Simulation

#15

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Diving is only cheating and as such is no worse than grappling in the box.

Kirby pointed out a key difference earlier.

Kirby wrote: »

That wont happen. It doesn't help that apparently some fans and pundits enjoy a good dive. They use phrases like "he was clever there" or "there was contact" to excuse it.

Shirt-tuggers are generally not defended to anywhere the near same extent as divers.

On respecting referees... Chelsea players last night surrounding the ref. There's a good image of it in the humour thread
Last nights match highlighted a lot of the same issues

OwaynOTT

M!Ck^ wrote: »

On respecting referees... Chelsea players last night surrounding the ref. There's a good image of it in the humour thread
Last nights match highlighted a lot of the same issues

Treatment of the refs needs to be sorted more so than anything else. It would help alleviate a lot of the instances of cheating.

Treatment of the refs starts with punishments. Rugby players would be just as bad if it wasn't a guaranteed penalty against them and possible yellow card for any chat back. Its not as if they're all somehow morally superior, its just that the rules are different.

grumpymunster

I thought referees were allowed to book players for unsporting behaviour? That being the case the power is in their hands with regard to being surrounded by players book them it is that easy, and if they do it again send them off. Oliver set a great example with Di Maria the other night but it means nowt if other referees do not do the same. Any player being abusive to a ref should have sanction but if the referees allow it to happen then by and large they only have themselves to blame.

grumpymunster

grumpymunster wrote: »

I thought referees were allowed to book players for unsporting behaviour? That being the case the power is in their hands with regard to being surrounded by players book them it is that easy, and if they do it again send them off. Oliver set a great example with Di Maria the other night but it means nowt if other referees do not do the same. Any player being abusive to a ref should have sanction but if the referees allow it to happen then by and large they only have themselves to blame.

I don't want to single out Chelsea here but they are the worst for surrounding refs on any big decision
Joses disrespect for decisions / refs influences this on the pitch
John Terry as captain should be the only man near the ref going by the rules but looks like he also encourages this mob tactic

Iused2likebusts

defenders going OTT in pretending that a player dived has also become very prevalant in recent years and is nearly as bad as diving.

bad2dabone

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I don't want to single out Chelsea here but they are the worst for surrounding refs on any big decision
Joses disrespect for decisions / refs influences this on the pitch
John Terry as captain should be the only man near the ref going by the rules but looks like he also encourages this mob tactic

Don’t take it that I’m having a go Mick, cos I’m not, but United were famous for badgering referees under Ferguson’s reign. And Ferguson used to engage in similar tactics to mourinho of using the media and his pressers to pressurise refs. I think Mourinho and Chelsea have taken that behaviour to the next level.
I’ve never seen the entire team bar the goalie surround a ref.
I fully agree that only the captain should be allowed approach a ref, but until refs start dishing out cards and being more assertive to the players this tactic will continue to be used to gain an advantage.

grumpymunster

You dont want to single out Chelsea so you do single out Chelsea excellent work there.

United are the worst team in the PL for diving but that is immaterial every team does it. Every team tries to influence referees, every manager is critical of decisions that go against them United under Fergie made an art form of it and he was possibly the best PL manager ever. To say any team is worse at it is at best biased but being a Chelsea supporter I am fairly well used to hearing that levelled against us. The same as the days of ABU's it is just jealously which is very pleasing for me.

But in all honesty what does it matter if referees do not take action then teams will do as they please be it Chelsea, United anyone that I would have thought is blindingly obvious. I am also a big rugby fan most referees do encourage dialogue but not disrespect. As you quite rightly pointed out only captains have the right to discuss a decision and even then only if the referee allows him for example Nigel Owen does but Leighton Hodges does not (maybe because he is a poor ref but it is the case). But it is not unusual to see a player discuss a point with a referee during a break in play.

grumpymunster

grumpymunster wrote: »

You dont want to single out Chelsea so you do single out Chelsea excellent work there.

