Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Cure for diving?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    PHB wrote: »
    But the defender who fouled him would be let off. It was a foul, it impeded his shot, but the ref is never gona give it.

    Not if referees play the advantage rule properly.
    If the referee sees fit he could pull the play back.

    In the mentioned example Best would have got his shot off and missed, but he would have still had the opportunity of the shot, therefore there should be no problem. He could have scored.

    If the referee however sees that the Best was illegally impeded enough to put him off his shot, then he has every right to pull it back and give the free kick.

    We are always talking about making the game "more of a spectacle" for me it is far more of a spectacle to watch players try and stay on their feet and use their wits and skills in order to outplay the opposition than it is to watch a player go down easily every time he gets anywhere near the opposition penalty box and hope his teammate can hit a decent freekick.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,625 ✭✭✭✭BaZmO*


    RealJohn wrote: »
    Why exactly?
    Because a referee already has it in his power to decide if a player is gone down rightly or wrongly. If it's the former he awards a freekick, if it's the latter he punishes the player with a yellow card with simulation.

    Also, it just adds more unnecessary American Football / Basketball type rules into the game.


    The biggest problem within the game is consistency, or the lack there of.


    Also, using Best as an example is pointless because times were different back then. Defenders were allowed to hack the legs off players.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,544 ✭✭✭redspider


    I would propose a 1 to 3-match ban, depending on the 'severity'. eg: if a dive for a penalty, a 3 match ban, a dengerous free kick near the box, a 2-match ban, elsewhere on the field, a 1-match ban. There has to be a deterrent. A one match ban is just a rest these days. Players dont mind that.

    Also, other issues should be jdged post match. eg: if a player scores by a foul, hand, etc, a 3 match ban. All this post match forensic scrutin should act as a deterrent for the top levels of the sport.

    Yellow ards and Red cards need to be post-match reviewed as well, and withdrawn if given because of a dive.

    Also, 100 lashes sounds like a good idea ....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    redspider wrote: »
    I would propose a 1 to 3-match ban, depending on the 'severity'. eg: if a dive for a penalty, a 3 match ban, a dengerous free kick near the box, a 2-match ban, elsewhere on the field, a 1-match ban. There has to be a deterrent. A one match ban is just a rest these days. Players dont mind that.

    Also, other issues should be jdged post match. eg: if a player scores by a foul, hand, etc, a 3 match ban. All this post match forensic scrutin should act as a deterrent for the top levels of the sport.

    Yellow ards and Red cards need to be post-match reviewed as well, and withdrawn if given because of a dive.

    Also, 100 lashes sounds like a good idea ....

    Christ a certain Japanese international would miss most of the season....and have a very sore back! ;)

    And what happens if the diver gets away with it during the match...lets say for an 86th minute free kick just outside the box.
    The player gets up and scores from said free kick, but post match scrutiny shows that the said player dived...leading to the winning goal.

    Do the team which includes the offending player the get deducted a goal, and in retrospect 2 points?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Not if referees play the advantage rule properly.
    If the referee sees fit he could pull the play back.

    But they don't. That's why IMO its ok to go down easy in order to get the free kick that you deserve.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    PHB wrote: »
    But they don't. That's why IMO its ok to go down easy in order to get the free kick that you deserve.

    Surely then changes to the rules arent what we need...but to sort the referees out?
    IMO it really is about time ref's had someone to answer to


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    BaZmO* wrote: »
    Because a referee already has it in his power to decide if a player is gone down rightly or wrongly. If it's the former he awards a freekick, if it's the latter he punishes the player with a yellow card with simulation.
    Fair enough, to a point but don't you think that in the current situation, the pressure is on the referee not to book the player in case he didn't dive? If this were changed to a simpler question of "did he fall or not", there would be much less pressure on the referee.

    I don't think the referees are worried about punishing players so much as punishing players in the wrong and looking incompetent. This would help avoid that excuse I think.

    Not that it will ever happen.


Advertisement