Pundits and diving and cheating

[The RDBD]

This is what gets me when the rugger buggers bang on about how their sport is above such things: bollocks it is.

The obvious example is how rare it is to see the ball actually thrown straight during a line-up, with Australia in particular being guilty of this for years - but plenty of other countries have started using the exact same tactic during games, with South Africa, France and England all being guilty of it on multiple occasions. I've also seen some blatant examples of players literally dragging a teammate who has the ball but has been tackled a few yards further down the pitch to gain a slight advantage (France in particular have done this a few times) which again is a clear violation of the rules. And let's not forget players faking a blood injury just so they could make tactical substitutions. ...

Rugby is not above such things, but is a lot better than football.
If I had a pound for each time Brian Moore on commentary saying WTF bother
with scrums as yet again the put-in is not straight (he has just given up now) .

 

[Spurf]

Well done Lenny for highlighting this blight on the game. I agree with points made in the OP.
It reflects the the world we live in where neo liberalism has encouraged the age old human tendency to try and gain advantage and if that mean breaking rules do it if you can get away with it. The 'British' in their Empire days had an ethos about fair play in their games it was a little area where sticking to the rules and fair play was what was expected. Of course in the real world 'perfidious Albion' gained an Empire by divide and rule and just downright skulduggery. But in cricket 'Walk old boy,' don't wait for the umpire, 'Play up and play the game'
Football always considered a somewhat vulgar working class game could not be expected to have such 'high' standards, although for the most part it did, especially in the amateur game. Corinthian Casuals being the best example where players who fouled were excluded from the team and if they conceded a penalty their goalkeeper removed himself from between the posts to leave the opponents an open goal.
The big change has been TV coverage and the continual analysis of referee decisions and of course 'the action replay' that highlights every foul. TV is journalism and journalism always seeks sensation and controversy. Come the TV money and 'He who pays the piper calls the tune' TV loves a good cheat and even more a successful cheat. Gone are the days of Eusabio , Bobby Charlton and Gary Linekar.
I agree Lenny pundits supporting the cheating is the last straw.

 

[The Changing Man]

Its the inconsistency in both refereeing and punditry that annoys me most. And pundits and diving are the worst, take the case of Deles' exagerated fall v Swansea where he was roundly condemned for manufacturing the contact and going to ground and therefore a diver, rewind about 6 months before that to Vardy v West Ham almost identical but Vardy didn't dive it was brilliant clever play the way he made sure that the defender made contact - You cant have it both ways in my opinion they both dived!

 

[lennypops]

I posted this before years ago but here are the opening words of the Laws of Curling

"Curling is a game of skill and of tradition. A shot well executed is a delight to see and it is also a fine thing to observe the time-honoured traditions of curling being applied in the true spirit of the game. Curlers play to win, but never to humble their opponents. A true curler never attempts to distract opponents, nor to prevent them from playing their best, and would prefer to lose rather than to win unfairly. Curlers never knowingly break a rule of the game, nor disrespect any of its traditions. Should they become aware that this has been done inadvertently, they will be the first to divulge the breach. While the main object of the game of curling is to determine the relative skill of the players, the spirit of curling demands good sportsmanship, kindly feeling and honourable conduct. This spirit should influence both the interpretation and the application of the rules of the game and also the conduct of all participants on and off the ice."

That means it's a real sport!

I love this. What's more I looked it up and these words are not some archaic and long-lost sentiments from a 1875 rule book. They are still the opening words of the Oct 2016 World Curling Federation rule book.

In fact I read it aloud to the kids that I teach chess to yesterday and plan to do the same with my Friday class. It really sums up what I think is good about sport and games. Thanks!

 

[vimhawk]

We've just seen Alli rightfully sent off. But we've also seen two assaults on Walker this season (Mane for ManC and the guy that kicked him in the head) that were not punished with a red card. I'm mentioning it in this thread because the commentators for the Mane incident distinctly said that they are sure it was accidental, implying that it wasn't a red card. Other commentators said that the head kick on Walker was accidental, but he should still have been sent off. Inconsistent commentators and inconsistent refs!

 

[The Huddlefro]

This seemed the best place to post about this:

You must log in or register to see media

The text in the picture highlights perfectly to me why video refereeing as it exists for Rugby would not be the most appropriate thing for football. Not only does viewing situations in slow motion, and from different angles, sometimes bring multiple, highly nuanced viewpoints to light for a given situation (how many times do you see a big hit in Rugby that in slow-mo looks late and deliberate, whereas at full speed it is clear that the player was committed to the tackle and couldn't pull out for example?), but also Rugby is by nature a stop-start game so taking the time to review a decision fully feels natural. It would destroy the flow of a game of football and ruin what in part makes the game so good.

