"There was contact!"

Kirby

There was contact! Does anyone else find these three words the most frustrating words of modern football? When did football become a non-contact sport? Surely the question should be not "Was there contact?" and actually "Was it a foul?"

Please try to leave your club allegiances aside for a few minutes and discuss the issue.

Two instances over the weekend really made me sigh in despair at what we have come to. Adam Johnson's penalty against Fulham and Danny Welbeck's penalty against Chelsea. Both players attempt to simulate a foul by moving their own legs towards the defender and then diving to the ground. They can clearly stay on their feet if they want to but choose to go down and attempt to "win" a penalty.

I'm not singling these two players out as every team has 3 or 4 habitual divers. I am an avid Ireland fan and go to all the games and I recoginse Keane, McGeady and Duff are all guilty of this. It's not just a few rotten apples.

We have managers, players, and "pundits" like Alan Shearer claiming a player has every right to dive if he feels contact. People argue that the ref won't see the foul unless they perform a triple inward pike half twist every time they feel the brush of an opposing player. This is an awful argument. "The ref might get it wrong so I better dive to make sure!"

It's prevalent in all forms of football because of the professionals doing it in every match shown on tv and as such is seen in kids football today. When I played as a kid, you would rarely see it. Nowadays though, eight year olds are flinging themselves around and looking to the ref. I coach under 9's football and they are just emulating what they see their idols do. It's difficult enough to try and get them to understand it's wrong when they see it every week and then hear people on Match of the Day saying its "okay".

I recognise it's always been in football. Players dived in the 60's. But it was rare. I feel FIFA and UEFA's stance on it is far too lenient.

A striker tries to cheat his way to a goalscoring opportunity? Yellow card.
A defender tries to cheat his way to stopping a goalscoring opportunity? Red card and three match ban.

This is the problem. While there is no downside to diving, it will continue to happen. Retrospective bans regardless what the ref see's or doesn't see would erradicate it completely.

Am I alone in thinking like this? Is diving just part of football? Should we just accept it?

veXual

Physical contact used to just be physical contact.

Now physical contact = a foul.

For some players the reward of a penalty far excedes that of being honest and staying on their feet. I don't like it but that's the way the game is now.

Blackhorse Slim

Players rarely get even yellow cards for diving, and I think the reason for this is that referees won't get the card out unless they are 100% certain. And that is very difficult, when a player is travelling at speed and goes down.

What I'd like to see is severe retrospective punishments for players caught cheating. Any player who can be shown after the game to have dived, or cheated intentionally in any other way to con the ref, should receive a ban - maybe 4-6 games. With this ban doubled if the cheating was successful, ie 5 game ban for a player diving in the box, doubled to 10 games if a penalty was given (incorrectly) for the dive.

Anything less just won't have any effect.

Your Airbag

It still is a contact sport. You see plenty of meaty challenges outside the box.

In the box the advantage is with the attacker and with so many compact and pacy players about these days they can breeze past defenders which leads to more goals, which is fine by me.

As for going down when you feel contact? Its the not the most noble act in the world but I can understand why they do, most of the time the ref will give it so why would a player not go down?

Defenders will have to adapt. We are already seeing defenders place their arms behind there backs this season when trying to stop a cross coming in as most refs will give a penalty if the ball stirkes the arm regardless of the speed of the cross and whether its humanly possible to react and withdraw the arm in time. Defenders can't really jump properly with their arms behind their backs and as anyone who's ever done will know you need them out to balance yourself.

For a lot of people the modern rules are making players and managers more cynical. For me it ramps up mistakes and goal mouth action. The more shenanigans in the box the happier I am. Maybe if I didn't support UTD, one of the main perpetrators of penalty box action and debate I would feel differently, but I don't so bring it on.

Kirby

Your Airbag wrote: »

As for going down when you feel contact? Its the not the most noble act in the world but I can understand why they do, most of the time the ref will give it so why would a player not go down?.

Because it's pretending. You are pretending that the defender took you off your feet and made you fall over. He didn't. You decided to fall over....you simulated it. Didn't they used to refer to diving as simulation?

I find it hard to understand that football fans universally agree that pretending to be injured is terrible but some fans think pretending to be fouled is okay.

pickarooney

Everything in football is about pretending these days unfortunately. It's just a giant pantomime, just a small step up from Pro wrestling.

Nalz

Two fine examples of it this weekend alright. Both Welbeck and Johnson dived.

