"Diving"- an obvious solution.

chicorytip

Why is so called "diving" or the engineering of free kicks and penalties through dishonest means not considered to be a straight red card offence ? It would seem to me to be a straightforward solution to the problem and a change to the rules which would actually make sense. Where FIFA are concerned , however, sense and reason seem to be regarded as strange bedfellows.

NukaCola

Its a yellow card offence as it is and doesn't always get implemented.

ArmaniJeanss

chicorytip wrote: »

Why is so called "diving" or the engineering of free kicks and penalties through dishonest means not considered to be a straight red card offence ? It would seem to me to be a straightforward solution to the problem and a change to the rules which would actually make sense. Where FIFA are concerned , however, sense and reason seem to be regarded as strange bedfellows.

Perhaps because the vast majority of the football world doesn't really see it as such a massive problem as to merit straight redcards, and its not FIFAs job to pander to the whims of people on these two islands.

greendom

chicorytip wrote: »

Why is so called "diving" or the engineering of free kicks and penalties through dishonest means not considered to be a straight red card offence ? It would seem to me to be a straightforward solution to the problem and a change to the rules which would actually make sense. Where FIFA are concerned , however, sense and reason seem to be regarded as strange bedfellows.

It is very difficult to state with 100% certainty that a player dived. Did he slip, was he touched. Refs find it hard enough to give a yellow, they'll be even more reluctant to give a red.

Fr Tod Umptious

greendom wrote: »

It is very difficult to state with 100% certainty that a player dived. Did he slip, was he touched. Refs find it hard enough to give a yellow, they'll be even more reluctant to give a red.

Then make them retrospective.
A panel reviews a game, any dives (which they should be able to determine with replays etc) will be punished by a ban.

Without the use of technology it wouldn't work.

Imagine players being sent off when they have been fouled?

Billy86

Red cards are over the top in most circumstances. I reckon it should reflect the the foul that would have been given, possibly with a yellow as a minimum. In a DOGSO situation it should be a straight red though, and I am all for retrospective implementation.

DOGSO.

Sounds interesting

chicorytip

It clearly is quite a major problem in game. Would having such a deterrent make potential offenders think twice whilst also improving the game as a spectacle ? It is usually blatantly obvious to most onlookers (not always match officials unfortunately) when a genuine foul has been commited as opposed to players simulating fouls or faking injury.

Donnielighto

rarnes1 wrote: »

DOGSO.

Sounds interesting

Direct/obvious goal scoring opportunity?

gimmick

I blame the foreigners. No diving before the foreigners came in. And the Bears.

rolliepoley

Warnings on the big screens before each game that that all forms of cheating will not be tolerated.

catallus

Retrospective bannings and fines and result changes. Diving makes a mockery of the game.

Billy86

Donnielighto wrote: »

Direct/obvious goal scoring opportunity?

Yep yep. Deny an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

losthorizon

rolliepoley wrote: »

Warnings on the big screens before each game that that all forms of cheating will not be tolerated.

The vast majority of grounds in Ireland and around senior grounds in Europe dont have big screens despite what you see on TV.

Amirani

chicorytip wrote: »

It is usually blatantly obvious to most onlookers (not always match officials unfortunately) when a genuine foul has been commited as opposed to players simulating fouls or faking injury.

Blatantly obvious if you're watching it in slow-mo on your big screen at home. If you're actually at the stadium, as an official or a spectator, it's not nearly as clear. There's plenty of cases that TV replays prove inconclusive too.

I'm all for retrospective bans for perennial divers, but straight reds would be silly.

Fuhrer

Diving should be the same punishment for what the imagine foul was,


You're one on one with the keeper and you take a dive, red card. Dicking around in midfield and you pretend you got fouled, free kick the other way.

rolliepoley

losthorizon wrote: »

The vast majority of grounds in Ireland and around senior grounds in Europe dont have big screens despite what you see on TV.

Right so... but that would'nt stop them getting a massage across, hav'nt they still got advertising boards, led signage, there is well more other ways than tv to give out a message.

PhlegmyMoses

If we are sending players off for diving, we need to send defenders off when they hold a player in the box at a corner or trip somebody to prevent a counter attack.