That said, I still think we should mike the referees up and broadcast the feed, like in Rugby.

 

[vimhawk]

This seemed the best place to post about this:

You must log in or register to see media

The text in the picture highlights perfectly to me why video refereeing as it exists for Rugby would not be the most appropriate thing for football. Not only does viewing situations in slow motion, and from different angles, sometimes bring multiple, highly nuanced viewpoints to light for a given situation (how many times do you see a big hit in Rugby that in slow-mo looks late and deliberate, whereas at full speed it is clear that the player was committed to the tackle and couldn't pull out for example?), but also Rugby is by nature a stop-start game so taking the time to review a decision fully feels natural. It would destroy the flow of a game of football and ruin what in part makes the game so good.

That said, I still think we should mike the referees up and broadcast the feed, like in Rugby.

I think video evidence should still be used, but the video ref (IMHO the senior ref present, so that experienced refs still have a role when they can't run around on the field) gets only a certain amount of time to make a decision. If he can't see something in say 30 seconds (maybe 15?) then the incident clearly isn't obvious and the decision of the ref on the field stands. I'm only suggesting video evidence for the most obvious stuff that the refs still manage to miss (like today's "pen" at Chelski), whilst if something is not clear cut then it's not surprising that the ref on the field might make a mistake, just accept it.

I really don't think the authorities will ever go for it though, because it's always been the biggest teams that have benefited from the dodgiest decisions. I don't think refs are biased (well some are) but there's all sorts of psychological factors that might result in them favouring certain teams under certain circumstances.

I just want the right decision to be made. Not much to ask for!

 

[The Huddlefro]

I think video evidence should still be used, but the video ref (IMHO the senior ref present, so that experienced refs still have a role when they can't run around on the field) gets only a certain amount of time to make a decision. If he can't see something in say 30 seconds (maybe 15?) then the incident clearly isn't obvious and the decision of the ref on the field stands. I'm only suggesting video evidence for the most obvious stuff that the refs still manage to miss (like today's "pen" at Chelski), whilst if something is not clear cut then it's not surprising that the ref on the field might make a mistake, just accept it.

I really don't think the authorities will ever go for it though, because it's always been the biggest teams that have benefited from the dodgiest decisions. I don't think refs are biased (well some are) but there's all sorts of psychological factors that might result in them favouring certain teams under certain circumstances.

I just want the right decision to be made. Not much to ask for!

I take your points vim and I like a lot of what you say, but at the same time I think that either you do this properly, or not at all. A compromise just gets messy IMO. Putting an arbitrary time limit on decision making leaves just as much scope for error and if you're going to have a time out for a video review then you may as well take 2 minutes or more to get as correct a decision as possible, as take 30s. What if there was one more key angle that might need reviewing for an extra 10s, but they don't get a proper look at it until MOTD?

What is great about some of the integration of technology (goal line tech for example, and my bugbear of miking refs and transmitting the feeds) is that the effects are instantaneous - you instantly get clarity on clear situations, whether that is the ball crossing the line or foul language towards/harassing the referee. I think if you're going to go down the route of stopping the game you have to allow the stoppage to go on until as correct a decision as possible can be made on the pitch. As much as we all want correct decisions 100% of the time where the situation is clear-cut, to me stopping the game indefinitely to get a decision made on-pitch on all situations, whether black and white (however complicated) or situational and nuanced, just isn't how a football match 'feels'.

What could work is a rugby style 'advantage' system, where a ref or linesman (or even a captain or coach, if you wanted to extend the system - refs/linesmen would have unlimited access, and captains/coaches would have a tennis-style 3 referral system) can ask an experienced official 'upstairs' to check a situation in real time while the play continues. Then if it turns out there has been an infringement that can clearly be proven (an offside, a corner vs. goal kick, or contact in the box where it was thought there was none etc.), then the play gets bought back and the time in-between added on. That is a fairly major rule change and would take a lot of getting used to (and isn't foolproof as it still relies on one person's interpretation of potentially nuanced situations) but to me, would be better than having a timeout system where the game fully stops.

To use an example recently that affected us - let's say that Toby raised with Lloris during the EL game that he hadn't conceded the corner that led to their equaliser, that it should actually have been a goal kick (as it should indeed have been). Toby flags to Lloris, who then signals to the ref or Poch that he wants it checked. While its being checked, they score from the corner. Then, the decision having been checked and overturned, the goal is disallowed and we continue play from our goal kick, with the time in-between added on at the end of the half.

I've literally just made the last 2 paragraphs up so the system I'm suggesting would need further refinement, but I prefer it to stopping a game of football like they do in rugby.