United are the worst team in the PL for diving but that is immaterial every team does it. Every team tries to influence referees, every manager is critical of decisions that go against them United under Fergie made an art form of it and he was possibly the best PL manager ever. To say any team is worse at it is at best biased but being a Chelsea supporter I am fairly well used to hearing that levelled against us. The same as the days of ABU's it is just jealously which is very pleasing for me.

Ha, United get 2 players booked for diving this year and they are suddenly the worst. I don't think you've seen much of United in the last few years with some of those statements tbh.

Mickeroo

Can we drop the point scoring/your club is worse than mine stuff before it excalates and washes the thread down the drain?

It's very easy to use a specific incident as an example without having to tack on "<club I don't support> is the worst for <controversial incident of the day>" hyperbole on the end.

Up until the last few posts there was actually a proper debate happening about the actual sport this forum is dedicated to, which was pretty refreshing I have to say. So let's try and keep it that way?

Pro. F

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Not feasable unless the referee is supported by video technology. Diving in football can be very difficult for a referee to judge. Then to give somebody a red card within any form of supporting evidance just won't work.

I agree, asking referees to take on more responsibilities by giving reds for diving wouldn't work. The job of the referee is already nearly impossible to do well because of the lack of information they have and the high stakes of every decision they make. Upping the stakes in their decision making would result in them making more errors.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Another point on this;
Somebody mentioned retrospective banning. I believe this wouldn't work either. For arguments sake a player dives and is awarded a penalty, the team score from that penalty and it effects the outcome of that game. The decision has already been made during the match. Then after match its deemed that the player has dived and is retrospectively given a red card. What good is that to the opposing manger and of course the player who has made the tackle, was the player who made the challenge sent off also for example? This would also bring dispute to all other decisions after each match. You would end opening up a constant barrage of decisions being disputed and would only end up adding more confusion.

In your example it wouldn't help the team that lost a penalty and/or got a player sent off because of the dive. And you know what? That is not a problem. It's not even slightly a problem. The point you are missing is that a solution doesn't need to be perfect in order to reach a beneficial outcome.

- Retrospective banning of divers and injury feigners would result in a much reduced frequency of diving and feigning without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

- Giving red and yellow cards for bad tackles results in a much reduced frequency of bad tackles without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

- Banning drink driving results in a much reduced frequency of alcohol related road deaths without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

- Introducing health and safety regulations results in a much reduced frequency of work place accidents without eradicating them altogether. That is an acceptable result.

You could use your argument of how the rule under discussion is an imperfect solution because of a particular hypothetical situation against all of the rules I mentioned above. Your argument works equally well against those other rules. The only reason that you don't use that argument against the other rules is because you have already experienced the positive outcomes that they produce. With a proposed rule, like retrospective punishment for diving, you have to actively think about what the positive outcome would be.

With regards to your second argument, that retrospective punishment for diving would bring dispute to all other decisions made in a game, that already happens. Every single bit of football punditry and the vast majority of manager interviews is already dominated by criticism of refereeing decisions from the game under consideration.

GBXI

The problem (diving, over-reacting, simulation, intimidating refs) is down to the referees, and more specifically the higher powers, i.e. UEFA/FIFA.

The culture of diving and feigning injury after a tackle in an attempt to influence the ref came from the Latin countries, in my opinion. They view this as a part of the game, whereas in this part of the world it is totally unacceptable. These countries, outside of the British Isles and Ireland, have the most pro footballers and a huge influence on the game. Then with the globalization of football you have UCL games, like last night, where refs from outside the British Isles/Ireland officiate the game very different to what we are used to. You have Ibra getting a red card that just wouldn't have been given by an English ref, for example.

It's poor officiating, makes for horrible viewing, and badly needs to be sorted out. But it can only be sorted out by those at the top and unfortunately, as I said, they don't see it as a problem in the first place.

Pro. F

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Rugby players don't feign injury as it doesn't gain them an advantage. But they will certainly cheat to gain an advantage in the game.

This is so important. Rugby is a great example of how proactive rule making can result in positive outcomes. Lot's of people think that rugby players are inherently more honest. They aren't, but they play under a ruleset that is infinitely more effective at achieving the desired results and a governing body that are ready to try new rules and adjustments as the opportunities arise.

