Mourinho on diving - and what is the solution?

[TopGun]

So Mourinho is claiming the world is against Chelsea following Targett's tackle on Fabregas that ended up with a yellow for Fabregas for diving rather than a penalty...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30620007

 

I think we can agree it was a wrong refereeing decision.

 

But Mourinho and many other managers refuse to criticise their own players for diving when it is an obvious one. So many of them are hypocrites. What's the answer?

 

I think a retrospective panel should be set up to correct wrong calls by referees on diving. And a dive should merit a two game ban even if the ref spotted it and gave a yellow out. I think that would make players cheat less and make it easier for the referees.

[Sour Mash]

So Mourinho is claiming the world is against Chelsea following Targett's tackle on Fabregas that ended up with a yellow for Fabregas for diving rather than a penalty...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30620007

 

I think we can agree it was a wrong refereeing decision.

 

But Mourinho and many other managers refuse to criticise their own players for diving when it is an obvious one. So many of them are hypocrites. What's the answer?

 

I think a retrospective panel should be set up to correct wrong calls by referees on diving. And a dive should merit a two game ban even if the ref spotted it and gave a yellow out. I think that would make players cheat less and make it easier for the referees.

Which dives would be covered by this panel? Every single one that happens in a game?

[TopGun]

Which dives would be covered by this panel? Every single one that happens in a game?

 

Why not? Plenty of time to review them.

[Sour Mash]

Why not? Plenty of time to review them.

What would the definition of a dive be?

[TopGun]

What would the definition of a dive be?

 

My simplistic suggestion is when it is obvious. Otherwise no action.

[Batman]

My simplistic answer is when it is obvious. Otherwise no action.

 

gary cahill v hull the other week was clearly a dive. was a funny one too

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m29ZR5KLpps

[ecuk268]

It would be good if players only fell over if they really couldn't stay on their feet. I heard Michael Owen commentating on BT Sport recently saying that, if there was contact, then then player "had the right to go down". No he hasn't. He should only go down if he can't do anything else.

 

It seems increasingly common for players to fall over at the slightest touch and that makes it very difficult for referees to tell if the fall was genuine. Even TV replays can't be conclusive.

 

I agree that blatant dives where there is obviously no contact should be more heavily punished although maybe Chelsea's constant whingeing yesterday had the opposite effect which caused the ref to not give them the penalty.

[Batman]

It would be good if players only fell over if they really couldn't stay on their feet. I heard Michael Owen commentating on BT Sport recently saying that, if there was contact, then then player "had the right to go down". No he hasn't. He should only go down if he can't do anything else.

 

It seems increasingly common for players to fall over at the slightest touch and that makes it very difficult for referees to tell if the fall was genuine. Even TV replays can't be conclusive.

 

I agree that blatant dives where there is obviously no contact should be more heavily punished although maybe Chelsea's constant whingeing yesterday had the opposite effect which caused the ref to not give them the penalty.

 

the point being made about ivanovic against west ham the other day. he wet down very easily with the slightest of touches. obviously trying to con the ref/win a penalty.

someone analysing the game asked if Ivanovic would have gone down like the if he was defending his goal....of course he would not

 

obviously, we have benefited from diving too.....

[Sour Mash]

It would be good if players only fell over if they really couldn't stay on their feet. I heard Michael Owen commentating on BT Sport recently saying that, if there was contact, then then player "had the right to go down". No he hasn't. He should only go down if he can't do anything else.

 

It seems increasingly common for players to fall over at the slightest touch and that makes it very difficult for referees to tell if the fall was genuine. Even TV replays can't be conclusive.

 

I agree that blatant dives where there is obviously no contact should be more heavily punished although maybe Chelsea's constant whingeing yesterday had the opposite effect which caused the ref to not give them the penalty.

But part of the problem is, would a ref give a penalty/free kick if the player had been impeded, but doesn't go to ground? I think not, which is one of the reasons players to go over.