Your Airbag

Kirby wrote: »

Because it's pretending. You are pretending that the defender took you off your feet and made you fall over. He didn't. You decided to fall over....you simulated it. Didn't they used to refer to diving as simulation?

I find it hard to understand that football fans universally agree that pretending to be injured is terrible but some fans think pretending to be fouled is okay.

Like I said its not the most noble act in the world to pretend but that doesn't answer the question why would a player not do it? Why pretend? I also don't think either penos the OP is talking about are cases of players pretending, feeling contact but not enough to bring them down. Welbeck did anticipate contact and probably instigated it but it was enough to take his foot on its side.

Pretending or diving is a different discussion nowadays then it used to be, these players are feeling contact first, and they know the rules. Any contact in the box without the ball being touched first by the defender is a mistake.

If a forward has taken a bad touch and the ball is going away from goal or there is another defender in the way and he feels contact, going down is a good option at this point.

Lets not forget, a defender making contact in the box without getting the ball has made a massive error and is giving an opponent a chance to highlight this error.

If a player feels contact but its not enough to trip him up but he goes down anyway, is this cheating anymore or is he saying "Hey Ref, we both know the rules here, he got me not that ball and whether or not its enough to knock me down is a moot point. He broke the rules. You have to point to the spot."

homerjay2005

slow motion replays are a real problem, they tell a different story. a player running at full speed getting their legs clipped, looks completely different when slowed down.

if a player is kicked with no contact on the ball, its a foul, not matter how much "contact" there is.

its not even a debate really. jersey pulling is also the most blatant foul around, chelsea got away with it yesterday on ashley young for example.

Jesus Shaves

Trilla wrote: »

Two fine examples of it this weekend alright. Both Welbeck and Johnson dived.

In fairness, Welbeck didn't dive, It was more a case of the ref making up for his errors in the first half.
Isn't it Fifa who want the game like this, they want more free flowing football the last couple of years so it's no surprise the ref's are becoming more lenient.

average_runner

darokane wrote: »

In fairness, Welbeck didn't dive, It was more a case of the ref making up for his errors in the first half.
Isn't it Fifa who want the game like this, they want more free flowing football the last couple of years so it's no surprise the ref's are becoming more lenient.

If it was a foul what was the ref making up for?????????

Mr Alan

What struck me as interesting yesterday was the difference in attitude that Sky & ESPN have towards the offence (or their pundits have anyway).

Johnson was slated on ESPN for cheating to win the peno. Wellbeck on Sky? Not in the slightest.

Sky always seem at pains to avoid pointing out diving when done by any English players (Gerrard, Rooney, Young), instead choosing to occassionally pick on a foreigner (Ngog or Eduardo for example) as stains against their "product" and the bastion of good sportsmanship that is PL football in England.

It's incredibly infuriating tbh.

Homerjay, that Young shirt grabbing would have been an incredibly soft peno & if you say Chelsea "got away with it" then there's no doubt Utd also did at every set piece as holding jerseys like that is very common. Young threw himself in the ground cause someone held his shirt - it was a dive imo.

Your Airbag

homerjay2005 wrote: »

slow motion replays are a real problem, they tell a different story. a player running at full speed getting their legs clipped, looks completely different when slowed down.

if a player is kicked with no contact on the ball, its a foul, not matter how much "contact" there is.

its not even a debate really. jersey pulling is also the most blatant foul around, chelsea got away with it yesterday on ashley young for example.

Exactly. The rules state contact in the box. They don't state different levels of contact.

Who has committed the greater error in the game?

A defender making contact of any type in the box without getting the ball or a forward feeling contact in the box, no matter how slight and going down?

The answer is the defender.

Talking about the morals of it is pointless, these are the rules now and players will use them to their teams advantage.

jonnyfingers

"There was contact" is not a valid argument in my opinion. "There was unfair contact that resulted in a player losing his balance or his ability to shoot/pass" is a valid argument.

In the cases the OP mentioned I felt Adam Johnson was falling already before he put his leg towards the defenders leg to force contact. The defenders touch did not cause Johnson to fall so I think that wasn't a penalty.

Wellbeck's is not so clear. I've watched it plenty of times and sometimes, from certain angles, it looks like he puts his leg towards the defender and then goes down which suggests simulation. But the majority of times it looks like he is planting his foot as part of his running stride as he is trying to get to the ball, the defenders leg hits his foot and he immediately loses balance because of it. So I would consider that a penalty.

