A possible remedy for diving.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Considering that there's a fair bit of attention on simulation in football, what would we propose to try and put something of a stop to it? Having refereed junior football for ten years (and got to county FA finals at U14 level) before ankle injuries made me stop, and played for more years than I can remember, my stance is that fundamentally, the risk/reward element of a foul and resulting punishment is horribly skewed towards the attacker. Even a foul just inside the penalty box in the corner can result in a free, unpressured shot on goal from twelve yards that is scored eighty per cent of the time if not more. A striker can try it on in the penalty box and only get a card for simulation in the most egregious of cases. But, if they get it to stick - "the right to go down" - then again, a free shot on goal and no defender within ten yards. It also results in the inconsistency that, particularly at set pieces, fairly obvious grappling in the penalty area isn't punished.

Increasingly, I think the following would mitigate against the worst excesses:

1. Abolish penalty kicks and replace them with penalty corners as in hockey, using the corners of the penalty box on the bye line depending on what side of the penalty box the offence took place. At that point, the defending team still has a chance to defend. This still rewards teams who practice their set-pieces well. It also means referees should be able to jump on grappling at set-pieces as the resulting penalty corner is not seen as quite as harsh. Also has the potential advantage of getting some entertaining goalmouth action going.

2. Be far less stringent with straight red cards. Unless it's the kind of miles over the ball sort of tackle that's nearer GBH than football, this merely encourages players to go down on anything resembling a strong tackle. In fact, I'd be inclined to say that it should be practically be for off-the-ball stuff when it comes to contact. At the moment, we've having cases like Giannoulis getting a very harsh red - and he didn't even go in as hard as Pearson, the guy he hit!

3. All free-kicks should be indirect. The obvious downside is that we lose some excellent free-kick goals, but with modern footballs, direct free kicks from 25 yards in are considerably more dangerous than they used to be. Also, by scrapping the penalty kick as well, this would have the advantage of turning a lot of closer free-kicks into situations where the opposition would be well-served by just driving it and hoping for a deflection as that would automatically render it valid, posing a different set of hazards for defenders which require bravery and alertness. Like 1, it should also promote some good goalmouth action too.

What else could be done, in your views?

[Coneys Knee 953]

Retrospective, and harsh banning. Same with any form of cheating that the cameras may spot.
 

Credit for coming up with your alternatives there but they’re not for me. They just sound very “American”. Sorry, I’m probably not supposed to say that but I’m sure most people will know what I mean. 

[Indy 3,300]

I’m still lost to why indirect free kicks aren’t awarded inside the penalty area when it’s not a clear and direct goal scoring opportunity……

Edited July 8, 2021 by Indy

[horsefly 4,300]

I think we could also learn from rugby and award penalty goals. Remember that world cup match when Suarez handled on the line preventing a certain goal. Then the subsequent penalty was missed. The bottom line should always be that cheats don't prosper.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

9 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’m still lost to why indirect free kicks aren’t awarded inside the penalty area when it’s not a clear and direct goal scoring opportunity……

If it's a contact foul such as tripping, holding, or checking - which basically is most cases when denying a clear and direct goal scoring opportunity - then it's a direct free kick. Same applies to handball, which is also a direct FK offence. Direct free kick offences committed in the penalty area become penalties.

Indirect free kick offences are different - dangerous play could be the closest and that would probably be a high foot scenario without contact.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct (thefa.com)

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I think we could also learn from rugby and award penalty goals. Remember that world cup match when Suarez handled on the line preventing a certain goal. Then the subsequent penalty was missed. The bottom line should always be that cheats don't prosper.

 

That would make it worse. Remember, the ultimate issue is that reward is disproportionately high compared to the relatively low risk. Awarding penalty goals sounds good for the ultra-clear cases like that, but on-the-line handballs are very rare indeed. You'd get loads of players through on goal going down for no contact again.