 

The dives that annoy me most are when defenders are facing their own goal with the ball, are being pressed by the opposition's attacker, elicit a nudge or touch from the attacker and go to ground, getting themselves a free kick and out of jail; happens so much in games these days, it seems its a real "skill" that has developed in players, get yourself between the ball and the man, then do to ground.

[Sour Mash]

My simplistic suggestion is when it is obvious. Otherwise no action.

What on earth does that mean?

[TopGun]

What on earth does that mean?

 

I think most TV audiences spot a dive. A panel could give it more consideration though.

[Bearsy]

It's refreshing to hear Mourinho speak out against people trying to influence referees. He's prob gonna have a word with John Terry about this

[SnailOB]

It would be good if players only fell over if they really couldn't stay on their feet. I heard Michael Owen commentating on BT Sport recently saying that, if there was contact, then then player "had the right to go down". No he hasn't. He should only go down if he can't do anything else.

 

Its not just Owen. Majority of pundits use the phrase 'entitled to go down'. Phil Neville used the phrase recently and he was playing/coaching only a season ago so so that should give an idea of current thinking amongst players & coaches.

 

So when you talk of putting a panel together to review this, with the current mentality I can't see how anyone would get punished !

[TopGun]

Its not just Owen. Majority of pundits use the phrase 'entitled to go down'. Phil Neville used the phrase recently and he was playing/coaching only a season ago so so that should give an idea of current thinking amongst players & coaches.

 

So when you talk of putting a panel together to review this, with the current mentality I can't see how anyone would get punished !

 

That's a fair point but if players get banned for blatant dives by a panel it might change the mentality that has developed in coaching. No club wants to pay wages to banned players.

Edited 29 December, 2014 by TopGun

[Bearsy]

How about, right, if they change the rules so that unless a bro is trying to stay on his feet, the referee ain't allowed to give a penalty, even if the bro is 'fouled'. Is this Good Idea, or Dumb Idea?

[Jonnyboy]

How about, right, if they change the rules so that unless a bro is trying to stay on his feet, the referee ain't allowed to give a penalty, even if the bro is 'fouled'. Is this Good Idea, or Dumb Idea?

 

Would make for brilliant reverse-dives where they are desperately and exaggeratedly trying to prove how hard they are trying to stay on their feet.

☺

[Whitey Grandad]

How about, right, if they change the rules so that unless a bro is trying to stay on his feet, the referee ain't allowed to give a penalty, even if the bro is 'fouled'. Is this Good Idea, or Dumb Idea?

 

Any good referee would be doing that already.

[trousers]

I think we can agree it was a wrong refereeing decision.

 

I disagree

[Wes Tender]

All very well to suggest that a player should have some sort of post-match retribution imposed on him by a panel of experts if he is proven to have dived to gain an advantage, but what if that dive resulted in a penalty being awarded and its conversion meant that his team gained points they would not otherwise have had? Surely then, that point/those points should be taken away. Otherwise there has to be video evidence to back up the award of any penalty during the match, in which case the referee could penalise a player immediately the cheating occurred.

[Graffito]

It's refreshing to hear Mourinho speak out against people trying to influence referees. He's prob gonna have a word with John Terry about this

 

Good point well made. Terry and others were in the ref's ear all game.

[Dalek2003]

It would be better if the players and managers gave a little respect to the refs decision and just got on with the game. They used to in the olden days.

[pap]

Someone should do a weekly digest on YouTube entitled "Cheats of the Week". All incidents of cheating would be covered. Lead in with the deliberate handballers, follow it with a mix of professional foulers and hatchet men, then finish it all up with the budding Tom Daly's of this world.

[Graffito]

It would be good if players only fell over if they really couldn't stay on their feet. I heard Michael Owen commentating on BT Sport recently saying that, if there was contact, then then player "had the right to go down". No he hasn't. He should only go down if he can't do anything else.

 

It seems increasingly common for players to fall over at the slightest touch and that makes it very difficult for referees to tell if the fall was genuine. Even TV replays can't be conclusive.

