Diving

elastiico

New Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Somewhere
Supports
Millwall
I would love some new rules put in place for diving.
Dive in your own half: yellow card (as per usual)
Dive in opposition half: 3 match ban
Dive in penalty area: 5 match ban
I'm sick and tired of seeing players cheat and roll around even though they are perfectly fine. I especially hate it when they look like they've been shot and are on the floor screaming but as once as the referee blows for a free kick the player gets back up like nothing happened!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

PaulWolves

Active Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
244
Reaction score
48
Points
28
Location
Staffordshire
Supports
Wolves
The players own club should either drop him, fine him or both, but I doubt they Wouldn't care if a dive won themselves a penalty.
 

gjb

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
179
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Supports
Everton
Until the FA act retrospectively and stop going on match officials view point nothing will be done. No ref is going to admit he was conned.
Straight 5 game ban will soon put a stop to it.
Pundits need to change as well. Hate hearing a pundit say 'There was contact, so it couldn't be a dive.' Cack. I've seen player's go down at slightest touch, wouldn't harm a feather.
 

Super_horns

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
9,101
Reaction score
940
Points
113
Supports
WATFORD
Tim Sherwood the other day on MOTD said he would tell players to go down if touched - I suspect most managers are like that.
 

Art Morte

Active Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
421
Reaction score
87
Points
28
Location
Finland
Supports
Liverpool
There's a difference between diving without contact and rolling on the floor in apparent agony. Didn't the Premier League introduce punishment for this season for faking injuries? I seem to remember something like that.

I'm mostly fine with players going down if there's contact, even if they could stay up. It's impossible to draw a definite line there, so I rather accept it than try to decide on every individual case was it a dive or not. For me, if there's any sort of contact and the player goes to ground, fair enough.

A different thing is diving when there's no contact, I'm all for giving retrospective punishment for that. Also what you see too often nowadays is the attacking player actually looking to make contact with the defender, I've seen attackers pretty much kicking a defender in an attempt to get a contact with the defender and then tumbling down, that's just disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjb

gjb

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
179
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Supports
Everton
There's a difference between diving without contact and rolling on the floor in apparent agony. Didn't the Premier League introduce punishment for this season for faking injuries? I seem to remember something like that.

I'm mostly fine with players going down if there's contact, even if they could stay up. It's impossible to draw a definite line there, so I rather accept it than try to decide on every individual case was it a dive or not. For me, if there's any sort of contact and the player goes to ground, fair enough.

A different thing is diving when there's no contact, I'm all for giving retrospective punishment for that. Also what you see too often nowadays is the attacking player actually looking to make contact with the defender, I've seen attackers pretty much kicking a defender in an attempt to get a contact with the defender and then tumbling down, that's just disgusting.

Yes, but if a player goes down with minimal contact in penalty area, 'offending' player is sent off and given a ban and penalty awarded. Very harsh if contact wouldn't have hurt a fly. Also fine and ban manager as well if a player is found guilty of diving/ simulation.
 

silkyman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
1,068
Points
113
Supports
Macclesfield Town/Manchester City. It's complicated.
It's one of the absolute banes of the game to be honest. For a start it doesn't help that the apparent laws, as put forward by pundits in the main, are so fuzzy. 'Ref has to be 100% certain' is used as often as 'There was contact' and 'made too much of a meal of it'. Not to mention 'he was getting out of the way'. How can the ref ever be 100% certain when all it takes is a collision of aglets (google it) to be worthy of a penalty, but not if the player is a bit over dramatic?

There are plenty of precedents in football to have a workable dive punishment. A handball has to be deliberate (and with the hand in an unnatural position, unless your Strrling against Spurs, where anywhere on the back will do) Obstruction and offsides have elements of attempting to play the ball, so bring that in to stop players 'buying' penalties.

So if a player gets to the ball first, kicks it as hard as he can - anywhere - and steps into the foul... That's a dive. Retrospective ban. If on watching the replay, the guy's leg has no genuine reason to be there, then it's a ban.

'Fouls', where a player looks like he's suddenly had a stroke and his leg trails behind him to catch a defender... Retrospective ban for violent conduct. You deliberately kicked a player off the ball.

