Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BOO

Diving is a scourge of the game

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/10445341/Football-Association-defeated-in-summer-plans-to-ban-players-for-diving-using-video-evidence.html

I hope the FA does push forward again with changes which will allow retrospective punishment based on video evidence for diving.

The PL opposition to this seems pretty weak, I really can''t see how anyone that wants to see improvements in the game can object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
totally agree. It''s not been helped by the previous incumbents of the MOTD chairs (Hansen/Lawro etc) who would quite happily sit there, mix their tenses and say "he''s felt contact there, he''s entitled to go down". Utter crap. It''s a contact sport. I think Ronaldo once got a pen (vs Boro?) at Old Trafford for and, despite not being touched, they said it was because he was ''avoiding a tackle''.

Snodgrass- this includes you. Get up and get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Returning Avatar"]totally agree. It''s not been helped by the previous incumbents of the MOTD chairs (Hansen/Lawro etc) who would quite happily sit there, mix their tenses and say "he''s felt contact there, he''s entitled to go down". Utter crap. It''s a contact sport. I think Ronaldo once got a pen (vs Boro?) at Old Trafford for and, despite not being touched, they said it was because he was ''avoiding a tackle''.

Snodgrass- this includes you. Get up and get on with it.[/quote]

Yes most if the problem lays with the pundits who happily back the officials all too easy if there''s the slightest contact. It wouldn''t be as bad if they need never have played the game, but most are ex pros who should want to eradicate this behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This idea that a player may have felt some contact and so therefore he is entitled to throw themselves into a triple somersault is an interpretation of the rules which is bizarre.

The rules were there to protect players from foul play and injury, the pundits current interpretation is hardly within the spirit that was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem comes in incidents like the one on Saturday - I doubt Jussi Jaaskelainen put enough force on Hooper to actually force him to go down, but he did impeed him. Was Hooper diving when he went down? Should there not have been a penalty and a yellow card for Hooper? Or should Norwich have been given the pen, but Hooper also shown a yellow card (or recieve retrospective punishment)?

 

By using the yard stick of if a player is touched by an unfair challenge, even if it isn''t enough to force the player over, it should be a penalty - then it makes everything much easier, not only for refs but also for defenders who know what is allowed under the rules.

 

Personally I''m not a fan of retrospective punishments using video evidence, it will mean teams and players with higher profiles will be punished harsher - as incidents in those games generate more attention but also becuase there are more cameras. Whilst in the Premier League it wouldn''t be so unbalanced between the top and bottom, in the lower leagues were only a few games a week have TV coverage it would create problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, although there could be some, perhaps many, occasions when video evidence might be inconclusive or even deceptive. It was got to be stamped out!

 

There is another issue - defenders have developed the art of holding or pushing out of sight of the referee. They, too, are  gaining an unfair advantage. There may be a connection with the diving here - pinioned strikers may feel that they can fight back by diving.

 

I feel that goal-line assistant referees, with a main task of judging if the ball has crossed the line, may also be in position to spot shoving, shirt pulling as well as diving in the penalty area.  The main Ref could at least consult them, even if their view was obstructed  by the crowded penalty area.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That''s a fair point, but surely where the technology is available it should be used. If it does start to reduce the amount of diving in the PL then hopefully it will filter down the leagues, and importantly will influence the behaviour of kids playing on Sunday morning who like nothing better than to copy the behaviour of their PL role models!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bethnal

That''s a fair point, but surely where the technology is available it should be used. If it does start to reduce the amount of diving in the PL then hopefully it will filter down the leagues, and importantly will influence the behaviour of kids playing on Sunday morning who like nothing better than to copy the behaviour of their PL role models!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree completely Bethnal. I think it would be to the detriment of the game, and to be honest, refs know what goes on and deal with it pretty well. The isolated incidents are just made to look worse because they are viewed 75 times from several different cameras.
If a player takes an easy tumble occasionally, so what? Anyone who has played the game knows its almost expected that players will try and fleece the ref a bit to gain advantage.
Also, refs arent stupid, they know what goes on and will even things up.
Part of me considers this thread is just another excuse to have a wee swipe at snoddy though[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one big problem is that I cannot remember the last time I saw a referee give a penalty for a foul when the fouled player did not go to ground.

Players who are fouled seem to think they must fall over to get that foul, and they are probably right. We all know that more often than not the contact does not make a player fall over, he does it himself because he feels he has been fouled and wants the decision.

The same goes for the ''head butts'' or the ''raising of hands'' we see. The slightest contact and a player is rolling about like a child with only one intention, to get the opponent sent off.

