on and avoid any potential damage. The way that both arms go forward in order to allow him to recover and get up quickly would seem to support this. In almost all case of diving/exaggeration/simulation the arms will go up in the air and often the player is looking at the referee before he hits the ground. J-Rod looks genuinely surprised at the outcome. There again, if it was given for a foul on Puncheon it's all academic.

[tajjuk]

Agreed. And even if he was getting out of the way of the incoming challenge he was still diving to do so. So it still can be a justified penalty and a dive from JRod, and its certainly not my intention to call the player a cheat. I just think he saw the challenge coming and dived for a penalty.

 

I've read 3 or 4 different newspapers yesterday and a couple this morning, plus all of the TV commentary. I'm yet to hear any neutral pundit or reporter call it as anything other than a dive. That can't all be because of biassed opinion against Saints or clueless reporters. The only place being given credence that it wasn't a dive is seemingly on here.

 

Oh well. Not that it matters a great deal, some people think it was a dive and some don't. I don't claim to understand the not a dive viewpoint and certainly don't agree with it, but that's their opinion and so be it. I am just quite surprised at the sheer amount of people that don't think it was a dive.

 

Agree, can't see how it's not a dive. I can see the argument that he's not cheat (and he has no previous for this sort of behiavour either) but for a split second their at some level he's gone to ground on purpose.

 

Although I don't play football at the highest level, I have been playing for close to 20 years and never in my experience have I been in situation where something like that would happen to me. I've had situations like Gareth Bale had against Sunderland where your running at full pelt concentrating on the ball and you get a slight knock, you loose balance and go down in stages, which whilst it looks bad, isn't a dive but some fans will reckon it is because they all think unless it's a booming two footed challenge anyone going down is going down too easily (usualy the kind of fans who have never run full plet at anything and are unlikely to have ever played the game at any competitive level). But never have a I sprinted for a ball, controlled it and then folded sideways onto the ground to 'avoid' a challenge, you either hurdle it or you get tripped.

[the stain]

If the penalty was for Puncheon being fouled, that doesn't negate the fact that Rodriguez dived and everyone (bar people on here) saw him dive. For a few months (if he keeps his nose clean) he'll be known as a diver and then people will forget about it (unless you're a Villa fan - particularly if they go down and we stay up just above them)

[trousers]

Thing is though wtf is doing if he isn't diving? The challenge wasn't in the slightest bit dangerous to him

 

In that instinctual moment that he saw the player coming at him how was he supposed to work out what the likely outcome was?

 

Take the other night...I was sitting on the sofa with the Lady Trousers and she suddenly pointed at something. I flinched as all I saw out of the corner of my eye was a finger coming in my direction. Cue the missus saying "what on earth did you flinch for you silly bugger? My finger was nowhere near you"

 

Now, if I had an instant replay of my wife's finger coming twoards me and the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't have over-reacted as much as I did.

 

The fact that the player's lunge turned out not to be as dangerous as it might of been is neither here nor there. It's perfectly possible for a human being to instinctively react as if a worst case scenario is about to happen even when it doesn't.

 

Human nature. Controlling what we do since c.145,654 BC

[Mustapha Fag]

dont think i would give the FA cup back if we won with a dodgy goal, (or stayed up)

its part of the professional game now and wont go away any time soon

some you win some you lose, time to move on

[tajjuk]

In that instinctual moment that he saw the player coming at him how was he supposed to work out what the likely outcome was?

 

Take the other night...I was sitting on the sofa with the Lady Trousers and she suddenly pointed at something. I flinched as all I saw out of the corner of my eye was a finger coming in my direction. Cue the missus saying "what on earth did you flinch for you silly bugger? My finger was nowhere near you"

 

Now, if I had an instant replay of my wife's finger coming twoards me and the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't have over-reacted as much as I did.

 

The fact that the player's lunge turned out not to be as dangerous as it might of been is neither here nor there. It's perfectly possible for a human being to instinctively react as if a worst case scenario is about to happen even when it doesn't.

 

Human nature. Controlling what we do since c.145,654 BC

 

Because he's a footballer and in theory will have been tackled thousands of times, thus would know a dangled leg wasn't going to injure him. Also top level athletes makes decisions in miliseconds based on tiny movements, he knew the tackle was coming and at some level decided he would go down regardless of any contact. He dived.

[iansums]

In that instinctual moment that he saw the player coming at him how was he supposed to work out what the likely outcome was?

 

Take the other night...I was sitting on the sofa with the Lady Trousers and she suddenly pointed at something. I flinched as all I saw out of the corner of my eye was a finger coming in my direction. Cue the missus saying "what on earth did you flinch for you silly bugger? My finger was nowhere near you"

 

Now, if I had an instant replay of my wife's finger coming twoards me and the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't have over-reacted as much as I did.