The worst of these I've ever seen live was Macc at Chelsea in the FA Cup. 2-1 down with minutes to go to half time and Schevchenkno runs on to a through-ball. Macc 'keeper Tommy Lee was fractionally behind in the one on one but had his positioning right, and Schevflopko twatted the ball out towards the corner flag and then bent his knee and crumpled to ensure contact with the 'keeper. He kneed him in the face hard enough to take him out of the game and would have missed the next one too with concussion had he not already been suspended. Where else in football can you deliberately kick someone in the face and get them sent off?

Make 'failing to attempt to avoid an opponent' a foul. Encourage players to try and stay on their feet. Give penalties on those occasions when players are caught but don't go down.

Serial divers will cut it out soon enough.
 

smat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
3,410
Reaction score
2,478
Points
113
Supports
arsenal
Twitter
@mrsmat
A FIVE GAME BAN for a dive, when BREAKING SOMEONE'S LEG is THREE? Are you fucking MENTAL?

Not to mention the ambiguity over what a 'dive' actually is. Who would decide? Seems no-one can agree on whether Vardy dived at the weekend or not, nor Mahrez in the same game.
 

Storzy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
561
Reaction score
106
Points
43
Supports
Arsenal
I couldn't agree more Smat.

If someone has dived to try and win a penalty. I could maybe see treating it like a professional foul when an attacker is through on goal, but talk of 3 and 5 game bans are ridiculous. You don't give someone a prison sentence for stealing a can of coke and then give a weekends community service for GBH.
 

silkyman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
1,068
Points
113
Supports
Macclesfield Town/Manchester City. It's complicated.
Five games would clearly be mental, but watch how fast it would stop even if just a one game ban.
 

Bilo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
990
Points
113
Supports
Women writing about women
Are the rules really the problem though? I mean, a dive=a yellow card, which means that in any given game in the premier league this season you'd have a couple of sending offs no problem, which is an automatic one match ban. Theoretically, that should have ended the problem a long time ago.

The problem is cultural, not only from the players but from the fans as well. We all hate diving until a dive wins you a title, then it's all a part of the game. That's what has to change, if we were to throw out bans for every dive I reckon we'd just stop calling dives out.
 

sl1k

the one
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
1,182
Reaction score
648
Points
113
Location
.
Supports
.
I think diving is an art form. Nothing better than when one executes a beauty with clever movement, anticipation and finesse. A little nibble every now and then on the opposition too.
 

silkyman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
1,068
Points
113
Supports
Macclesfield Town/Manchester City. It's complicated.
Are the rules really the problem though? I mean, a dive=a yellow card, which means that in any given game in the premier league this season you'd have a couple of sending offs no problem, which is an automatic one match ban. Theoretically, that should have ended the problem a long time ago.

The problem is cultural, not only from the players but from the fans as well. We all hate diving until a dive wins you a title, then it's all a part of the game. That's what has to change, if we were to throw out bans for every dive I reckon we'd just stop calling dives out.

The problem with that is that dives are very hard to judge at full pace. And I suspect referees often err on the side of the attacker. Possibly because often players are too good at making it look convincing, but also possibly because if they give the foul, the player will be the one slaughtered by the press, and if they don't give it, and get it wrong, they will be hauled over the coals.

But a lot of dives are pretty obvious after the event, so make it retrospective. Increase the risk of diving from a potential yellow card, to more certain ban, even if you do con the ref.

First offence, a match, second two matches etc.
 

elastiico

New Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Somewhere
Supports
Millwall
Maybe the '5 game ban' for a dive is a bit much but I just want to see it out of football to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

AtaturkOzgutson

Active Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
417
Reaction score
180
Points
43
Supports
Neutral
A handball has to be deliberate (and with the hand in an unnatural position, unless your Strrling against Spurs, where anywhere on the back will do)

It does, but deliberate doesn't just mean ''he looked at it and punched it''.

In the Stirling case he made himself a lot larger using his arms (deliberate) and then it hit him on the arm (elbow is still part of the arm, funnily enough).

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding around the rule, which isn't helped by the subjectivity of what deliberate means. For example, the Sterling incident which is a highly debatable incident was 'less deliberate' than the stonewaller given against McCarthy for Everton yesterday (as he appeared to have a stroke and then it hit his arm, rather than being intentional or to his advantage).

It's not really a surprise people get confused when you add that to the bollocks that Sky/Alan Shearer/Tim Sherwood spout every week, or the majority of fans on the terraces who think even having a pair of arms is enough to be guilty of it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
15,977
Messages
1,092,019
Members
6,696
Latest member
66stag
Top