[horsefly 4,300]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

That would make it worse. Remember, the ultimate issue is that reward is disproportionately high compared to the relatively low risk. Awarding penalty goals sounds good for the ultra-clear cases like that, but on-the-line handballs are very rare indeed. You'd get loads of players through on goal going down for no contact again.

I'm a bit perplexed by your response. My point is fundamentally about not allowing cheating to prosper, so just as diving needs to be suitably punished, so does fouling/cheating to prevent a certain goal. I thought your main point was to disincentivise cheating, which awarding penalty goals in clear cut cases (however few) would do (that's why they have it in rugby). I fail to see why a player through on goal would go down as a one-on-one with the keeper would not count as a "certain goal" chance so would not result in a penalty goal. In the Suarez case I linked above the most obvious fair decision would have been a penalty goal (if that option had existed); as it turned out the cheat prospered.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

I'm a bit perplexed by your response. My point is fundamentally about not allowing cheating to prosper, so just as diving needs to be suitably punished, so does fouling/cheating to prevent a certain goal. I thought your main point was to disincentivise cheating, which awarding penalty goals in clear cut cases (however few) would do (that's why they have it in rugby). I fail to see why a player through on goal would go down as a one-on-one with the keeper would not count as a "certain goal" chance so would not result in a penalty goal. In the Suarez case I linked above the most obvious fair decision would have been a penalty goal (if that option had existed); as it turned out the cheat prospered.

The problem is you'll encourage borderline cases to push the referee into giving goals that weren't actually scored, just exceedingly likely to be. Totally agree that cheating should not prosper, but you get far more diving for penalties than you do deliberate handballs on the line.

As I said before, in ultra-clear cases like the Suarez one, it's fine. However, deciding the point at which that criteria applies will lead to so much brinkmanship around it, it seems obvious to me that you'll cause far more cheating by the attackers.

[horsefly 4,300]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The problem is you'll encourage borderline cases to push the referee into giving goals that weren't actually scored, just exceedingly likely to be. Totally agree that cheating should not prosper, but you get far more diving for penalties than you do deliberate handballs on the line.

As I said before, in ultra-clear cases like the Suarez one, it's fine. However, deciding the point at which that criteria applies will lead to so much brinkmanship around it, it seems obvious to me that you'll cause far more cheating by the attackers.

Think we will just have to disagree on that. I can see no reason why such a rule would extend beyond the "ultra-clear" (certain goal) cases, if it's borderline it's not "ultra-clear". Quite rightly it would only be a few cases each season, but that would mean there would be a few cases in which cheating didn't prosper. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Think we will just have to disagree on that. I can see no reason why such a rule would extend beyond the "ultra-clear" (certain goal) cases, if it's borderline it's not "ultra-clear". Quite rightly it would only be a few cases each season, but that would mean there would be a few cases in which cheating didn't prosper. 

I see where you're coming from, but it's such a rare case when genuinely cheating in Suarez's case - and let's face it, we have had plenty of controversy on judging intentional handballs with VAR, the problem with your proposal is that you're going to make it far more exaggerated. If all such cases were as obvious as Suarez, I would agree. But they're not.

We'll never get rid of all cheating no matter how hard we try, but if it's just a case of a few handballs a year compared to the myriad cases of dives, I'd say we're on a far better track.

[Mason 47 1,379]

I'd be all for trialing a few games in which the penalty area existed only as the limit of the keepers handling zone.

Direct free kicks given for fouls and walls allowed at the same 10yd distance- if the placement is closer than 10 then there can be no wall, but similarly offside applies.

I think it would twist a few attackers heads around for sure.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

4 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I'd be all for trialing a few games in which the penalty area existed only as the limit of the keepers handling zone.

Direct free kicks given for fouls and walls allowed at the same 10yd distance- if the placement is closer than 10 then there can be no wall, but similarly offside applies.

I think it would twist a few attackers heads around for sure.

