I only ask as it was also said how he was praised for it. Im not saying he was wrong, its a sport, you play to win and if bending those rules means you win, hell, do it. There are no friends in competitive sport. Its why football is vastly more popular than anything else. Not like rugby where they all pretend there pals. ****s.
It is easier for a pannel of ex players than anyone else. I watch alot of Rugby and they are encouraged to stay on their feet as much as possible due to the nature of the game. A fair few players in the leagues aren't far off being as built as Rugby players and yet drop like a sack of potatos from a 50/50 shoulder to shoulder race. Sure a pannel won't catch all the divers, but they can get a fair few - enough so that players are always considering the disadvantages of going down when they might be retrospectively punished. At the moment, there is no worry for them. A 4th official in the game won't have the same insight, but at least can look for clear lack of contact (or issues like balls crossing the goal-line, etc). edit: I actually think big TV screens in a match can add to the atmosphere with decision making like tihs. You only have to watch the 6 nations rugby to see the anticipation and excitement building in the crowd whilst a decision is made by the 4th official (or varient of). Plus could you imagine the embarrasment if a player is replayed on screen throwing himself the ground under no contact infront of 40,000 jeering fans? Yeah, they wouldn't do it again.
Actually handling the ball to score a goal is a yellow card offence in the rules. Not particularly consistent, but there you go. Rugby's not a great example - if someone tackles you off your feet in football you get a free kick. If someone does it in rugby you just carry on regardless. I think your idea is good in theory, but difficult in practice. Take Carrick's tackle on Murphy when we played Fulham. Pretty much everyone agrees it was a definite penalty, but I think most people would agree that Murphy could definitely have stayed on his feet and was looking to go down no matter what the contact. So what would it be - penalty to Fulham and a ban for Murphy? Then what does Carrick get?!? The Carroll one against Newcastle is another example - did he dive or did he just fall over the ball / his feet / a very firm blade of grass? You could review that one all day and still not be certain...particularly given what a useless clumsy oaf he is
The whole point is that rather than one man alone making a decision from one viewpoint, you have (for ingame decisions) a video ref who can look at the incident from multiple viewpoints. Give them a 2minute time limit and call it inconclusive if no decision is made in which case, play on. For post game analysis of diving players, 3 or 5 ex pros will be about as accurate as we can ever get. Carroll, I imagine, would have been promptly banned and deservedly so. Incidently, tackling a player off their feet in rugby is a yellow card offense for dangerous play
Am I surprised that I was reading this thread from the beginning and it was going fine until UIR chimed in? Can't say I am. If Gerrard dives repeatedly UIR, then he should be punished the same as anyone, simple as that. No need to go off on one about how much of a 'cheat' he is. Also, the rugby example: if by 'tackle you off your feet' you mean knocks you to the ground, then that's fine - even encouraged. If you mean tackle them when neither of their feet are planted - i.e they're in mid-air/jumping - then, as JJ points out, it's a yellow. But yes, in practice, this wouldn't work. Unless you have a sensor connected to every part of a player's body, you can rarely say for certain there was no contact or whether said contact came about with enough force to bring a player down. You'd be getting into all sorts of physics with it if you wanted 100% proof. And, as Swarbs says, if it's clear there is no contact, how can you prove it wasn't a simple loss of balance?
I agree diving should be harshly punished in game. However, it would raise problems: - Players can lose balance naturally and fall, especially when attempting runs into the area or to evade their marker. - Some players run at such speed, and the players are in general so physically able now that slight touches could genuinely destabilise and floor someone. - Who decides if it was a dive? If it is a referee, we'll just have a different type of controversy. A video ref is needed.
Again, I agree in theory but not in practice. If it's for a penalty, what do the players do for the two minutes whilst they wait? How do they play on afterwards? Drop ball in the penalty area?! Also, how do you refer it to this video ref? The ref yesterday might have been absolutely certain at first glance that the Young decision was a penalty. Fair enough on the Carroll one, but what about Murphy? I can see some mileage for this one, but I can also see endless challenges. Look at Arsenal's appeal against the Eduardo yellow card where he got off after Arsenal showed there was minute contact by the keeper. Now imagine that happening every single week! True, but I would equate that to tackling off the floor in football, i.e. jumping into a tackle which is also a yellow card, or a red card if studs are showing. Ultimately in rugby the tackler aims for the man, whereas in football they have to aim for the ball.