All of these things are deliberate gamesmanship to get an advantage, but for some reason, some people find diving more unpalatable.

Yellow in all of these situations is the actual correct answer and what we have in place right now.

losthorizon

rolliepoley wrote: »

Right so... but that would'nt stop them getting a massage across, hav'nt they still got advertising boards, led signage, there is well more other ways than tv to give out a message.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

If we are sending players off for diving, we need to send defenders off when they hold a player in the box at a corner or trip somebody to prevent a counter attack.

All of these things are deliberate gamesmanship to get an advantage, but for some reason, some people find diving more unpalatable.

Yellow in all of these situations is the actual correct answer and what we have in place right now.

I agree its easy for the ref to tell both teams before the game and announce it over the tannoy system before the game.

And defenders should be covered as well. It does all come down to gamesmanship. All it takes is a blitz of a few weeks I feel.

wandatowell

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Then make them retrospective.
A panel reviews a game, any dives (which they should be able to determine with replays etc) will be punished by a ban.

The PFA would never allow it.

Kirby

greendom wrote: »

It is very difficult to state with 100% certainty that a player dived. Did he slip, was he touched. Refs find it hard enough to give a yellow, they'll be even more reluctant to give a red.

A player being touched, or even fouled, does not absolve him from diving. The misguided notion that some fans have regarding this fact is one of the main obstacles to eradicating diving from the game. You see about a dozen dives per game where a player is fouled or has his shirt pulled and they just collapse dramatically to the ground. No, you are not "highlighting the foul to the ref". You are guilty of simulation.

If a player can stay on his feet, and chooses not to....he's diving. It really is that simple. And it is very easy to tell whether a player has dived or not. You use your eyes. We all know what a dive looks like. The problem becomes when you try to look for excuses for players because he plays for your favourite team.

CSF

Fuhrer wrote: »

Diving should be the same punishment for what the imagine foul was,


You're one on one with the keeper and you take a dive, red card. Dicking around in midfield and you pretend you got fouled, free kick the other way.

I actually think there is alot to be said for that idea, but at the same time I'm sure that after a good bit of thought, there are probably some pitfalls to the idea in instances where it just wouldn't work.

Fundamentally, I'm perplexed though that people view diving as such an utterly unacceptable form of cheating, but other forms of cheating get termed as professionalism, and that divers are viewed with more contempt than perpetrators of violence.

COYVB

losthorizon wrote: »

I agree its easy for the ref to tell both teams before the game and announce it over the tannoy system before the game.

Why would it need to be announced over the stadium's PA system? The people watching aren't the ones playing it

CSF

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

If we are sending players off for diving, we need to send defenders off when they hold a player in the box at a corner or trip somebody to prevent a counter attack.

All of these things are deliberate gamesmanship to get an advantage, but for some reason, some people find diving more unpalatable.

Yellow in all of these situations is the actual correct answer and what we have in place right now.

A million times yes.

pablo128

Here's the solution. If a player hits the deck and rolls around crying out in apparent pain, whether a foul is given or not he should be taken off the field to be examined by the physio/medic, and only allowed back on by the referee if he is deemed to be able to carry on.
Managers wouldn't be long telling the players to stop acting the eejit.

CSF

pablo128 wrote: »

Here's the solution. If a player hits the deck and rolls around crying out in apparent pain, whether a foul is given or not he should be taken off the field to be examined by the physio/medic, and only allowed back on by the referee if he is deemed to be able to carry on.
Managers wouldn't be long telling the players to stop acting the eejit.

Have you considered a job with FIFA

Timmyctc

pablo128 wrote: »

Here's the solution. If a player hits the deck and rolls around crying out in apparent pain, whether a foul is given or not he should be taken off the field to be examined by the physio/medic, and only allowed back on by the referee if he is deemed to be able to carry on.
Managers wouldn't be long telling the players to stop acting the eejit.

I suggested this earlier for when people break up play by getting "Treatment" for non head "injuries" they have a mandatory wait on the sidelines. Something short. 2mins or so. But at least then faking injury proves disadvantageous.