Perhaps the offence should be ''going to ground unnecessarily'' which should be punished by a yellow card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]The one big problem is that I cannot remember the last time I saw a referee give a penalty for a foul when the fouled player did not go to ground. Players who are fouled seem to think they must fall over to get that foul, and they are probably right. We all know that more often than not the contact does not make a player fall over, he does it himself because he feels he has been fouled and wants the decision. The same goes for the ''head butts'' or the ''raising of hands'' we see. The slightest contact and a player is rolling about like a child with only one intention, to get the opponent sent off. Perhaps the offence should be ''going to ground unnecessarily'' which should be punished by a yellow card.[/quote]

 

Unless the FA are going to have a team of physicists at the side of the pitch working out the force and momentum of each tackle and where the attackers centre of gravity is at the moment on impact good luck working out whether a player went to ground ''unnecessarily''. Rules that are so open to interpretation are the ones that cause the most problems - such as a player''s ''intent'' when a tackle ends up being over the ball, impossible to know if it was accidental or on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green wrote the following post at 13/11/2013 10:47 AM:

Yellow Wall wrote:

The one big problem is that I cannot remember the last time I saw a referee give a penalty for a foul when the fouled player did not go to ground. Players who are fouled seem to think they must fall over to get that foul, and they are probably right. We all know that more often than not the contact does not make a player fall over, he does it himself because he feels he has been fouled and wants the decision. The same goes for the ''head butts'' or the ''raising of hands'' we see. The slightest contact and a player is rolling about like a child with only one intention, to get the opponent sent off. Perhaps the offence should be ''going to ground unnecessarily'' which should be punished by a yellow card.

Unless the FA are going to have a team of physicists at the side of the pitch working out the force and momentum of each tackle and where the attackers centre of gravity is at the moment on impact good luck working out whether a player went to ground ''unnecessarily''. Rules that are so open to interpretation are the ones that cause the most problems - such as a player''s ''intent'' when a tackle ends up being over the ball, impossible to know if it was accidental or on purpose.

I fully agree with you that rules are open to interpretation, but isn''t that what the referee is there for?

The one problem that I have with the game is ''intent'' as I now understand that that word is no longer part of the rules of the game. Hence many unintentional fouls by players of less experience and ability are continually penalised in grassroots football leading to many fines, suspensions and a Norfolk County F A ''sine die'' list of around 800 players who refuse, or are unable, to pay those fines.

The referee has to determine whether an ''over the top'' tackle is wreckless, not an intentional act of thuggery which is the modern scourge in the game. Such tackles would never be seen, or tolerated, in times gone by from professionals of either the perpetrators team or the opposition.

After seeing recent tackles from Sunderland players I wonder if some managers encourage such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you dont think that managers encourage players to go down for a penalty if they are fouled in the box then you are pretty niave.
I think the way moyes handled ashley youngs antics shows that the refs and managers know when it has gone too far, and a word needs to be had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the worst that could be said about retrospective punishments for clear unfair play, is that the teams with the highest profiles may suffer most from it... then I say ''bring it on''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s the example it''s setting to the kids that really gets me. You now see diving and play acting in local youth leagues which never happened to anything like the same extent before.

Yes players have always tried to "play the ref" and always will, but the diving now has become a deliberate and practiced form of cheating, I really can''t see how anybody can justify that. If we have the technology to try to redress the balance with fair play then we should use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="GenerationA47"]If the worst that could be said about retrospective punishments for clear unfair play, is that the teams with the highest profiles may suffer most from it... then I say ''bring it on''[/quote]

 

The main arguement is that retrospective punishments would still not be conclusive - which way would you fall on the Hooper example? I''m not using it because it is a Norwich player, but feel it is a good example of the fine line, he didn''t need to go down but he was fouled. If he had stayed on his feet there would have been no penalty. Does he deserve a ban? It is impossible to expect refs to spot fouls if there isn''t a reaction from the attacking player.

 

Where do you draw a line on what is ''simulation'', ''a dive'' and ''going to ground too easily''? Also what happens in untelevised FA Cup games? We are already in a situation where goal-line technology won''t be used in the cups but will in the Premier League, this will be the same for diving because there will be no ability to retrospecitvely punish players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not comprehensive, for sure - what could be - but conclusive enough to make an extra contribution? Of course guidance would need to be set and developed over time, and there would need to be a threshold of proof, in the view of the panel.

 

But nothing qualitatively different to what the ref has to do in the heat of the moment, just in quantity and availability of ''evidence'': refs can''t replay something they missed or were initially fooled by, sometimes from different angles.

