Diving in the PL

[Captain...]

That is what you call a dive.

 

 

He's not acted to kick him though - Guzan has ran out to clear the ball and pulled out because he wasn't going to get there. Start booking people for that and games are going to be getting abandoned due to sending-offs on a weekly basis.

 

In the final replay, he is nowhere near the ball and pulls back for a big kick, if he follows through with that he is going to put Bale in the stand, there is no need for him to aim a kick as he is never going to get the ball. He did it to put Bale off, he ran at Bale and not to cover the ball, and aimed a kick at him.

 

He either has the co-ordination of a blind donkey and thought he could get the ball, or did it to put pressure on Bale try and intimidate him and put him off. I am convinced Guzan knew what he was doing, he was even laughing about it afterwards rather than being furious at the dive.

[The Doctor]

In the final replay, he is nowhere near the ball and pulls back for a big kick, if he follows through with that he is going to put Bale in the stand, there is no need for him to aim a kick as he is never going to get the ball. He did it to put Bale off, he ran at Bale and not to cover the ball, and aimed a kick at him.

 

He either has the co-ordination of a blind donkey and thought he could get the ball, or did it to put pressure on Bale try and intimidate him and put him off. I am convinced Guzan knew what he was doing, he was even laughing about it afterwards rather than being furious at the dive.

 

He's in a perfectly natural shape to kick the ball while running onto it, and then pulled out - Guzan has done absolutely nothing wrong in that.

[DennisNedry]

Terrible dive from that twat Sturridge today. 

 

To be fair, Suarez actually tried hard to stay on his feet today, there were a few times when he was nudged which would normally send him sprawling.

[ozleicester]

No-one  seems to have mentioned Knockys dive on saturday (well i havent seen it if they have), watching on the stream it looked a lot like the Watford peno/dive and i felt he went down very softly...

 

Just me?.. did others see it and what did you think?

 

If it was how it looked to me, NP and the team need to have a word with him.

[Uncle Albert]

Sturridge dived yes, funny how nobody is mentioning Rooney's embarrassing theatrics when he threw himself into Mrtin Skrtel? Which went withouth punishment.

[Guest MattP]

Sturridge dived yes, funny how nobody is mentioning Rooney's embarrassing theatrics when he threw himself into Mrtin Skrtel? Which went withouth punishment.

This is why we'll never get rid of cheating in the game.

Fans of all teams instead of just condemning their own players for cheating always point to someone from the opposition and claim some tit for tat injustice.

The day we all condemn our own players and don't offer up any excuse whatsoever to condone it is the first day we'll be on the road to stopping it.

[Captain...]

This is why we'll never get rid of cheating in the game.

Fans of all teams instead of just condemning their own players for cheating always point to someone from the opposition and claim some tit for tat injustice.

The day we all condemn our own players and don't offer up any excuse whatsoever to condone it is the first day we'll be on the road to stopping it.

 

True, but I think we also need to redefine the word foul, if Sturridge had been a bit cleverer, or a few centimetres ahead or behind, it would have been a stonewall penalty.

 

We need to redefine fouls by what the defending player does, Vidic dives in like that and the player hurdles him, no foul, no penalty, no red card, Vidic dives in like that the player doesn't hurdle him, he trips the player, penalty, red card, no argument.

 

Vidic does exactly the same thing in both cases, the ref should be punishing him for his actions, not the reactions of the attacking player. The laws of the game define a foul as this:

 

 

FIFA Laws of the Game 2013-14

 

Direct free kick

 

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

 

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

 

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

 

• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

 

 

I don't think anyone can argue that it couldn't be considered a foul looking at that definition from the FA, reckless tackle, attempt to trip, but if Sturridge doesn't go down it isn't given, that is why diving/simulation/trainling legs exist.

 

The problem is the wording of the definition, firstly it is down to the referee's discretion, which needs to be removed, in my opinion, if you slide between the ball and the player in control of the ball without making contact with the ball, regardless of whether the player goes down or not, it should be a foul.

 

Real divers are those that trip over a leg that isn't there, Erland Johnson style, not those that go down avoiding a sliding player, in my opinion.

[Dan]

Refs buy reactions all the time and the fact it goes retrospectively unpunished despite all the technology you could possibly want is why it still happens.

 

Something's got to be done about it because it's literally turned into an accepted part of the game by a worryingly high number, that ain't on.

[Les-TA-Jon]

Keep in mind that there's no such thing as a diving offence, there's a simulation offence. Remember last season, i think it was, Bale kept harping on about "there was contact, so it wasn't a dive", well that's just wrong, you can still "dive" (or more correctly, simulate) even if there's contact. Torres got sent off for a second bookable offence last season, for diving. There was contact, sure, but he simulated.

