A possible remedy for diving.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

I think a well placed sign would do the trick, as it does in Swimming Pools.....No Diving, No Running, No Petting.

[Yellow Wal 314]

12 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Retrospective banning . Would solve the issue in weeks . 

The main problem with retrospective banning is that it benefits another team by denying their opposition of a player.

The punishment should benefit the team whose opposition have tried to cheat them.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Just now, Yellow Wal said:

The main problem with retrospective banning is that it benefits another team by denying their opposition of a player.

The punishment should benefit the team whose opposition have tried to cheat them.

Exactly this and I think it was Sam Allardyce who said that in one presser. An in-game solution is also needed. I can readily agree that retrospective punishment should be part of the solution, but it cannot be the only part.

[Ulfotto 623]

Retrospective punishment does not really work because there is the debate about what is a dive and how much is enough contact to justify punishment. Only the most obvious would be punished and the same SHOULD be picked up by VAR.

still think getting the fouled player to take the resulting penalty/ set piece is only realistic way to go. This may stop dives and lessens the advantage of winning set pieces.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

Sin bin for 15 minutes for the cheatin' divin' "perp".....That'll learn 'em.....

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

21 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

The main problem with retrospective banning is that it benefits another team by denying their opposition of a player.

The punishment should benefit the team whose opposition have tried to cheat them.

You’ve missed the point. It would stop it happening - if a player dives, gets banned they are unlikely to do it again because of the effect on the team . It’s nothing to do with punishing / not punishing the opponent because all teams do it . 
 

Changing the law makes no difference. The law is already there . It’s enforcing the law that will make a difference . 
 

Diving / feigning injury is a cultural thing . It’s accepted in the game . It’s even described as “game management” . A game where a player actually needed a defibrillator on a pitch still accepts the Italian feigning serious injury . 
 

You will stop it by changing the culture and  affecting the clubs adversely who oversee the players actions . 
 

If on week two of the new prem , 5 star players can’t play because  they have been retrospectively banned by a panel , you would see it change quickly . 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

2 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

You’ve missed the point. It would stop it happening - if a player dives, gets banned they are unlikely to do it again because of the effect on the team . It’s nothing to do with punishing / not punishing the opponent because all teams do it . 
 

Changing the law makes no difference. The law is already there . It’s enforcing the law that will make a difference . 
 

Diving / feigning injury is a cultural thing . It’s accepted in the game . It’s even described as “game management” . A game where a player actually needed a defibrillator on a pitch still accepts the Italian feigning serious injury . 
 

You will stop it by changing the culture and  affecting the clubs adversely who oversee the players actions . 
 

If on week two of the new prem , 5 star players can’t play because  they have been retrospectively banned by a panel , you would see it change quickly . 

Not entirely, but as I said, you need a punishment during the game. The problem with retrospective punishment on its own is that the team cheated against has no justice, but other teams afterwards get the benefits.

As part of a set of measures, it has its use. But we need something in-game.

I happen to think the bias towards the attacking side here is far too pronounced and it needs winding back quite a bit.

[Too Bad 6]

9 hours 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.

The rise of destructive groups like BLM and Antifa, and their support from main stream media is ruining a good thing, you are right. Handing over authority to feudal dictators during covid made it far worse. They don't want to give up their power. It seems even worse in England where people seem much more willing to accept the party line and bow to its authority. If this power grab continues, things will get very ugly in America. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

1 minute ago, Too Bad said:

The rise of destructive groups like BLM and Antifa, and their support from main stream media is ruining a good thing, you are right. Handing over authority to feudal dictators during covid made it far worse. They don't want to give up their power. It seems even worse in England where people seem much more willing to accept the party line and bow to its authority. If this power grab continues, things will get very ugly in America. 

What does my comment have to do with BLM and Antifa?

[Too Bad 6]

15 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

What does my comment have to do with BLM and Antifa?

"****hole". These groups are turning once great cities into ****holes. They hate individualism, free market economics, and self-determination. America is becoming a ****hole because of these groups who think it is already a ****hole that needs their tribalism, groupthink, equity, racism etc. to become utopia. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Just now, Too Bad said:

"****hole". These groups are turning once great cities into ****holes. They hate individualism, free market economics, and self-determination. America is becoming a ****hole because of these groups who think it is already a ****hole that needs their tribalism, groupthink, equity, racism etc. to become utopia. 