 

The fact that the player's lunge turned out not to be as dangerous as it might of been is neither here nor there. It's perfectly possible for a human being to instinctively react as if a worst case scenario is about to happen even when it doesn't.

 

Human nature. Controlling what we do since c.145,654 BC

 

I want to know what happens when you move your finger towards Mrs Trousers!

[trousers]

Because he's a footballer and in theory will have been tackled thousands of times, thus would know a dangled leg wasn't going to injure him. Also top level athletes makes decisions in miliseconds based on tiny movements, he knew the tackle was coming and at some level decided he would go down regardless of any contact. He dived.

 

Agree with the crux of that - the only point we differ on is that I have a hunch that he didn't, in that split second, consciously decide to con the ref into giving a penalty. I've no scientific evidence to back this up. It's just what I feel. If that's a thought crime then guilty as charged.

[trousers]

I want to know what happens when you move your finger towards Mrs Trousers!

 

Serious injury usually

[trousers]

If the penalty was for Puncheon being fouled, that doesn't negate the fact that Rodriguez dived and everyone (bar people on here) saw him dive.

 

And someone's Villa supporting mate.... #pedanticdetail

 

Even my Villa supporting mate agreed, it was not a dive.

[tajjuk]

Agree with the crux of that - the only point we differ on is that I have a hunch that he didn't, in that split second, consciously decide to con the ref into giving a penalty. I've no scientific evidence to back this up. It's just what I feel. If that's a thought crime then guilty as charged.

 

I'm not sure he conciously decided either, I think he did it instinctively because he wasn't going to get the ball, I think he sees the potential challenge coming and goes down expecting some contact, however he msijudges it and ends up going over with no contact. If he had got it right he would have fallen over the leg and there would have been some debate about him going down too easily rather than diving.

 

I'm going round in circles a bit here but in summary -

 

I don't think he cheated or set out to con the ref, I think he thought he was going to be fouled in the box and wanted to ensure he got the penalty but misjudged it slightly.

[Bearsy]

Here is independant view from football365 this morning, FWIW:

 

"Jay Rodriguez has been blasted for his 'dive', but I would argue that the striker deserved his penalty. Law 12 of the rules of the game states that a direct free-kick is to be awarded when a player 'kicks or attempts to kick an opponent' or 'trips or attempts to trip an opponent'. Contact is not a consideration, and if Rodriguez hadn't moved out the way he would clearly have been brought down and the penalty would have been awarded anyway. He's within his rights to avoid a kick on the ankle and the standard argument that 'anywhere else on the pitch that would be a foul' stands."

[trousers]

I'm not sure he conciously decided either, I think he did it instinctively because he wasn't going to get the ball, I think he sees the potential challenge coming and goes down expecting some contact, however he msijudges it and ends up going over with no contact. If he had got it right he would have fallen over the leg and there would have been some debate about him going down too easily rather than diving.

 

I'm going round in circles a bit here but in summary -

 

I don't think he cheated or set out to con the ref, I think he thought he was going to be fouled in the box and wanted to ensure he got the penalty but misjudged it slightly.

 

In that case I think there are 3 opinions on offer in this debate rather than the 2 opinions that people seem to be pontificatating over...

 

1) That he went to ground instinctively to avoid contact but wasn't seeking to win a penalty per se

2) That he went to ground instinctively to avoid contact but with half a mind on winning the penalty

3) That he went to ground completely unnecessarily with the primary aim of conning the ref and win a penalty

 

My instinct says (1) and I think your instinct is (2). There are plenty on here that I believe think it's (3). All of which are valid opinions of course.

[tajjuk]

In that case I think there are 3 opinions on offer in this debate rather than the 2 opinions that people seem to be pontificatating over...

 

1) That he went to ground instinctively to avoid contact but wasn't seeking to win a penalty per se

2) That he went to ground instinctively to avoid contact but with half a mind on winning the penalty

3) That he went to ground completely unnecessarily with the primary aim of conning the ref and win a penalty

 

My instinct says (1) and I think your instinct is (2). There are plenty on here that I believe think it's (3). All of which are valid opinions of course.

 

Sort of, I think he went to ground instinctively to ensure what he thought was going to be a foul and at the same time reduce the risk of getting hurt but misjudged where the defender's leg was.

[trousers]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/10161092.Saints_legend_sticks_up_for_Rodriguez/

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Whatever people say, it was a penalty according to the rules of the game.

[Barry Sanchez]

Whatever people say, it was a penalty according to the rules of the game.

 

No it was not, the referee was conned, whatever people say they are masking that fact.

Rule 12 also covers simulation, would the referee who has now seen it give that again?

[Whitey Grandad]

No it was not, the referee was conned, whatever people say they are masking that fact.

Rule 12 also covers simulation, would the referee who has now seen it give that again?

 

It was a foul. If a player has to take avoiding action then it is a foul.