 

The problem really is twofold. Players go down too easily because they know they're unlikely to be given anything unless they do, and they're willing to simulate because unless they're caught doing it there and then there's no punishment for doing so.

 

How to solve this problem:

 

- Bring in retrospective punishment for simulation, not only those incidents that involve clear diving but also simulation.

- Coach/Train referees to actually have some bottle and give more fouls for incidents where players don't necessarily go to ground. If referees did that then players won't need to go down will they?

 

Also a slight side note is the awarding of penalties. Now obviously the giving of a penalty is more times than not, like giving a goal. But this shouldn't come into the mind of a referee. All he needs to think about is "was that a foul or not?" It seems to me that a lot of incidents in penalty areas would easily be given as fouls elsewhere on the pitch, but once they're in the box, it seems like it needs to be "stonewall" for it to be given. Again, a lot of this issue also comes from pundits, the media and crowds, because people will say stupid things like "oh that was soft". Doesn't really matter whether it was soft or stonewall, if it's a foul it's a penalty. 

 

Also while I'm at it,  , how about 2nd yellows. Is it just me or are second yellows getting more and more frequent? I swear it seems like a ref is more likely to give a player a yellow if they player is already on one? I.e the 2nd yellow often seems to be more harsh than the first, like the ref's just itching to get it out?

 

Conversely in a totally hypocritical way (as is my birth right as a football fan) is it just me or do gutless ref's seem to chicken out of giving 2nd yellows? I've seen it a few times down at the KP, when a opposition player on a yellow goes into a bad tackle, the ref immediately whistles and runs over reaching for his pocket, get's nearer realises he's already booked him and then chickens out. 

 

TLDR: rant over refs 

[Leeds Fox]

Using the Bale one as an example...

If a player is expecting to be kicked, tackled in a dangerous manner, like Guzan would've done if he had followed through, they have every right to go down. Not necessarily to win a free kick, but to prevent injury. What would you do, plant your foot in a natural stride, to possibly have you leg broken, or attempt to ride a challenge that you're expecting. In that instance, neither player has done anything wrong (unless Bale fakes an injury, which I didn't notice).

Although a tackle that doesn't make contact, but makes the ball unplayable due to risk of injury is most certainly a foul.

[Les-TA-Jon]

Using the Bale one as an example...

If a player is expecting to be kicked, tackled in a dangerous manner, like Guzan would've done if he had followed through, they have every right to go down. Not necessarily to win a free kick, but to prevent injury. What would you do, plant your foot in a natural stride, to possibly have you leg broken, or attempt to ride a challenge that you're expecting. In that instance, neither player has done anything wrong (unless Bale fakes an injury, which I didn't notice).

Although a tackle that doesn't make contact, but makes the ball unplayable due to risk of injury is most certainly a foul.

 

There's this thing that most humans can do...it's called "jumping"

[Harry - LCFC]

We need to redefine fouls by what the defending player does, Vidic dives in like that and the player hurdles him, no foul, no penalty, no red card, Vidic dives in like that the player doesn't hurdle him, he trips the player, penalty, red card, no argument.

 

Vidic does exactly the same thing in both cases, the ref should be punishing him for his actions, not the reactions of the attacking player.

 

I disagree and think the player's reaction does matter. To me the purpose of the rule is to give the team that has been fouled some sort of compensation. If the attacker has not been impeded in any way then he hasn't been disadvantaged. If he hasn't been disadvantaged then he doesn't need to be compensated with a free kick.

 

Where I do agree with you about the player's reaction not mattering is when it comes to dangerous play. Two-footed, studs-up tackles ought to be red cards no matter what level of contact there is because the potential to cause harm is there.

[Captain...]

I disagree and think the player's reaction does matter. To me the purpose of the rule is to give the team that has been fouled some sort of compensation. If the attacker has not been impeded in any way then he hasn't been disadvantaged. If he hasn't been disadvantaged then he doesn't need to be compensated with a free kick.

 

Where I do agree with you about the player's reaction not mattering is when it comes to dangerous play. Two-footed, studs-up tackles ought to be red cards no matter what level of contact there is because the potential to cause harm is there.

 

But if you are basing it on the players reaction then we will continue to have players simulating and play acting because that is what the ref is looking for, if you change the rules to define what a defender can and can't do then a defender knows what he is allowed to do and not to do it. Otherwise you will get inconsistency how can s defender know what action he is permitted to take when it depends on the reaction of the attacker?

[Strokes]

This is why we'll never get rid of cheating in the game.

Fans of all teams instead of just condemning their own players for cheating always point to someone from the opposition and claim some tit for tat injustice.

The day we all condemn our own players and don't offer up any excuse whatsoever to condone it is the first day we'll be on the road to stopping it.

Richie wellens was a cheating, diving, simulating twat. I said that at the time and got shit for it.

