Is diving really a part of the game ...and is a yellow " just punishment ".

[david in sweden]

yellow cards are given for all manner of minor offences - aren't they.

"excessive celebration" after scoring a goal seems a bit of a dud to me - after all - who amongst us wouldn't be happy at scoring a goal in the Prem?.

..I mean what do we expect?...A few friendly slaps of the back from fellow players, and an echo of " well-done old man, or good shot."

Agreed....some of it is overdone, but do refs have guidelines about this?... and are they all interpretted in the same way - I think not !

 

Time-wasting by goalies, and kicking the ball away, also seems to merit a card, when surely a verbal warning ...and another 30 seconds on the match time would seem more appropriate. Although bad fouling and abusing of officials does seem to be negected and come lower on the list compared with activities like "diving ".

 

I've always asked myself ..How a player who is fouled (or claims he was fouled) can then proceed to roll over on the ground, if - as we suppose - he's injured /or has even broken a leg. Surely common sense should tell them to stay still, and any subsequent display of gymnastics would only go to aggrevate an injury.

 

In all this flurry of card-waving, the one thing that really sticks in my craw is ..DIVING. (more properly called " simulation " I think?)

Of course, if a fast-moving forward comes up against a bigger, more muscular defender --- or a goalkeeper, there's almost bound to be contact, and we could spend all year argueing the validity of who was right or wrong in the Sunderland game, or recently at Chelsea, but it seems to me that this is often a major game-changing incident that occurs in nearly every match, and which refs battle with and even media commentators don't always agree.

 

Noted: Mourinho got two differing opinions from TV and newspaper journos' after " the Mane incident " leading to the penalty on Sunday, however, I also recall that Jose admitted....that he had warned Oscar about diving.. (which the player did in our SMS fixture against Chelsea last season.)

 

The question remains... How does one accurately judge a dive from a "sneaky foul " that the defender makes..and what should be a " just punishment ".

 

I've not seen any analysis of yellow cards for ...just "diving", but I'd bet that a number of players would appear regularly on such a list. Who are the contenders?

Edited 19 March, 2015 by david in sweden

[Lallana's Left Peg]

The question remains... How does one accurately judge a dive from a "sneaky foul " that the defender makes..and what should be a " just punishment ".

 

You can't, which is why it happens. The game moves too quickly for the existing officiating set-up, which means it is prone to numerous officiating errors. Much of that is a part of the game (I would personally find it very boring if the game was devoid of Ref errors and every decision was correct) however until diving can either be retrospectively punished (unlikely given the current rules) or the players become more honest (never going to happen) then diving will always happen.

[Secret Site Agent]

You can't' date=' which is why it happens. The game moves too quickly for the existing officiating set-up, which means it is prone to numerous officiating errors. Much of that is a part of the game (I would personally find it very boring if the game was devoid of Ref errors and every decision was correct) however until [b']diving can either be retrospectively punished [/b](unlikely given the current rules) or the players become more honest (never going to happen) then diving will always happen.

 

I agree, but perhaps the only way to root it out is with retrospective punishment. A player rolling around on the floor, holding his leg, quickly gets up and takes the free kick, this is definatly simulation and annoys the hell out of me. If an analysis done on how players in rugby go down after interference with their feet and legs, with them trying to maintain momentum until they hit the ground, and apply this to the football model, you can clearly see those that are similating, those that just give up the ghost and go down, and those that try and maintain their footing but end up going down any way.

[redkeith]

On football weekly they suggested that anyone caught diving should have to wear a "bib of shame" for the next few matches, so the officials can be wary of them.

 

I'm sure that refs do this to some degree, as players like Long and Pahars never seem to get a penalty unless the defender has got in his car and run him over.

 

On the time wasting issue, adding enough time on to allow for it would help a great deal, although some matches would go on until 6 30 on a Saturday. Also action should be taken against clubs that take the p@ss, such as the ball boys sitting down after WBA had a 3rd minute lead. When Villa won the league in the early 80's , the ball boys would give the ball back quickly if it was to Villa, but if the opposition had a corner, they would wait until Villa defenders were all back until they returned the ball.