If it's less than ten yards, you'd probably be best off getting rid of the six yard box and turning it into an area that's ten yards from goal and rounded off at the corners using ten yards from the post. In essence, they would be just like the D on the penalty box for marking out ten yards from the penalty spot, but around the post instead.

If it's less than ten yards out and there's no wall, would that not basically be a penalty but even closer in?

Edited July 8, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Mason 47 1,379]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

If it's less than ten yards, you'd probably be best off getting rid of the six yard box and turning it into an area that's ten yards from goal and rounded off at the corners using ten yards from the post. In essence, they would be just like the D on the penalty box for marking out ten yards from the penalty spot, but around the post instead.

If it's less than ten yards out and there's no wall, would that not basically be a penalty but even closer in?

Essentially yes, but keepers already find a way to get a metre or so off the line by the time the kick happens- I'd argue actually that the closer it gets from 12 yards, the better chance a keeper has of closing those odds under the current rules. It would also mean, for example, that where Sterling won his penalty last night would represent a completely different scenario than what happened (as you simply wouldn't beat a professional keeper with a direct shot)

[Haus 259]

Back when I used to play if someonw faked injury and dived, you'd feel you were owed one and when the ref turned his back he'd get studs down the back of his leg or something.  

I can't believe how common it is now, people's kids watching that back in years to come : how can you be proud of yourself rolling on the ground screaming? 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

7 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

Essentially yes, but keepers already find a way to get a metre or so off the line by the time the kick happens- I'd argue actually that the closer it gets from 12 yards, the better chance a keeper has of closing those odds under the current rules. It would also mean, for example, that where Sterling won his penalty last night would represent a completely different scenario than what happened (as you simply wouldn't beat a professional keeper with a direct shot)

I dunno, I can see what you mean from narrower angles, but it's basically a free shot at goal as no-one's within ten yards apart from the keeper. I think that makes it even easier to score from my years as a goalie, personally, and therefore think that's one where rewards outweigh risks to a disproportionate degree.

IMO, it would be better to get rid of the six-yard box and replace it with a ten-yard box with rounded edges to mark out as ten yards from each post, and if an offence is in there, all free-kicks are moved to the edge of that box. That's not unlike the situation for indirect free-kicks already for backpasses that are handled if back near the goal, so a new area there makes it easier for the referee to enforce the 10-yard rule without spray.

Edited July 8, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[GenerationA47 752]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

What else could be done, in your views?

Spray the F out of the playing surface with an arsenic-based solution

 

Voilà!

[Daz Sparks 1,154]

2 hours ago, Coneys Knee said:

Retrospective, and harsh banning. Same with any form of cheating that the cameras may spot.

Same for me, enforce the rules we have properly.

[Grantham yellow 20]

I like option one and wouldn’t be averse to a trial period.

What about swinging it on its head and goalkeepers that go down far easily.

[Yellow Wal 314]

How about, as I have stated before, anyone who falls over unnecessarily, for whatever reason, should be booked.

This rubbish about 'he had every right to go down' needs to stop. The only problem for this is that too many referees cannot recognise a foul unless the player falls over!

This should also apply for the slight brush of the hand on the shoulder where a player falls over in an attempt to get someone sent off. 

For goodness sake, this used to be a man's game.

[glory.win or die. 270]

It's a difficult one because I'm sure some, even if a small minority, of the softest looking pens which look like a dive, are actually true fouls so it's not always 100% obvious  if the decision is right or wrong.

But,  I think the best punishment for diving in the oppositions box is for the ref to award a pen to the defending team. 

Players can cope with cards, even their team mates aren't overly affected if their team mate is booked for diving but diving to win a pen benefits the whole team so diving to try to win a pen should punish the whole team.

Teammates and fans do not care if their player is booked but if he costs their team a goal from a pen he will soon know what they think of him

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

Retrospective banning . Would solve the issue in weeks . 