Kingp35

Personally I think one of the main problems at the moment lies with people perceived notions of what a foul is. I often hear that "it wasn't a dive, there was contact". Football is a contact sport, just because there is a slight bit of contact doesn't make it a foul. Even if someone brushes off you, if you throw yourself to the ground it's a dive.

There needs too be a mentality change as to what a dive is first before the problem can be sorted. "Contact" does not always equal a foul.

Timmyctc

Kingp35 wrote: »

Personally I think one of the main problems at the moment lies with people perceived notions of what a foul is. I often hear that "it wasn't a dive, there was contact". Football is a contact sport, just because there is a slight bit of contact doesn't make it a foul. Even if someone brushes off you, if you throw yourself to the ground it's a dive.

There needs too be a mentality change as to what a dive is first before the problem can be sorted. "Contact" does not always equal a foul.

Thats a huge bugbear for me. Player gets brushed on the shoulder or someone tackles someone else and gets the ball but also taps someone on the shin so they're entitled to swan dive. Sad thing is its not easily solveable in one step. Retro action could stop it after the fact. There needs to be better refereeing when it comes to stopping play for an injury.

I genuinely feel if a team puts the ball out of play for one of their "Injured" players. He then immediately gets up, doesn't need treatment and runs on, the other team should play away with the ball. Nothing annoys me more than players staying down to break up play and end up giving the opposition posession back 60 yards further back than they were.

greendom

Kirby wrote: »

A player being touched, or even fouled, does not absolve him from diving. The misguided notion that some fans have regarding this fact is one of the main obstacles to eradicating diving from the game. You see about a dozen dives per game where a player is fouled or has his shirt pulled and they just collapse dramatically to the ground. No, you are not "highlighting the foul to the ref". You are guilty of simulation.

If a player can stay on his feet, and chooses not to....he's diving. It really is that simple. And it is very easy to tell whether a player has dived or not. You use your eyes. We all know what a dive looks like. The problem becomes when you try to look for excuses for players because he plays for your favourite team.

I agee 100% but once there is contact, I think it becomes very difficult to punish a player for diving.

Beefy78

Kirby wrote: »

A player being touched, or even fouled, does not absolve him from diving. The misguided notion that some fans have regarding this fact is one of the main obstacles to eradicating diving from the game. You see about a dozen dives per game where a player is fouled or has his shirt pulled and they just collapse dramatically to the ground. No, you are not "highlighting the foul to the ref". You are guilty of simulation.

If a player can stay on his feet, and chooses not to....he's diving. It really is that simple. And it is very easy to tell whether a player has dived or not. You use your eyes. We all know what a dive looks like. The problem becomes when you try to look for excuses for players because he plays for your favourite team.

Players throw themselves to the floor because they know that refs won't give the foul otherwise. If they don't do so then the defender gets away with cheating.

Diving should be tackled retrospectively, absolutely. But a player should be able to force a referee's hand when he knows that he has been fouled and wants the punishment that that foul should lead to to be dished out.

Godge

There were a number of occasions in the Chelsea/Arsenal game where Chelsea committed fouls (clear in replays) and no free was given by the referee and an Arsenal player was left on the ground. Should an Arsenal player have been sent off on each occasion?

What is the difference between diving and exaggeration of contact? Take for example, Wilshere kicked on the ankle in the penalty box against Spurs? He didn't go down looking for a penalty and none was given. If he had gone down would the referee have made the correct decision and given a penalty?? Certainly, there are certain other players who would have gone down.

GreeBo

greendom wrote: »

It is very difficult to state with 100% certainty that a player dived. Did he slip, was he touched. Refs find it hard enough to give a yellow, they'll be even more reluctant to give a red.

If they slip then they shouldn't take a free/penalty.

paulbok

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Then make them retrospective.
A panel reviews a game, any dives (which they should be able to determine with replays etc) will be punished by a ban.

Yes, introduce the citing rule like in rugby. If a player dives, handles the ball intentionally, commits a bad foul/elbow/headbutt etc that the ref missed/ignored, the other team can cite him for the offense the next day after the game. a review body reviews the following day (or twice a week) and applies a ban if in agreement. That should ensure the offending player can be suspended quickly after an offense.