[manina-pub]

http://www.caughtoffside.com/2015/03/10/top-7-worst-premier-league-divers-man-uniteds-adnan-januzaj-joined-by-chelsea-everton-cheats-on-sinners-list/

[aintforever]

Retrospective punishment is the only way because it is just too hard for the officials to accurately make a judgement in real time.

 

Should be an automatic 3 match ban if a player dives, and that should apply even if there is contact. I am fed up with players falling over like they are shot after the slightest contact - it's not a non contact sport. I used to play rugby and it is actually quite hard to bring a person to the floor, the idea that the slightest touch sends you ass over tit is nonsense.

[Wade Garrett]

Chelsea make a refs job nigh on impossible with their constant diving, cheating, and harassment of the referee. If they get a few bad decisions, so be it. They've only get themselves to blame.

[FloridaMarlin]

I must admit to a laugh or three of incredulity at Sky's pundits panel on Sunday when they damned Saints with faint praise over Matic's foul on Mane.

 

They gave Saints a modicum of credit for not crowding the referee following a foul which should have produced a second yellow card for Matic, but then openly criticised them for not doing it and in effect claimed they were not professional enough, and that would cost them a Champions League place.

 

They highlighted how referee Mike Dean's first hand movement on seeing the foul was to his pocket, but as he wasn't harangued by Saints players, thought it was OK to put it away.

 

Or as Sky's pundits simplistically saw it - Mike Dean was going to book Matic, then suddenly remembered it would be a second yellow and the implications of that, but as he wasn't surrounded by Saints players he assumed they did not think it was a bad enough foul to warrant a booking.

 

So in other words, according to Sky's pundits, players' actions will influence referees, whose ability to make important decisions is based largely on players' apathy or apoplexy.

 

The problem when you employ former professionals as pundits is that they retain the cheating, conniving, conning instincts they had as players and instead of playing a part in trying to clean the game up by criticising the likes of Chelsea, perpetuate the cheating by pointing out that if you don't gang up on referees, you are not being professional and selling yourself short as a team.

 

Football's morals baffle me sometimes.

[david in sweden]

I must admit to a laugh or three of incredulity at Sky's pundits panel on Sunday when they damned Saints with faint praise over Matic's foul on Mane.

 

They gave Saints a modicum of credit for not crowding the referee following a foul which should have produced a second yellow card for Matic, but then openly criticised them for not doing it and in effect claimed they were not professional enough, and that would cost them a Champions League place.

 

They highlighted how referee Mike Dean's first hand movement on seeing the foul was to his pocket, but as he wasn't harangued by Saints players, thought it was OK to put it away.

 

Or as Sky's pundits simplistically saw it - Mike Dean was going to book Matic, then suddenly remembered it would be a second yellow and the implications of that, but as he wasn't surrounded by Saints players he assumed they did not think it was a bad enough foul to warrant a booking.

 

So in other words, according to Sky's pundits, players' actions will influence referees, whose ability to make important decisions is based largely on players' apathy or apoplexy.

 

The problem when you employ former professionals as pundits is that they retain the cheating, conniving, conning instincts they had as players and instead of playing a part in trying to clean the game up by criticising the likes of Chelsea, perpetuate the cheating by pointing out that if you don't gang up on referees, you are not being professional and selling yourself short as a team.

 

Football's morals baffle me sometimes.

 

Careful ....now you're bringing morality into it ....don't you know football (nowadays) is only about £oney......and entertainment.

 

Sadly ....gone are the days of " honest " sportsmanship and fairplay....and he who dives ....wins ...

 

(oops ..... where have I heard that before?)

[The9]

Retrospective punishment is the only way because it is just too hard for the officials to accurately make a judgement in real time.

 

Should be an automatic 3 match ban if a player dives, and that should apply even if there is contact. I am fed up with players falling over like they are shot after the slightest contact - it's not a non contact sport. I used to play rugby and it is actually quite hard to bring a person to the floor, the idea that the slightest touch sends you ass over tit is nonsense.

