http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24105809 Personally, i'd like to see some retrospective punishment for cheats. If we have the technology and the means to determine blatant cheating like that of Ashley Young's, then they should be banned for one or three games. It spoils the game. On a side note, when will they get that goal-line tech in? The weekend incident was a shocker!
Players diving to try and cheat to win penalties is one of the most infuriating things in the game and there should be really tough sanctions on those that do it. I think it starts though with the managers and fair play to Moyes, apparently he has chastised Young for doing it. But too often you'll hear players say that their managers have told them that if they feel any contact in the box then they are entitled to go down. Contact is one thing, but too many times over the last few seasons we've seen players like Young, Bale and Suarez blatantly cheating to try and deceive the ref. I think fans have a part to play too, as difficult as it is, but they should also be making a stand against their own players who dive. The excuses we heard about Bale 'he only dived to avoid being tackled' are ludicrous and also need to be kept in check. It's difficult enough for the refs to make instant decisions, but I think as the OP mentions there should be some kind of retrospective banning in a similar way to dangerous tackling. The threat of a three match ban would stamp out diving overnight.
You're on the right track but I think if you looked a bit closer at players that don't have such a diving reputation then you'd see the exact samething going on, I don't think there's a player in the league that doesn't go down when they could stay on their feet at times and most attackers do it regularly. How often do you see a player having his shirt pulled or getting tugged back by their shoulder suddenly lose their ability to use their legs and go sliding forward on their knees? We all know it's not natural for you to lose your feet when you get your shirt pulled yet it happens all the time in the Premier League. As I said on the Chelsea board, and I'm sure I've said it loads of times before it has to be handled retrospectively because it's very difficult for ref's to know for sure at the time and if it carries a red card you can bet they'll bottle those decisions against the big clubs. It's also hard to do because it's so subjective, how many times do you see pundits and fans that have different opinions on whether the player "had a right to go down" or if they've "gone down too easy"? The simplest way is to target those where they've starfished to get contact, started falling before there was any contract or gone over with no contact at all. Another key is to distinguish between those where the player has appealed or not, as I think it's important not to punish someone that hasn't appealed for anything because otherwise you complicate things further with players appealing because they say they slipped or whatever. Another distinguishment I'd make is the ban size, 3 games for winning a penalty, 1 game for trying to win a penalty(and failing), 1 game for a dive anywhere outside the area whether they got the decision or not. As you rightly say diving for penalties is by far the most infuriating and should be treated as such, it should also reflect whether it was given or not because if it is given it's likely to change the course of the game. If you try and crack down on all diving and with big punishments then I think it would be destined to fail so concentrating on blatant dives that win penalties should be the priority.
I think when you play football there are always times that you go down too easily. And occasionally you even go down thinking your about to get taken out and the person doesn't touch you! But it's part of the game to try and make sure you get free-kicks and decisions. I can understand that sometimes very skillfull or very pacey players get kicked a lot and to protect themselves end up going down fairly easily. I think it's a fine line between going down easily and diving and it's difficult to see what is what. When a player purposely sticks his leg out to make contact so that he can dive then you know it has gone too far!
Some good points above and I agree with Most of what Yid (am I allowed to use that term?) has said. My only concern if it is used retrospectively, is that it doesn't help the team that are sinned against, yet could help our rivals. Let's see Arsenal are playing Liverpool. Suarez dives, get's a penalty and scores. Liverpool win. Suarez get's a retrospective ban. Next game Liverpool are playing Man U. Obviously they now don't have Suarez. Advantage Man U. However that is the same for red cards, but at least then, they miss part of the game against the club they have sinned against.
Ultimately, retrospective banning will make players think twice before cheating. Unfortunately it won't help you much during the game unless you want a lot of pauses between challenges....
Yellow card is fair. For me it is the same level as a deliberate tactical (professional) foul. Red is too harsh, because the risk is too great that the referee gets it wrong. Retrospective is just silly. We want to see players playing, not banned.
It's hard for the ref to call a dive in game, so there would be a lot of red cards given incorrectly. So I agree that retrospective punishment would be the right course to take. That should stamp it out pretty quickly.
Retrospective punishment for me although, as mentioned above, it won't help the team who were originally on the receiving end. If it is proven (another question - who decides), then the "sinner" should received double the punishment dished out to the person. Additionally, if the result was a converted penalty, that is a further 2 match suspension. Therefore, in the case of Mr Young at the weekend, if the "panel" decided a no contact, deliberate dive (by whatever criteria they use), he would receive a x2 red card, plus a further 2 match. All teams have them - that might stop them a little. It would certainly hack their manager off!
I take the point about retrospective punishment potentially disadvantaging the team that was sinned against, but I think the idea of retrospective punishment would be employed as a deterent to stop them from diving in the first place. Risking a three match ban would make any player think twice before throwing themselves to the ground.
Manchester United boss David Moyes thinks divers should be punished retrospectively http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/8925339/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24105809 "I've had a word with him (Young) privately and, as I said after the game, I've said for many years we should have retrospective video for diving," said Moyes. "I think that would help referees no end, as it's really difficult at times. It doesn't change my views, whether I'm at Everton or whether I'm at Manchester United.
I make Steve Parish right. Diving/cheating is a cancer in the game, it might be accepted in South America or Italy (it might not either) but in this country your average fan wants honest loyal footballers and the modern game doesn't produce many of these. Young is a disgrace, as was Bale, but we're not immune so this isn't an Arsenal v the cheaters of the world, we've had one or two who have tried to cheat referees over the years (though thankfully very infrequent). I applaud Moyes stance because he's set his stall out now and cannot defend any form of cheating from his players, and the message Parish sends out is clear so there won't be any Palace players throwing themselves on the floor anytime soon...
While I have no problem with retrospective cards for diving . I think it becomes murky as I see professional fouls (for me as bad as diving) are at worse given a yellow. Then don't you think they should be straight reds as well. I am with Toledo - yellow card is good enough same as a professional foul. I think a review system would be perfect ala cricket or American football. Teams get one review a half it links to things like dives, penalties and goal line - offside calls as well on goals scored (where the refs have not called it ) impossible to review offsides when they have been called as you play to the whistle so if the ref blows it stops.
vela - in NFL there are limits to what a coach is allowed to challenge, for instance he cannot challenge whether a foul has been committed or not and if I'm reading between the lines of your post correctly you would allow this to be reviewed ? It's worth noting that in NFL there are 7 officials on the field and each play is more often than not restricted to an area 40 yards by 15 yards, in football we expect a referee to be able to see the entire pitch even though there are numerous 50 yard passes that cover the ground in a couple of seconds throughout a game.
I used NFL as an example of sports which have a review system. My idea is to limit (not 100% on what you can or not - potentially there could be no limit ) the reasons where you can make a call as well, exactly where and when will need some vetting. Basically you can review once a half if wrong its gone (if right it stays) It can be introduced just for big things ala penalty shouts, free kicks, goals, etc etc it will of course require fine tuning but yeah the premise would be to stop game changing mistakes. Limiting it to 1 a half or 1 a game will reduce ridiculous reviews (hopefully).