http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19589825# Morning all! Just seen this story which initially made me chuckle, blind refs etc. Reminded me of that Reading goal a couple of years back but this was even more blatant! Surely in the spirit of the game the Gosport players should have owned up that this was a goal. Speaking personally I wouldn't want to progress knowing I had cheated. It would mar any further progress made. What would others do own up or stay quiet?
In my own life, I am very honest, but not so much in football. If a Saints player was honest and cost us a match, Adkins would praise him in public through gritted teeth, but scream at him in private. If you can't argue with the ref when he gets it wrong against us, I see no obligation to correct him when it's in our favour.
I'm quite honest when I play. I don't see the point in lying or diving, even when I get tripped and pulled down when everyone seems to stop I just sort of...roll over via momentum and get straight back up and carry on
Don't want to see Saints become cheats by simulation etc, but the question was about a goal denied incorrectly. Things go against you and things go for you...don't see the point in tipping the scales against us. Have to admit to inconsistency here as I expect honesty in cricket...but then I don't care so viscerally about cricket.
It seems to me that all professional sport contains 'professionalism', sometimes called cheating, sometimes described as making the most of any situation in the game... The batsman that does not walk, the rugby player that deliberately obstructs or runs offside to stop a try etc etc.. The difference is that footballers show no respect for the referee, and sadly it seems to be endemic through the lower leagues to the tyro leagues. Respecting the umpire/referee is culturally instilled in young cricket and rugby players..
Very rarely will a cricket player wait and question , it's his right to wait and thats not cheating , rugby yes England would not of won the World Cup without professional cheating but they were within the rules as such of the game and this allowed Wilkinson to covert all the time .
I only play for fun and so the idea that I would cheat seams ludicrous to me. But I dont have kids and a wife depending on me and thousands of fans screaming at me. However I think whatever you do footballer buissinessman milkman whatever you should have integrity and honesty. You may or may not get a little further with cheating but when you look back would it have been worth it?
I couldn't allow myself to benefit from cheating in a sport. I remember playing schoolboy football in an important league match. It was against Thornhill, and I'd just scored. But because our goals never had nets, the ref [our PT Teacher - Mr Vear] came over to me and asked if I'd scored. In the heat of the aftermath of scoring, I turned around and said something like... What.? I don't know, Sir. He turned on his heels and gave them a goal kick. What I'd meant to say was something like... Why are you asking me..? but I was so surprised. Of course it was a goal, but we were denied. OK, we beat them 4-1 and I got a couple of other goals, but it could have been different. They could have drawn the game, and as a consequence, we would have not won the league title that year. It's in little episodes like these where you realise the only way is to be honest. So when I saw Wycombe Wanderers [I think it was them] benefit from a ghost goal [ie, one that was given but the ball never crossed the line] against Shrewsbury, I felt for them. Shrewsbury had truly been denied. Absolutely because of that goal, Wycombe changed places with Shrewsbury, were automatically promoted, and left Shrewsbury in the playoffs, which they subsequently lost, that season [this only happened a couple of seasons ago] with all the consequent financial and personal advantages for Wycombe and adverse consequences for Shrewsbury. They kicked up a fuss, and a few pundits got to hear about it, but because it was League Two, nobody gave a hoot. That was completely wrong.
The argument that you penalise yourself by playing fair if everyone else is cheating, so why not cheat like the rest, just won't wash. It starts from the premise that nothing can be done to eradicate cheating, which is just untrue. All that's needed are meaningful penalties which simply make cheating too costly for any team to engage in. For example, football could take a leaf from Rugby Union and allow referees to award not just a penalty but a penalty goal. If such a rule were in place for diving in the penalty box, diving would disappear over night. Players would do their utmost to stay on their feet in case the referee judged they had dived. If the same penalty applied to anyone gripping an opponents shirt in the penalty box, the wrestling we see at every corner etc. would stop. Ridding the game of the current endemic cheating is within the power of the football authorities; if they showed themselves intent on stamping it out, clubs, managers and players would soon take note and clean up their act (and acting).
Definitely don't want penalty goals for diving...real ones only please. Thinking that awarding of goals is a good idea only works if you think refs never make mistakes. Cheating is not as endemic as some seem to think. Mistakes will never be eradicated, so why ruin a good game by adding extra complications.
It's precisely because referees are not infallible that the threat of a penalty goal being awarded would stop diving straight away. Players would have to do their utmost to stay on their feet, rather than falling down at the faintest touch. A clear example of where a penalty goal would be absolutely justified is Suarez's handball on the goal line during the World Cup in South Africa. That was a certain goal before Suarez intervened. A huge injustice was done when the penalty kick wasn't converted; a penalty goal would have seen justice done. Regarding your point about adding complications, IMO many recent rule changes have done just that, making the game much harder to referee. If we want fewer refereeing errors, make the game easier to referee, not harder. My suggestion would make it easier for the referee, not harder.
I would have told the ref straight away it was in no matter whose side I was playing for. Winning by cheating is not something that I find satisfying. And by the way in my time I have been cheated by the opponent numerous times but would never stoop to their level and always be an honest player.
While on this subject, Miroslav Klose owned up to handball after "scoring" for Lazio last night, 3 minutes into a Serie A game with the score at 0:0. The "goal" was chalked off and Lazio went on to lose 0:3. The video clearly shows the handball, while equally clearly showing Klose being wrestled away from his attempted header by his marker. The opposition players were incensed by the handball, but didn't tell the referee that Lazio should have been awarded a penalty for the preceding foul on Klose. If the whole incident could have gone to a video referee, Lazio would have been given a penalty and with it the chance of a legitimate goal. Then justice would have been served.
The so called pundits on TV make it worse by implying that if a player feels contact he's within his rights to fall down and appeal. Horse manure, a player should stay on his feet and try and score. If players stopped overreacting, it would make the refs job easier, and mean less mistakes.