As for an attacker feeling the contact and going down, he's entitled to do so I think, mainly because whatever happens the ref only sees in a split decision and can't be guaranteed to make the right decision. The more obvious the foul, the more likely you'll get a decision.

For example if you get around a defender and he clips your leg in the process thereby hampering your next move but not enough that it would cause you to fall, should you stay on your feet and try to get a shot or pass in which would almost certainly result in nothing been given by the ref? But at the same time doing so probably results in you misplacing that shot or pass as you're off balance? It's honest but is that fair? You've stayed on your feet as long as you can, even though you were impeded, and you're hoping the ref sees it and blows up for a foul. Unfortunately as you stayed on your feet the ref will probably wave play on.

Or do you feel the contact, realise you're not going to be able to shoot properly and go down, where you've got a good chance of getting a penalty. After all the defender's illegal tackle has unfairly impeded you but in this case your honesty at trying to stay on your feet will probably go unrewarded. So you go down, the ref sees the contact from the defender and you falling so blows up for the foul. So in effect you were dishonest but got rewarded. If you were honest you go unrewarded.

The problem is that disparity between honesty and reward pushes some players towards cheating where the slightest contact makes them go down. But you can't blame them really, if they don't do it they get nothing, except maybe someone on Boards praising them for being an honest player.

But it's one of those things where genuine fouls could really only be decided by video replays, which I think should be used. But if you look at most challenges at normal speed, like the ref does, what do you see? A player running past a defender, a defender making contact with the attacker's foot or leg before contacting the ball, and the defender going down because of it. To the ref that will take a big decision not to give a penalty. And if the defender has gone to ground to make a tackle that's really not helping his cause so he can't complain too much if a decision goes against him.

So it really is a tough one. To sort it bring in the video replay, sort out the fouls from the dives and punish accordingly. If players know that anything they do in the box can be played in slow motion and analysed they might think twice about their actions.

stovelid

Players will always try to win stuff in the box. I too detest simulation and favour brutal retrospective punishment if it can be proved.

It should be remembered though that the origin of strictness re: tackling was because of the days when it was considered normal for a hatchet man to go out and deliberately stop - and even injure - flair players. Look what Maradona had to contend with when he played in Spain or Italia 90, for example.

Good tackling is an essential part of footballand the idea that tackling has to be fair and timely is not a bad one per se, just the piss-taking needs to curbed if possible.

Jesus Shaves

average_runner wrote: »

If it was a foul what was the ref making up for?????????

Some ref's would give it, some wouldn't, The ref gave it because of the stonewall penalties in the first half which he failed to give IMO

average_runner

So your saying it wasnt a pen?

Kirby

Just got posted in the mailbox. The 365 compiler agrees with me.

Crazy Horse 6

This kind of stuff has always gone on i'm afraid but with the advent of HD cameras and super slow mo replays from the likes of sky tv it is making the referee's job impossible.

copacetic

Mr Alan wrote: »

What struck me as interesting yesterday was the difference in attitude that Sky & ESPN have towards the offence (or their pundits have anyway).

Johnson was slated on ESPN for cheating to win the peno. Wellbeck on Sky? Not in the slightest.

Sky always seem at pains to avoid pointing out diving when done by any English players (Gerrard, Rooney, Young), instead choosing to occassionally pick on a foreigner (Ngog or Eduardo for example) as stains against their "product" and the bastion of good sportsmanship that is PL football in England.

It's incredibly infuriating tbh.

Homerjay, that Young shirt grabbing would have been an incredibly soft peno & if you say Chelsea "got away with it" then there's no doubt Utd also did at every set piece as holding jerseys like that is very common. Young threw himself in the ground cause someone held his shirt - it was a dive imo.

Evidence if this on sky yesterday was farcical. Redknapp says that the 'foreigners' like Evra must be trained to win penos from a young age, hence why he got his foot in the way for the challenge on him to win the clear peno.

Meanwhile Wellbeck kicking the defender deliberately and then hitting the ground is a 50/50 from both Neville and Redknapp.


Personally I can just about live with 'going down easy' I.e diving, as often refs don't give anything to players who don't hit the ground. Pretending it isn't a dive because there was some class of a touch is rubbish though, it's a dive unless the force to knock you over is there.