[Harry - LCFC]

But if you are basing it on the players reaction then we will continue to have players simulating and play acting because that is what the ref is looking for, if you change the rules to define what a defender can and can't do then a defender knows what he is allowed to do and not to do it. Otherwise you will get inconsistency how can s defender know what action he is permitted to take when it depends on the reaction of the attacker?

 

I take your point actually. Decisions shouldn't be based on how players react - that's actually a bit silly when I think about. What I mean to say is that decisions should be based on whether an action is disadvantaging the other team.

 

If there is no impediment there is no foul. An attempted block tackle that misses everything - man and ball - does nothing to influence play. The attacker is free to continue with the ball, just as he would've been had the tackle not been made at all.

[Leeds Fox]

There's this thing that most humans can do...it's called "jumping"

He couldn't have ''jumped'' and managed to nick the ball away from Guzan at the same time, could he?

[Les-TA-Jon]

He couldn't have ''jumped'' and managed to nick the ball away from Guzan at the same time, could he?

 

 

If a player is expecting to be kicked, tackled in a dangerous manner, they have every right to go down. Not necessarily to win a free kick, but to prevent injury. What would you do, plant your foot in a natural stride, to possibly have you leg broken, or attempt to ride a challenge that you're expecting. 

 

Well what I'm saying is "going down" isn't the players only option is it? They can jump out of the way. 

[purpleronnie]

Chelsea game is a bit of a dive-a-thon.

[Corky]

Knockaert did it on Saturday too, no need for it, he's better than most defenders at this level and should use his skill.

 

Wellens threw himself over far too often as well. Our players are not all angels.

[Captain...]

I take your point actually. Decisions shouldn't be based on how players react - that's actually a bit silly when I think about. What I mean to say is that decisions should be based on whether an action is disadvantaging the other team.

 

If there is no impediment there is no foul. An attempted block tackle that misses everything - man and ball - does nothing to influence play. The attacker is free to continue with the ball, just as he would've been had the tackle not been made at all.

 

But that is where the advantage rule comes into play.

 

Take putting your arm across a player, if he goes down it is a foul if he stays on his feet and tries to brush it off and continue it's not a foul. I still don't know if it is a foul or not, but lets say it is a foul. This is where the players need to trust the ref to give them the advantage when being fouled and play on. I'm sure players know if they put their arm across Knocky he will go down, so avoid it, but if they are battling against Chris Wood, he is more likely to stay on his feet so impede him more because he is bigger stronger and stays on his feet.

 

You give players clearer instructions on what is and isn't a foul and take out the refs discretion on what is and isn't reckless then we will hopefully see an end to fouling, but it might also take some of the passion out of the game, the problem is jumping with your arms up, linking arms in the box at a corner, sly little pulls tugs, arms across are ingrained into our game at the moment and any gradual rule changes will just end up being ignored as it will end in a card fest and spoil the game. I can't see them doing anything to change the status quo, but I do find it crazy that fans and pundits a like have been calling for retrospective punishment for diving for years and it still doesn't exist.

[Mike Oxlong]

So football wants to encourage gays but ban diving.

I bet Tom Daley doesn't know if he's coming or going.

[Leeds Fox]

Well what I'm saying is "going down" isn't the players only option is it? They can jump out of the way.

Yeah, agreed. Just a little bit patronising in your first reply maybe?!

All I meant was that, when sprinting and stretching out to win the ball, simply jumping out of the way isn't always easy. I was only using the Bale incident as an example for my post, I don't think he could've done much more to stay on his feet.

[Strokes]

Knockaert did it on Saturday too, no need for it, he's better than most defenders at this level and should use his skill.

Wellens threw himself over far too often as well. Our players are not all angels.

You can go back further, muzzy was partial to the odd dive and when we signed speedie, he was quickly forgiven after scoring a few goals.

[Uncle Albert]

This is why we'll never get rid of cheating in the game.

Fans of all teams instead of just condemning their own players for cheating always point to someone from the opposition and claim some tit for tat injustice.

The day we all condemn our own players and don't offer up any excuse whatsoever to condone it is the first day we'll be on the road to stopping it.

 

Stopping what? 

Fans condoning their own players will have no impact on whether a footballer dives or not. 

[Dan]

I take your point actually. Decisions shouldn't be based on how players react - that's actually a bit silly when I think about. What I mean to say is that decisions should be based on whether an action is disadvantaging the other team.

 

If there is no impediment there is no foul. An attempted block tackle that misses everything - man and ball - does nothing to influence play. The attacker is free to continue with the ball, just as he would've been had the tackle not been made at all.

 

Basing a decision on the reaction happens frequently already and it encourages more diving/over-reacting. Watch slow motion replays of when players get tackled. It's mostly a foreign thing in my opinion, but they almost jump to exagerrate it. Things like this should be discouraged as much as possible, not the opposite.