 

I also think a post-match process would supplement the ref / assistant refs'' roles rather than undermine them, as is often claimed. Firstly, any penalising decisions made still won''t affect the course of the game that the offence was committed in, retaining in-game authority for the refs, and secondly the panel could take account of a pattern of offences, or the relative scale of an individual offence, in respect to evidence over the entire season or a fixed number of recent games, which the ref isn''t able or expected to do. (Again, arguably this is a quantitative rather than qualitative difference to the ref''s role, as the ''TV panel'' would be judging the same offences using the same guidelines.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After repeated viewing I concluded that Hooper''s standing leg was taken out by the goalkeeper''s arm, so it was a penalty - and not a soft one as said by the pundits - but if I was a West Ham fan I would probably see it very differently.

Staying in the PL is becoming more important with every season that passes. At the same time there seems to be an increasing number of poor refereeing decisions or plain mistakes. How long before a ref or the FA is sued by a club for a bad/wrong decision which gets them relegated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morty wrote the following post at 13/11/2013 12:18 PM:

If you dont think that managers encourage players to go down for a penalty if they are fouled in the box then you are pretty niave.

I think the way moyes handled ashley youngs antics shows that the refs and managers know when it has gone too far, and a word needs to be had.

Just as managers encourage players to go down for penalties they, and their coaches, teach players the art of fouling.

Where to, how to and when to.

Unfortunately the referees are not able to witness the training and are unable to recognise the methods used and the resulting fouls. Many of the obvious to the professional are missed by untrained referee''s eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yellow Wall"]morty wrote the following post at 13/11/2013 12:18 PM:

If you dont think that managers encourage players to go down for a penalty if they are fouled in the box then you are pretty niave.

I think the way moyes handled ashley youngs antics shows that the refs and managers know when it has gone too far, and a word needs to be had.

Just as managers encourage players to go down for penalties they, and their coaches, teach players the art of fouling.

Where to, how to and when to.

Unfortunately the referees are not able to witness the training and are unable to recognise the methods used and the resulting fouls. Many of the obvious to the professional are missed by untrained referee''s eyes.[/quote]
I disagree, refs know. And they dont just fall out of the dole queue one day, and they are reffing in the premiership the next.
I think on the whole, most of them do a decent job. Its just unfortunate that the slightest error, or missing of an incident, will be scrutinised to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for Retrospective punishment.

 

The case for it being ''inconclusive'' is for me a non-starter.

 

If we want to see such blatant cheating removed from our game then it must be targeted and punished severely.  Not just the players but clubs as well.

 

As a player I can honestly put hand on heart and say I never dived or went to ground under minimal contact.  I had to be brought down.  I believed in and still do believe in the integrity of the game.

 

You can tell when a player is forced to the ground or goes to ground under his own force.  I really cannot understand anyone arguing against retrospective action.  It would act more as a deterrent than initial punishment.  Just the knowledge that they will be sctutinised would act as a clear mandate to keep your feet.

 

I just do not see the problem with this.  To do nothing or half hearted initiatives will only serve to send the integrity of the game down the tubes.

 

I few weeks back a refereed a game for my son''s team.  The opposition had a little winger who was an absolute delight to watch.  Several times he was impeded/fouled yet had such hunger for the ball he kept his feet, got to the ball and was still able to put his cross/es in.  I could have easily blown for the fouls, but played the advantage. On a couple of occassions the advantage never came and I brought the free kick back. He never went to ground!  I had a chat with him and his coach at the end of the game explaining my decisions and they were both very happy with what had gone on.  I praised the boy for being so commited and honest. I suppose he reminded me of myself at the same age.

 

My point is, if a 10 year old can have such integrity and enjoyment for the game, why can we not encourage and expect the same from adults and more so from professionals.  The game is bigger than all of them. It is about time the game and it''s soul was brought to the front and used as the beacon to show us the way to a more honest and truly competitive future.

 

Snake 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yellow Wall wrote:

morty wrote the following post at 13/11/2013 12:18 PM: If you dont think that managers encourage players to go down for a penalty if they are fouled in the box then you are pretty niave. I think the way moyes handled ashley youngs antics shows that the refs and managers know when it has gone too far, and a word needs to be had. Just as managers encourage players to go down for penalties they, and their coaches, teach players the art of fouling. Where to, how to and when to. Unfortunately the referees are not able to witness the training and are unable to recognise the methods used and the resulting fouls. Many of the obvious to the professional are missed by untrained referee''s eyes.