All you people naming names are making irrelevant points. A lot of players dive. Young's being the most recent and currently most talked about which is why I made it an example. All you United fans loosing your tempers and mentioning Suarez need to chill and look at this more seriously. If this rule was to happen, if Suarez dived he'd be punished just as much as any United player. Stop taking this as a dig at United. Now I will define a dive: Deliberately going down or exaggerating a fall in order to trick the official into awarding a penalty, free kick or giving the opposition player a card when contact from the opposition is to little to warrant a foul or none existent. Obviously that's not the easiest thing to judge. But a lot of the times it is obvious. A panel will judge it, using video evidence from multiple camera angels, slow motion etc. Tbh its usual obvious to see whether they went down deliberately. Footballers would make terrible stunt men.
How do you differentiate between a dive and overexaggerating contact? And how do you know they didn't get sent down by minimal contact, like Ashley Young possibly could've.
That would be down to the panel. But tbh over exaggerated contact should be worth a warning to, because they are over exaggerating in order to make the foul look worse, hoping to increase their chances of getting the decision, or even make a none bookable foul look bookable. Its still cheating and should still be cut out.
Exactly,Its all down to honesty but in today's game and the win at all costs mentality its an impossible task.
In theory it's difficult to judge what constitutes a dive but in practice most are fairly obvious and the only ones who continually argue are the fans of the offender. If there were a retrospective judgement by a panel of neutral ex-footballers (not the bloody FA), I think they'd get it right most of the time. They would occasionally make mistakes, which is a bit unfair to some, but at the moment the whole thing is grossly unfair to far more, in my opinion.
As I said before. Exaggerating your fall is the same as diving. They are trying to make the foul look worse, maybe to get the ref to book the fouler. Its cheating.
I agree however, how many times do we see defenders fouling players but the attacker still manages to stay on his feet, then the ball goes out and no penalty is given? Sometimes, players feel the need to exaggerate contact and go down because they wouldn't get the penalty normally? I'm not condoning diving and going down easily, but I'm just trying to understand why they do it.
A very good analysis by Gary Neville on the whole 'diving' issue. I know people dislike him, but as far as punditry goes he's very good imo. This clip sums up the problems people are discussing, and to be fair it's hard to fault what he says. Take a look [video=youtube;mNx5ok60U6A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNx5ok60U6A[/video]
I understand why players do it, but I think this misses the point. Diving is illegal- if the ref sees it, he punishes it. All we're really talking about is improving the conviction rate of offenders in order to rid the game of an element that few of us seem to like.
I think retrospective action has to be taken. It's very hard for referees to determine what constitutes as a dive in real time and without video evidence. There was an incident when Suarez went down as he was clipped but the referee booked him for diving. If we were to send players during the game for diving, there will be a fair few bad decisions. Retrospective action is probably the best way to tackle this.
I understand what your saying but I feel its not a worthy excuse for players to use. Exaggerating falls should be illegal. Full stop. If they stay on their feet and the situation you mentioned happens then that is down to the officials. I think rules on diving should take no exceptions. Maybe some players will feel harshly treated, but it will soon cut it out of the game. But ultimately, what I am say is that players who get away with diving/ play acting etc from the referees view need to be punished after the game has ended. The FA punished a referee for not spotting a player cheating, but lt the player get away with it. Thats the most stupid and ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I'm sure the ref who missed Thierry Henry's hand ball against Ireland wasn't punished. From the referees view, things happen to quickly some times. - I also fear video referees could slow the game down to much. Though if it stops wrongly given penalties being given then we cannot argue.
your having a laugh, Best never dived in his career,he played when there was no diving by British player's,and he did'nt need to dive