[Too Bad 6]

23 hours ago, Coneys Knee said:

Retrospective, and harsh banning. Same with any form of cheating that the cameras may spot.
 

Credit for coming up with your alternatives there but they’re not for me. They just sound very “American”. Sorry, I’m probably not supposed to say that but I’m sure most people will know what I mean. 

In what way do his suggestions sound awesomely American? Why wouldn't you be allowed to say that? America is the country we all desire to be like, to visit, to lead us, to protect us, to entertain us, to feed us, and to set standards. We spend so much of our lives obsessing over America. If only they gave us an occasional consideration, that would be so satisfying. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Too Bad
Spelling

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

America, to coin a phrase used by one of its former presidents, looks like a proper ****hole. A completely dysfunctional oligarchy with socialism for the wealthy and individualism for the populace, a democratic model that frankly is anything but - it's more like an oligarchy nowadays. So no, we don't all desire that at all.

I don't take @Coneys Knee's comment as offensive, more a sense of his thinking it's about more intense and slightly contrived entertainment.

[TopTory 4]

45 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

America, to coin a phrase used by one of its former presidents, looks like a proper ****hole. A completely dysfunctional oligarchy with socialism for the wealthy and individualism for the populace, a democratic model that frankly is anything but - it's more like an oligarchy nowadays. So no, we don't all desire that at all.

I don't take @Coneys Knee's comment as offensive, more a sense of his thinking it's about more intense and slightly contrived entertainment.

Oh dear.... Chip on your shoulder or what?

 

Socialism is all about being envious of those who have wealth but don't want to work for it.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 minutes ago, TopTory said:

Oh dear.... Chip on your shoulder or what?

 

Socialism is all about being envious of those who have wealth but don't want to work for it.

Whole potato patch on yours? Or are you Tony Blair in disguise. He seems to have his head stuck up Yankee ****...

[lake district canary 4,531]

So hard for referees to get it right every time. The slightest touch can knock someone over if they are moving fast and it might then look as if they have dived, or a cheat can move fast past a player and make it look as if they have been touched. The ones that are more obvious are the ones where the players is already looking to go down and that is what the Sterling one looked like to me  he was being closed down and had nowhere to go so he took the easy way out - and I'm surprised the ref went for it......maybe he realised he had got it wrong with the earlier incident which probably was a penalty and was sub-consciously or even consciously making it right.

No system is perfect, the best solution is to sin bin a player for 10 minutes who looks to have dived. Cheats should not prosper and even if occasionally a player is sin binned wrongly because he had been genuinely knocked over by a slight touch, which can happen, it would stop people trying to get penalties by cheating.   Embarress them by sending them to the naughty corner and diving would disappear from the game overnight.

Would the authorities have the b*lls to instigate it? No. they can't even stamp out players surrounding referees, which is the easiest thing in the world to sort out - just book any player who goes anywhere near the ref in a confrontational way. Simples. Things can be done to make it easier for refs, but authorities are spineless. The resorting to computers and tech to help them is also spineless and has taken the life out of the game, even at te Euros where it has been better than in the PL, but still annoying.

A lot of players will cheat if they think they can get an advantage and putting a stop to it is relatively easy.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, TopTory said:

Work hard for long enough and you might be successful like me. As it is the benefit system is there for the weak and needy.

Wouldn't know. I don't hog benefits. Unlike many large corporations, who essentially use them to undercut wages.

The only thing you're successful at is being a coward on an Internet forum.

[Ulfotto 632]

How about the player who wins the penalty has to take it. This should be extended to all set pieces at all levels of football.

It would simple lessen the advantage gained from set pieces.

if a player unable to take it then the team who have to nominate someone before the game to take them if this happens.

[TopTory 4]

42 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Wouldn't know. I don't hog benefits. Unlike many large corporations, who essentially use them to undercut wages.

The only thing you're successful at is being a coward on an Internet forum.

Embarrassing.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

You certainly are, kid.