LuckyLloyd

Pro F: brilliant. It doesn't need to be perfect or eliminate every loophole or edge case to be worth doing. Football fans are forever paralysed by over analysis when it comes to proposed rule or structure changes.

And let's leave the club biases aside, who gives a ****. This topic is bigger than that.

grumpymunster

I would have little issue with retrospective action but I am not sure simulation should be a red card offence, yellow certainly but red no. I would like to see verbal abuse of a ref a red card to be honest. Thing is whatever they do (FIFA, UEFA, FA whoever) it needs to be fair if a player is going to get a retrospective yellow for diving then where it is shown the ref made a mistake and booked a player when he was fouled then that should be rescinded. At some stage it has to be recognised that referees are human professional football at the top level things can happen very quickly so they will make mistakes. There are shed loads of cameras at top flight professional games, there are cameras at pretty much every professional game in the major leagues. When the ref makes a mistake it will be spotted and if a serious error it will be debated if the outcome of the game is affected.

For example if PSG had lost last night they would have had every justification to feel hard done by with regard to the red card but by and large it is not being discussed because they won thus the card did not have a direct effect on the game (hopefully it will be rescinded would be unfair on PSG in the first leg of the quarter otherwise).

Also it needs to be addressed is the simulation or crowding of a ref a club thing or a player thing? A yellow card may not bother the player more than the club so would a card and a fine be appropriate? For me yes fine the player every time regardless of simulation or abusing the ref, fine the club every time for abusing the ref and the club also if more than a certain amount of simulations per season.

The really sad thing is there are already rules there which could be applied but they are not and that makes a mockery of the so called respect campaign.

LuckyLloyd

Grumpy, totally agree - a review board should work both ways.

The refs are there to make the best call they can make at the time. But we shouldn't be locking ourselves into those decisions from a punishment / non punishment perspective after the final whistle blows.

=============

Another simple positive change on top of only allowing Captains to talk to referees would be having a 4th official or 5th official act as timekeeper and take that responsibility off the referees.

Bridge93

Retrospective action has to come in. You can't red card as you do see people being booked for diving when they haven't. A red card for this would lead to a few cases of people being sent off when they should not be. So ban them after the game heavily. Has to be heavy to scare off cheats who see no problem potentially wrecking other teams seasons if they win penalties etc.

Separate note is retrospective action must come in for tackles etc too. This nonsense that if the ref sees it you can't be punished after is terrible, basically saying refs are never wrong (and by God is that way off.) refs can be wrong (Ashley Barnes) and there should be cover like every other sport even if the ref "sees it" but clearly not well enough.

MythicalMadMan

Article on drugs in sport focusing on Rugby

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/13/uk-anti-doping-chief-worried-by-teenage-steroid-abuse-and-rugby

Kirby

Bridge93 wrote: »

Retrospective action has to come in. You can't red card as you do see people being booked for diving when they haven't.

When? This almost never happens. Perhaps once a season, if that. If you can point me to an example of this I'd appreciate it. I would remind you that a dive is still a dive whether a foul has occurred or not.

When people talk about players being booked for diving when they haven't, they are usually incorrect and letting their bias take over. Jose likes to bring the Fabregas incident up as an example of a player wrongly booked for simulation and he's way off. He has done so repeatedly in press conferences this season and on Goals on Sunday. Fabregas was caught, yet he chose to go down. Was he fouled? Yes. Did he dive? Yes. If you stay on your feet, you wont get booked. He isn't getting any sympathy from me for getting a booking.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Can we drop the point scoring/your club is worse than mine stuff before it excalates and washes the thread down the drain?

It's very easy to use a specific incident as an example without having to tack on "<club I don't support> is the worst for <controversial incident of the day>" hyperbole on the end.

Up until the last few posts there was actually a proper debate happening about the actual sport this forum is dedicated to, which was pretty refreshing I have to say. So let's try and keep it that way?

To note: This wasn't my intention. Only used an example because it came to light during the week, I admit I could have worded it better.