Young yesterday was a pen, his shirt was pulled. If gently enough. He also dived, flinging both feet off the ground and diving forward. We all know he was never getting a pen without going down, but he overdid it giving ref some doubt.

What I can't stand is the relatively new phenomenon of the attacker kicking out at defenders legs to make the contact when the defender pulls out of the challenge. Foul, free out IMO.

Jesus Shaves

average_runner wrote: »

So your saying it wasnt a pen?

It clearly was

average_runner

Dont get me wrong here, i am sitting on the fence on this one:

Just your quote say the ref gave it because of previous misses earlier in the game?


But that to me seems to say you dont believe it was a pen???

If the ref only gave it because of previous things in the game surely its not a pen???

If it is a pen he would give no matter what went on before hand???

Mr Alan

darokane wrote: »

It clearly was

That photo doesn't prove a thing either way?!

Nalz

darokane wrote: »

It clearly was

Dive imo. Ivanovics tackle didn't make Welbeck go over. Welbeck made Welbeck go over.

Jesus Shaves

Mr Alan wrote: »

That photo doesn't prove a thing either way?!

Really, Ivanovic is impeding Welbeck clearly in that photo, he has purposely put his 2 feet in the way of Welbeck going forward
It's a penalty.

Jesus Shaves

average_runner wrote: »

Dont get me wrong here, i am sitting on the fence on this one:

Just your quote say the ref gave it because of previous misses earlier in the game?


But that to me seems to say you dont believe it was a pen???

If the ref only gave it because of previous things in the game surely its not a pen???

If it is a pen he would give no matter what went on before hand???

You would think that, You see this kind of thing in games all the time though.
I do think it was a penalty, I also think becuase of the ref's bad decisions in the first half regarding penalty decisions it was easier for him to give this one.

Mr Alan

darokane wrote: »

Really, Ivanovic is impeding Welbeck clearly in that photo, he has purposely put his 2 feet in the way of Welbeck going forward
It's a penalty.

Talk about seeing what you want :rolleyes:

First off look at Wellbecks right leg, Ivanovic is in no way impeding that leg.

The other leg doesn't need to be impeded either, what the pic shows is that Ivanovic didn't kick out either foot and catch Wellbeck. Wellbecks left leg gets "impeded" cause Wellbeck kicks out with it looking for Ivanovic's leg so he can throw himself to the ground & win a peno.

Why this type of offence will continue however is;

1) Because fans like yourself will never admit it's cheating, while probably still slating Johnson for doing it the previous day for City.
2) Webb/refs association will never admit that he was fooled & take action to discourage players doing it in the future.

Therefore, as a result of your bias & their incompetence, round and round we will go.

jonnyfingers

I know this is kind of off-topic for this thread but just quickly want to mention the following.

I just went back and watched the Welbeck penalty again. It really was a penalty.

Ivanovic slides in, Welbeck tries to control the ball with his right foot but barely touches it, he ends up planting his right foot short of his normal stride as a result. The ball is now getting away from him. To get back in his stride he attempts to plant his left foot further out which is when he hits Ivanovic's leg which is in the way. In fairness to Ivanovic he's missed the tackle and is trying to get up again when he trips Welbeck but it's still a foul. Also Wellbeck's eyes are locked onto the ball, he's trying to get to it, not trying to get tripped in my opinion.

Video here for anyone who wants it.

http://videa.hu/videok/sport/g3-2comatchhighlight.com-http-www.matchhighlight.com-lif79q3FsKbEyzUC


Back on-topic: In this case I firmly state that "there was contact" from Ivanovic that directly resulted in Welbeck not being able to get to the ball. If Ivanovic didn't go to ground or touch Welbeck in any way then it would not be a penalty. But he did, and it was.

Crazy Horse 6

Ah the Wellbeck one could have gone either way tbh. I would'nt say he dived.

Kirby

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Ah the Wellbeck one could have gone either way tbh. I would'nt say he dived.

It's simulation. Welbeck actually stops and kicks Ivanovic and then fall over. It is exactly the same as Johnson's. In both cases the defenders move out of the way and the forward changes direction to "make sure" of contact. Both can ignore the defender, make no contact and keep running. They chose not to. Diving.

I like him as a player and think Capello should definately take him. But that doesn't change what is clearly evident on the replay.

Jesus Shaves

Mr Alan wrote: »

Talk about seeing what you want :rolleyes:

That's exactly what you've just done:rolleyes:
It was a penalty, the penalty was given, End of.