No. America is a raging s-h-i-thole due to rampant inequality, an electoral model that is gamed beyond belief to the extent that it is an oligarchy rather than a democracy, made especially clear by the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality between two monolithic parties who aren't even that massively different, fuelled by almost unrestricted lobbying and what is best described as "pay-to-play" political influence. Chuck in the misunderstanding behind the origins of the word "meritocracy", which was originally coined by Sir Michael Young to represent a dystopia - and a frankly downright toxic brand of evangelist pseudo-Christianity skirting the line between pseudo-charity and political eminence grise, and you have a serious ****hole there.

As both Andrew Young and Martin Luther King put it, you have socialism for the wealthy, and rugged individualism for the average Joe on the street.

Complaining about the likes of BLM and Antifa is looking at a symptom at most, but it's nowhere near the underlying disease. Useful distraction for some whilst far more deep-rooted issues cause far more pressing problems.

[Too Bad 6]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

No. America is a raging s-h-i-thole due to rampant inequality, an electoral model that is gamed beyond belief to the extent that it is an oligarchy rather than a democracy, made especially clear by the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality between two monolithic parties who aren't even that massively different, fuelled by almost unrestricted lobbying and what is best described as "pay-to-play" political influence. Chuck in the misunderstanding behind the origins of the word "meritocracy", which was originally coined by Sir Michael Young to represent a dystopia - and a frankly downright toxic brand of evangelist pseudo-Christianity skirting the line between pseudo-charity and political eminence grise, and you have a serious ****hole there.

As both Andrew Young and Martin Luther King put it, you have socialism for the wealthy, and rugged individualism for the average Joe on the street.

Complaining about the likes of BLM and Antifa is looking at a symptom at most, but it's nowhere near the underlying disease. Useful distraction for some whilst far more deep-rooted issues cause far more pressing problems.

You have a very bizarre view of America. That you oppose meritocracy explains a lot, tho. 

At least America doesn't have leaders elected with 30% of the vote. England does. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Just now, Too Bad said:

You have a very bizarre view of America. That you oppose meritocracy explains a lot, tho. 

At least America doesn't have leaders elected with 30% of the vote. England does. 

You clearly don't know the origins of the word. I suggest you read Toby Young's "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People" as he had that same discussion with Americans during his time there. They said it was coined to describe a good thing and didn't realise that Toby Young (as in the writer for the Telegraph, Spectator etc.) was Sir Michael Young's son and therefore knew far better what was intended with the term.

The fact remains, it was originally coined to describe a DYSTOPIAN society. No amount of linguistic sophistry will ever change that.

Meanwhile, American presidential candidates can have wins even when they LOSE the popular vote. Their electoral model is as dysfunctional as ours in the UK. Anything based on FPTP will have, as its end game, a highly gamed model with two monoliths that aren't particularly representative of its populace. Personally, I think starting on remedying that will be a start of a long road to improvement. Full Swiss is my preference.

[Too Bad 6]

Word origin matters why? All that matters in fluid chat is the current meaning. 

The electoral college is purposely intended to make it possible to lose the popular vote while winning the election. America doesn't want to be ruled by NYC, Chicago and California. So to win as President you must have a wider appeal than to a few urban areas. Smart candidates campaign with this in mind. Dumb ones don't and win the popular vote but lose the election. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

When the meaning's been perverted and indeed misunderstood to mean the polar opposite, then yes, it is important. Indeed Tony Blair was guilty of that and it was pointed out long and hard. Also, if you say you have a model where it is possible for a popular vote to be lost and an election to be won, then that shows perfectly that it's not democratic!

The US model is barely an improvement, if at all, on the British one, which is definitely a century out of date. If your stance is that the UK one is a shocker, then we could actually find some degree of common ground.

 

[Coneys Knee 941]

Anyway………… jesus

[Coneys Knee 941]

Retrospective banning is the only real option. Nonsense about not benefiting the team on the day is just that - nonsense.

It’s about the bigger picture. The whole point is to stop cheating per se and the only way you’ll do that is if players realise that just because they may have conned a ref on the day to earn a penalty or get a player sent off or whatever, that they won’t get away with it once the retrospective panel have had their view. The ban could and should be longer if their cheating was a match winner for example. If you knew a 5 or 10 game ban or longer even, could be thrown at you for cheating I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t take long for it to stop.

It would be a shame that it wouldn’t  benefit the team the crime is committed against, but it would benefit football and that has to be the priority surely.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Coneys Knee