[Window Cleaner]

It was a foul. If a player has to take avoiding action then it is a foul.

 

It's like driving your car, in theory if you cause another driver to brake or deviate from his trajectory by inattention or recklessness it's an offence and can get you points docked. Used to be a big favourite of the Bill, driving without due care and attention, they could stick you for anything, lighting fags with both hands off the wheel was their favourite

[Whitey Grandad]

It's like driving your car, in theory if you cause another driver to brake or deviate from his trajectory by inattention or recklessness it's an offence and can get you points docked. Used to be a big favourite of the Bill, driving without due care and attention, they could stick you for anything, lighting fags with both hands off the wheel was their favourite

But this is football, not driving. In practice as well as theory referees can, will and have interpreted 'attempt to trip' as a foul. Players would do well to be aware of this before lunging in carelessly for a ball that they aren't going to reach. If it had been given as a foul in the middle of the pitch then less would have been said about it.

[Barry Sanchez]

It was a foul. If a player has to take avoiding action then it is a foul.

 

How was he avoiding injury when the defenders leg was fully extended? That dive was to gain an unfair advantage. The reactions if this were the other way would be the opposite to this.

[Barry Sanchez]

But this is football, not driving. In practice as well as theory referees can, will and have interpreted 'attempt to trip' as a foul. Players would do well to be aware of this before lunging in carelessly for a ball that they aren't going to reach. If it had been given as a foul in the middle of the pitch then less would have been said about it.

 

He could reach the player but not ball? He could not reach either.

[Barry Sanchez]

It's like driving your car, in theory if you cause another driver to brake or deviate from his trajectory by inattention or recklessness it's an offence and can get you points docked. Used to be a big favourite of the Bill, driving without due care and attention, they could stick you for anything, lighting fags with both hands off the wheel was their favourite

In theory, I have already likened this to that film the minority report.

[Whitey Grandad]

How was he avoiding injury when the defenders leg was fully extended? That dive was to gain an unfair advantage. The reactions if this were the other way would be the opposite to this.

The defender's leg was not fully extended at the time that he nicked the ball away first. If he had planted his right foot at the point where he nicked the ball then he would have been caught on the side of the ankle.

 

He could reach the player but not ball? He could not reach either.

That's because J-Rod got to the ball first and nicked it away, and then got his foot out of the way.

[Whitey Grandad]

No, I get what you're saying. I just don't think there's any need to hit the deck in the way he did just to avoid the challenge. And absolutely not with the left leg.

 

And I think you must have looked at the wrong post. #180 is this one.

 

Sorry for the confusion on my part. On my Ipad using Tapatalk the post numbering was different and the gif wasn't animated.

[trousers]

How was he avoiding injury when the defenders leg was fully extended?

 

FFS...how many more times? At the moment of evasion Rodriguez had no idea how close the defender's foot would get to his leg. That 's the whole point of evasion FFS - you don't wait to see how close the player gets - that wouldn't be evasion.... #sigh

[Barry Sanchez]

Exactly where was he evading injury there? He fell forwards and and in no way tried to move his ankle from the "possible injury zone" , a footballer getting nicked on the ankle, whatever next........

That a soft penalty and I hate to see any player do that

1) refs will now think of him as a diver or someone who goes down easy

2) I hope we dont get any against us like that but the reactions in here will be interesting.

[scotty]

ffs, 8 pages of this??? Cant believe its still festering.

[PhilippineSaint]

Even though Luke made Garth Crooks team of the week he is still having a pop about the penalty man's an utter tvvat

 

 

LEFT-BACK - LUKE SHAW (Southampton)

 

 

There is no doubt that this lad can play. He looked composed in defence and dangerous in attack in the victory over Aston Villa. What a pity Southampton could not retain their credibility by just admitting that the referee got their awarded penalty wrong. But that would mean that Jay Rodriguez had dived and far be it for a football club to ever admit that!

Did you know? Southampton have a 33% win rate with Shaw featuring this season and just 11% without him.

[the stain]

Well, this raises another issue, doesn't it. Do we want the young lad Shaw exposed to this level of cheating? He's still a child really and learning all the time. Do we want him to learn bad habits?

[Whitey Grandad]

Exactly where was he evading injury there? He fell forwards and and in no way tried to move his ankle from the "possible injury zone" , a footballer getting nicked on the ankle, whatever next........

That a soft penalty and I hate to see any player do that

1) refs will now think of him as a diver or someone who goes down easy

2) I hope we dont get any against us like that but the reactions in here will be interesting.

?? He pulls his ankle out of the way as soon as he toes the ball.

[Thedelldays]

On another note. Suarez has come out and admitting to purposely cheating the other week against stoke as he desperately wanted to win

[ToreSF]

Speaking off... Take a look at how Lambert's making space for himself before scoring against chelsea :-)