I disagree, refs know. And they dont just fall out of the dole queue one day, and they are reffing in the premiership the next.

I think on the whole, most of them do a decent job. Its just unfortunate that the slightest error, or missing of an incident, will be scrutinised to death.

I would not disagree that on the whole most referees do a good job in the Premiership.

I would, however, suggest that how ever much experience they may have in refereeing that is not the same as the sophisticated methods that are used nowadays to commit fouls.

It''s like a tax inspector trying to outdo a top of his profession accountant. Whenever one method to avoid tax is blocked another one is found. Premiership footballers are at the top of their profession just as their coaches/managers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Yellow Wall wrote:

morty wrote the following post at 13/11/2013 12:18 PM: If you dont think that managers encourage players to go down for a penalty if they are fouled in the box then you are pretty niave. I think the way moyes handled ashley youngs antics shows that the refs and managers know when it has gone too far, and a word needs to be had. Just as managers encourage players to go down for penalties they, and their coaches, teach players the art of fouling. Where to, how to and when to. Unfortunately the referees are not able to witness the training and are unable to recognise the methods used and the resulting fouls. Many of the obvious to the professional are missed by untrained referee''s eyes.

I disagree, refs know. And they dont just fall out of the dole queue one day, and they are reffing in the premiership the next.

I think on the whole, most of them do a decent job. Its just unfortunate that the slightest error, or missing of an incident, will be scrutinised to death.

I would not disagree that on the whole most referees do a good job in the Premiership.

I would, however, suggest that how ever much experience they may have in refereeing that is not the same as the sophisticated methods that are used nowadays to commit fouls.

It''s like a tax inspector trying to outdo a top of his profession accountant. Whenever one method to avoid tax is blocked another one is found. Premiership footballers are at the top of their profession just as their coaches/managers.[/quote]
What are these ultra complicated and cunning new ways of fouling players then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real issue with retrospetive punishment is that the effected result might be the one which sends you down!

 

I am still a big believer in the 4th Official having a screen and help the ref with big calls. I can''t criticise the ref''s as they have a hard time of it refereeing these over paid prema donnas, Football could learn a lot from Rugby!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many posters don''t see a difference between diving and going down easily. But thankfully I think the referees do see that difference which is why the yellow cards aren''t shown as often as many people would like. What''s happening on this thread and with the criticisms of Snoddy is that the focus has been put onto the player going down rather than the player who broke the rules to gain an advantage. Now it''s all very well to say "yes he was impeded but not enough for him to go over". But if he doesn''t go over and no freekick is given that player has gained an advantage by foul means. Even if it only slightly slowed the attacker down or slightly impeded his header the player fouling has still gained an advantage.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morty wrote the following post at 13/11/2013 2:46 PM:

What are these ultra complicated and cunning new ways of fouling players then?

I cannot believe that you do not think the ''art'' of fouling is as different now as football was different twenty or even ten, years ago.

Fouling is just one part of a game of which every part is analysed far more now than ever before in the hope of making it more effective.

Set plays are now set up where an attacker''s job is to foul a defender who would be picking attackers up even though they may be nowhere near the ball, runs are checked, players are baulked and the whole business is far more intricate than ever before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yellow Wall"]morty wrote the following post at 13/11/2013 2:46 PM:

What are these ultra complicated and cunning new ways of fouling players then?

I cannot believe that you do not think the ''art'' of fouling is as different now as football was different twenty or even ten, years ago.

Fouling is just one part of a game of which every part is analysed far more now than ever before in the hope of making it more effective.

Set plays are now set up where an attacker''s job is to foul a defender who would be picking attackers up even though they may be nowhere near the ball, runs are checked, players are baulked and the whole business is far more intricate than ever before.[/quote]
Well obviously that is a given, but implying referees ar somehow unaware or untrained to deal with the situations is a bit wide of the mark, don''t forget they also have a linesman as another pair of eyes.
I think the whole situation is over hyped, and that there really isn''t that is missed by referees.
And I think retrospective actions and punishments are a very dangerous road to go down, i agree with it in the case of violent, dangerous conduct, but I dont think we should be confusing these two issues.
I am pretty sure the referees have very clear guidelines on this, and as the incidents we are scrutinising here will always be happening where the ball is being played, then the referee should always see it. If the guidelines for referees are insufficient, then they need changing, not a retrospective review system put in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve always found it quite funny that in England, things like time wasting and diving are viewed as amongst the worst offences possible, yet many will defend two-footed challenges and barging goalkeepers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...