 

This is my thing about that comparison: in rugby there is a vested interest in staying up after a tackle, and there's little benefit in pretending to have gone to ground - and all but high tackles are basically allowed. It's not likely to be a foul in the first place.

 

In football there are loads of different ways that contact can be a foul, even accidentally, and there are numerous benefits to going over to make it look like there's a foul. Retaining possession when you might be losing it, a chance to set up a free kick routine, or score a penalty, to get an opponent punished so they're more wary about tackling next time, etc.

 

There's no comparison. Except that time someone in rugby decided blood capsules to pretend players were injured in order to bring subs on was ok, which I haven't seen since about 1990 in football (I think it was Brazil v Chile in a World Cup qualifier and someone chucked a flare nowhere near the keeper, who mysteriously became bloodied).

 

Every time we have this argument, the answer is "stop players doing it" and "refs need to be better at identifying genuine fouls". Somehow - either retrospective punishment, stricter punishment at the time, additional officials, replays, or just having refs give free kicks for "impeding" fouls without players having to actually fall over.

 

For instance, Ivanovic might have got a penalty when Tadic stepped on his foot accidentally, had he not also dived like he'd been shot. Willian getting his achilles raked by Djuricic showed how an injured player legitimately goes down from that kind of contact later in the match.

[The9]

I must admit to a laugh or three of incredulity at Sky's pundits panel on Sunday when they damned Saints with faint praise over Matic's foul on Mane.

 

They gave Saints a modicum of credit for not crowding the referee following a foul which should have produced a second yellow card for Matic, but then openly criticised them for not doing it and in effect claimed they were not professional enough, and that would cost them a Champions League place.

 

They highlighted how referee Mike Dean's first hand movement on seeing the foul was to his pocket, but as he wasn't harangued by Saints players, thought it was OK to put it away.

 

Or as Sky's pundits simplistically saw it - Mike Dean was going to book Matic, then suddenly remembered it would be a second yellow and the implications of that, but as he wasn't surrounded by Saints players he assumed they did not think it was a bad enough foul to warrant a booking.

 

So in other words, according to Sky's pundits, players' actions will influence referees, whose ability to make important decisions is based largely on players' apathy or apoplexy.

 

The problem when you employ former professionals as pundits is that they retain the cheating, conniving, conning instincts they had as players and instead of playing a part in trying to clean the game up by criticising the likes of Chelsea, perpetuate the cheating by pointing out that if you don't gang up on referees, you are not being professional and selling yourself short as a team.

 

Football's morals baffle me sometimes.

 

Pretty sure it was on Match of the Day 2 (Chappers, Keown and P Neville) though maybe Sky pundits also said it.

 

But yeah, ridiculous and cynical and the FA should be fining them for bringing the game into disrepute. Only half joking about that...

[Bloo71]

On football weekly they suggested that anyone caught diving should have to wear a "bib of shame" for the next few matches, so the officials can be wary of them.

 

I'm sure that refs do this to some degree, as players like Long and Pahars never seem to get a penalty unless the defender has got in his car and run him over.

 

On the time wasting issue, adding enough time on to allow for it would help a great deal, although some matches would go on until 6 30 on a Saturday. Also action should be taken against clubs that take the p@ss, such as the ball boys sitting down after WBA had a 3rd minute lead. When Villa won the league in the early 80's , the ball boys would give the ball back quickly if it was to Villa, but if the opposition had a corner, they would wait until Villa defenders were all back until they returned the ball.

 

Not really because if players knew that the ref was definitely going to add on time, then they wouldn't bother wasting it......would be a pointless exercise

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Not really because if players knew that the ref was definitely going to add on time, then they wouldn't bother wasting it......would be a pointless exercise

 

I think they still would. Football is a game of momentum, if you could slow down the momentum of the opposition by time wasting at that moment you'd still do it knowing the Ref would add time on at the end - it would be worth it.