 

I agree that blatant dives where there is obviously no contact should be more heavily punished although maybe Chelsea's constant whingeing yesterday had the opposite effect which caused the ref to not give them the penalty.

 

This right to go down malarkey is indeed part of the problem. It's not only Owen. It's a widespread view of pundits who, of course, tend to be ex professional footballers. It's a view which supports a culture of diving to gain competitive advantage and it's something about professional football which really ****es me off. You'd get laughed off the pitch if you tried in amateur football some of the theatrics you see in the professional game. I suspect players are told by Managers to go down at the slightest touch and leave their foot in. There's the bonus that you might get an opponent sent off too. It's cheating pure and simple.

[Dark Munster]

I disagree

Me too.

[SuperMikey]

Me too.

 

Thirded.

 

Targett fell over and Fabregas tripped over his leg as he fell. Not a foul at all, although I think a yellow for diving was maybe a little harsh.

[scotty]

Thirded.

 

Targett fell over and Fabregas tripped over his leg as he fell. Not a foul at all, although I think a yellow for diving was maybe a little harsh.

 

Fourthed.

 

Had this discussion on the post-match thread. I've watched it several times, and my strong opinion is that it was a dive, not a foul.

[Picard]

Thinking about Steve Bruce's Swan Lake comment for Gary Cahill, anyone found guilty of diving should wear a tutu for the next match.

(I am :mcinnes:ing myself)

[LeBizzier69]

We all know what a dive is, as would a panel of so-called experts so if they've dived for a penalty a 5 game ban or 3 game ban if outside the area. Would soon stop it, but then so would sending a player off as soon as they swear at the ref or lino but that won't happen either. And why on earth can't they make the playing advantage rule as per rugby? Leave play for 10-15 seconds and if no obvious advantage bring play back for a free kick. Really not that difficult. Off topic I appreciate so apologies.

[rallyboy]

The golden rule of defending is if you leave a leg dangling in the penalty area, don't be surprised if someone falls over it - and sometimes you don't even have to dangle it.

Some refs give them if you kick the ball ahead and just run into the nearest defender.

 

When trying to define a dive you have to look at who instigates the contact.

It has taken years for refs to realise that in a one-on-one with the keeper a forward often knocks the ball clear and just leaves a lingering trailing leg to be collected by the sliding keeper.

But the real culprits are the ones where there is NO contact and that is being slowly stamped out, mainly due to TV.

 

While I would probably have wanted a penalty for that one yesterday, Fabregas actually instigated the contact, though Targett left a leg out and invited it, Fabregas could have gone for the ball instead of the leg, but I think we got away with one.

Which makes up for Long being assaulted against Everton, or the 150 times that Rickie was put in a headlock at corners last season.

 

 

As for Mourinho, what a clown - great coach, but unreliable witness.

His sides have led diving for years and have recently benefited from more refereeing decisions at Stamford Bridge than United have an Old Trafford.

Chelsea must coach diving, even his centre backs fall over, Terry did an appalling dive on the edge of our box and play just went on.

 

So Jose is not the man to complain about diving, or refs.

And for refs - please, just be consistent.

[Dark Munster]

The golden rule of defending is if you leave a leg dangling in the penalty area, don't be surprised if someone falls over it - and sometimes you don't even have to dangle it.

Some refs give them if you kick the ball ahead and just run into the nearest defender.

 

When trying to define a dive you have to look at who instigates the contact.

It has taken years for refs to realise that in a one-on-one with the keeper a forward often knocks the ball clear and just leaves a lingering trailing leg to be collected by the sliding keeper.

But the real culprits are the ones where there is NO contact and that is being slowly stamped out, mainly due to TV.

 

While I would probably have wanted a penalty for that one yesterday, Fabregas actually instigated the contact, though Targett left a leg out and invited it, Fabregas could have gone for the ball instead of the leg, but I think we got away with one.

Which makes up for Long being assaulted against Everton, or the 150 times that Rickie was put in a headlock at corners last season.

