With the issue of diving coming up once again, a lot of people seem to be calling for retrospective bans and harsher punishment. But are people jumping on a bandwagon and going to far? They claim that diving is ruining the game, but surely it is no worse than a deliberate foul or handball, which pundits seem to conveniently ignore. So is diving really as big an issue as people like Tony Pulis really make it out to be?
Yeah I think it is. Jury's out on J Rod but if people are found to consistently cheat then something has to be done. It is difficult to prove intent conclusively though. Always going to be controversial.
A deliberate foul results in a free kick or penalty for the other side, and perhaps a card, and therefore justice is more or less done. The same goes for a handball as long as an official sees it. But a successful dive results in a free kick or penalty for the cheating side, and perhaps a card for an innocent player, and often results in an unjust scoreline, so justice is in no way done. This is why I think a conscious attempt to deceive the officials and basically manufacture an unjust scoreline should be treated as a worse offence, as it is hardly any different from match fixing. Fouling is a largely unavoidable part of the game, and is righted during the match more often than not. If the wrong decision is made by the referee, then the blame should mostly be on the officials for getting it wrong. Conversely, if a player successfully and purposefully deceives the officials, then it is the player who should receive more of the blame. The only problem is proving for certain that it was an intentional dive.
I see your point in terms of the punishment incurred, but the crusade on diving seems to focus on the morality of players. A cheat is a cheat whether they deliberately dive, foul someone or handle the ball.
I'm with Joe, I think there's a qualitative difference in dishonesty between a professional foul and a dive. Same if you deliberately handle the ball and it results in a goal to be fair, though if you're referring to that Suarez incident, I don't think he deliberately handled, so the goal correctly stood in my view.
Time for a laboured metaphor comparing football to Scrabble. I think a deliberate foul is the equivalent of deliberately playing a word that isn't a real word. One of the other players will probably notice and challenge your word, and then it'll be taken off and you miss a turn. Justice done. A dive, on the other hand, is like sneaking better letters out of the bag when no one is looking and making better words from them.
Good analogy Joe. And a dive to get a penalty is like smuggling a Q out of the bag and sticking it on a Triple Word square.
Some dives are obvious, but some can appear to be dives but aren't. Running at full pelt, you can easily be knocked off balance by a slight touch. Or sometimes you try to get out of the way to avoid injury and fall. Would you leave your leg in place if a bad tackle was coming? Any retrospective punishment would have to be given only for cast iron cases. This is the problem that the FA face. Adkins doesn't moan much when things go against him and just said it all evens out. Well today it evened out.
Jonathan Pearce has said he didn't think Rodriguez dived, he said rodriguez went down to avoid contact. Also looking at it again I think Rodiguez actually says it wasn't a foul.
I don't think j rod is a diver but today there wasn't any contact and I think he was expecting it to come but it never did.
Several things to consider. there is a big difference between a dive and taking evasive action. I see a lot of players go down without there being contact as they are expecting contact to be made and try to avoid it. It is natural instinct to avoid contact and potential injury for many players. Other players might be clever and wait for contact but some players do not want to do this as there is a risk of injury. This is why it's quite risky to book a player for diving unless you are 100% sure he tried to cheat rather than take subconscious instinctive evasive action. The main problem is that when a player is clipped, fouled, blocked off then if they stay on their feet some referees don't give anything even though they are blatantly fouled. So player's feel they need to go to ground to get a decision when they feel they are impeded. It means that actual cheats are used to going to ground and in practice so can take advantage of this by being clever and looking to go down at the right times when there's no contact. Another issue is a dive that actually creates contact. Where the player deliberately trails a leg in such a way that creates contact being made. These are some reasons why it's so hard for a referee at times. Today I think Rodriguez expected contact and was taking evasive action by going to ground or at least trying to reduce any pain from possible contact. The fact he didn't appeal for a penalty makes it obvious he didn't try to con the ref. There was no contact and it obviously wasn't a penalty , we got lucky but I'm not complaining.
To be fair, if you see someone coming to you like that, then you move out the way, it's a natural reaction. Rodriguez can hardly be blamed for the penalty being given (for a different foul anyway), and in the rules it's a foul if the challenge is reckless, so by the letter of the law it was a penalty anyway.
In the Arsenal game, Maya got a boot between the legs...no penalty. Ramirez was also fouled...no penalty. I know we got away with a Fonte handball at Stoke. Swings and roundabouts.
What about claiming a throw or a corner when you know it was not yours and what about raising an arm for offside when you know it wasn't. Footballers get the quality of refereeing their constant cheating deserves.
That doesn't happen to me as I keep a dictionary under the table on my knees and I always keep a few spare letters hidden in the palm of my hand.
In some instances a handball occurs because a player is attempting to gain an advantage dishonestly, without altering the officials, and in that situation is do agree that that is cheating. But take Suarez's handball on the line in the world cup. I don't think he ever expected to get away with it. He must have known he was going to be sent-off and give a penalty away. He wasn't trying to con anyone, he was just trying to prevent a goal and hopefully keep his country in the world cup. For me that's not cheating. Just as a defender who is the last man completely wiping out an opposition striker running through on goal, with zero attempt to win the ball, is not cheating for me. In both instances, the player 'at fault' knows full well that a red card is (almost certainly) coming his way any second.
I just think the referees and linesmen are bad. And they don't look for the right things. The focus really should be more on whether the tackle was reckless or dangerous or otherwise outside the rules. If it is, it's a foul and if not then it isn't. Regardless of whether the player goes down. I see too many plays where a player dives and in my opinion it shouldn't be a penalty even if there were legitimate contact. You'll never get rid of diving, but a better standard of officiating would prevent players from doing it so often and also prevent it from being effective when done. I also don't like that you get yellow carded right away for a dive, unless it's extreme. I think every play like that is either a penalty or not. Then AFTER the game, you review it in slow motion and from different angles and hand out a retrospective yellow for diving or professional foul if warranted, as well as reviewing the linesperson or ref's call. If they blew the call badly, they need a sanction as well.