That's the key, and why it wasn't a penalty. It was a very expertly instigated dive, which fooled the TV pundits, many of our own fans, and amazingly

 

As for Mourinho, what a clown - great coach, but unreliable witness.

His sides have led diving for years and have recently benefited from more refereeing decisions at Stamford Bridge than United have an Old Trafford.

Chelsea must coach diving, even his centre backs fall over, Terry did an appalling dive on the edge of our box and play just went on.

 

So Jose is not the man to complain about diving, or refs.

And for refs - please, just be consistent.

 

That's the key, and why it wasn't a penalty. It was an expertly instigated dive, which fooled the TV pundits, many of our fans, and amazingly the world's leading footballing expert Jose Mourinho. Equally amazingly it didn't fool the incompetent ref.

[Convict Colony]

How about, right, if they change the rules so that unless a bro is trying to stay on his feet, the referee ain't allowed to give a penalty, even if the bro is 'fouled'. Is this Good Idea, or Dumb Idea?

 

[Redslo]

It would be good if players only fell over if they really couldn't stay on their feet. I heard Michael Owen commentating on BT Sport recently saying that, if there was contact, then then player "had the right to go down". No he hasn't. He should only go down if he can't do anything else.

It seems increasingly common for players to fall over at the slightest touch and that makes it very difficult for referees to tell if the fall was genuine. Even TV replays can't be conclusive.

 

I agree that blatant dives where there is obviously no contact should be more heavily punished although maybe Chelsea's constant whingeing yesterday had the opposite effect which caused the ref to not give them the penalty.

 

There are times when it is safer to fall down rather than try to stay up. Those incidents should not be dives.

[Redslo]

It would be better if the players and managers gave a little respect to the refs decision and just got on with the game. They used to in the olden days.

 

I doubt that.

[Wade Garrett]

Got no sympathy for Mourinho and his cheating team. You live by the sword......

[Sheaf Saint]

Got no sympathy for Mourinho and his cheating team. You live by the sword......

 

Exactly. They have had their fair share of good luck with dodgy refereeing decisions. I think it was against WBA last season when they rescued a point after one of their players (can't remember who) ran into the box, fell sideways into a defender who had made no challenge, and conned the ref into giving the penalty. Don't remember Mourinho complaining too loudly about inconsistent refereeing after that one.

[Whitey Grandad]

I doubt that.

 

In the 60s if you went to a football match that was the end of the matter. No replays, no video evidence, nothing. If you missed a goal then you'd never see it again. There was supposedly a newspaper reporter who covered the Arsenal home games by spending the afternoon in the pub and writing his match reports by chatting to the locals after the game.

[BARCELONASAINT]

think Garth Crooks summed it up nicely..."what goes around, comes around. They have to take it"

[supersonic]

Retrospective punishment is the only way forward for any form of deliberate cheating (blatant foul stopping a goal etc)

 

first offence for diving e.g. Cahill v Hull, 1 game ban - next offence 2 game ban etc etc.

If a club gets to more than 5 games missed through suspension for diving then they lose a point. Players will soon stop diving/clubs stamping down on it.

[DuncanRG]

You don't have to be swept off your feet to be impeded. Going down is a way of indicating to the referee that you've been fouled...whether you actually have or not.

 

It's also a way of accepting a free kick instead of advantage, which is almost always given now if a player stays on his feet and keeps the ball.

 

Mourinho is just putting pressure on referees, same as a lot of coaches do when they moan about diving. None of them really believe their club has it worse than others unless it's a big club/home advantage thing.

[Leicestersaint]

Mourinho is up to his little games again - not a nice man. There was a big van parked next to the Chelsea coach at SMS, presumably to bring Mr Mourinho's ego down as it won't fit in the coach.

[Andy Durman]

Some decisions go for you others not. For example nobody has commented on the incorrect offside decision against Long, which would have left him only needing to beat the keeper.

 

Both were errors and balance out over the course of a season.

 

I do think the referee was favouring Chelsea most of the match, with exception to the penalty decision.

 

Fabrigas could have easily been sent off.

[Batman]

No wonder players fall over. the refs give nothing if they dont. as demonstrated tonight at anfield

Shelvey should have gone

sterling could have gone and should have had a penalty before that

[Whitey Grandad]

If Mourinho is going to criticise one decision then he ought to also mention all the others that were made during the same game. Or is it too much to ask that he be fair and open-minded?

[lifeintheslowlane]

If Mourinho is going to criticise one decision then he ought to also mention all the others that were made during the same game. Or is it too much to ask that he be fair and open-minded?

 

As they say, "there's method in his madness" It's his way of pressuring officials, reporters and pundits to interpret the rules less fairly...complaining of the very bias he wishes to be applied in his favour. Not clever...transparent.

Edited 29 December, 2014 by lifeintheslowlane

[aintforever]

I think the ref got it spot on, I hate this line of thought that just because there is a bit of contact it's OK to dive like a complete c*nt. Football is a contact sport. Fabregas saw Target slip and manufactured the incident.

 

We need a panel of ball-busting refs reviewing games and handing out 1-2 match bans retrospectively - that is the only way to stop it.

[ringwood]

was the card for the dive or the amount of mouthing off afterwards, the picture on the back of the paper shows two feet together both arms forward, classic dive, he saw the leg and took aim , it was a dive and also dissent

[Whitey Grandad]

was the card for the dive or the amount of mouthing off afterwards, the picture on the back of the paper shows two feet together both arms forward, classic dive, he saw the leg and took aim , it was a dive and also dissent

 

Nobody knows until they see the referee's report. At the time I thought it was for dissent because there was a delay between the incident and the card. Fàbregas was certainly mouthing it off to the assistant and everybody within earshot.

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/29/244C790300000578-2889905-Chelsea_players_in_particular_Cesc_Fabregas_were_rightly_upset_w-a-1_1419866493367.jpg

[The9]

So Mourinho is claiming the world is against Chelsea following Targett's tackle on Fabregas that ended up with a yellow for Fabregas for diving rather than a penalty...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30620007

 

I think we can agree it was a wrong refereeing decision.

 

But Mourinho and many other managers refuse to criticise their own players for diving when it is an obvious one. So many of them are hypocrites. What's the answer?

 

I think a retrospective panel should be set up to correct wrong calls by referees on diving. And a dive should merit a two game ban even if the ref spotted it and gave a yellow out. I think that would make players cheat less and make it easier for the referees.

 

I didn't think it was a penalty or a dive, but the only way to fix the problem is for referees to give penalties for fouls on attackers when they don't fall over - like the one on Costa in the second half when he was clipped but stayed on his feet. No-one, including Mourinho, has mentioned that since. If refs give fouls when there are actually fouls rather than just when a player falls over to make a foul look like a foul, it reduces the likelihood of simulation significantly. I think the yellow is about right - there was some guff the other week saying "it'll only stop diving when a player is sent off for a second yellow for diving". That happened within months of the law change, and it made no difference whatsoever to player behaviour. They'll still test the ref and a red card is far too much of a punishment for a situation with a lot of judgement and grey areas.

[scotty]

was the card for the dive or the amount of mouthing off afterwards, the picture on the back of the paper shows two feet together both arms forward, classic dive, he saw the leg and took aim , it was a dive and also dissent

 

Got to say, I'm not sure. I am sure it was a dive, and he should have been booked for that, but whether the ref was going to book him before he got gobby? You have to wonder whether the ref was swayed a little by the immediate pleading for a pen almost before he fell down.

[trousers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2890588/Referee-Anthony-Taylor-apologised-Jose-Mourinho-failing-award-penalty-Cesc-Fabregas-trip-Southampton.html

 

Referee Anthony Taylor apologised to Jose Mourinho for booking Cesc Fabregas for diving instead of awarding penalty.

 

It has emerged that Taylor, who instead booked Fabregas for diving in the 1-1 draw, said sorry to the Chelsea boss before both had left St Mary’s.

 

 

Edited 29 December, 2014 by trousers