The Diving Dilemma (Larsson and Dzeko)

[Cats]

Or is it really? Sorry about the long and unsmbesque post, tried to format it to make it more legible. I'm wondering why the following isn't applied:

• If an attacking player is fouled, but exaggerates the impact or obstruction, the fouled player receives a yellow card for deceit or poor sportsmanship or whatever. The fouled player's team is awarded a free kick or penalty for the initial foul.

• If an attacking player exaggerates the effect of an impact or obstruction that was slight enough to not warrant a foul, the player receives a yellow card and the opposing team is awarded a free kick or advantage. Optionally for high-profile competitions, the play-acter may receive a retroactive ban if intent can be proven on review, to further discourage the behaviour.

Isn't the above a completely sensible way of dealing with it? I don't know how much of it is already in the rulebook, but either way it's not being applied.

In my view, Larsson at Wolves, Dzeko last week and Larsson yesterday were clear fouls that would have been awarded if they hadn't dived. Dzeko's sligthly less so as he possibly could have regained control of the ball had he taken a slight detour, but the disadvantage to City caused by the obstructive effect of Gardner's late tackle was enough to warrant a foul.

So what we got was:

• One penalty awarded to Sunderland for Larsson beating his man with skill and then being obstructed by an illegal challenge (that was outside the box, but that's entirely irrelevant for this debate).
• One penalty awarded to City for Dzeko beating his man with skill and then being obstructed by an illegal challenge.
• One free kick awarded to Tottenham for Larsson beating his man with skill and then being obstructed by an illegal challenge.
• One yellow card for Larsson to discourage his behaviour.
• Three pieces of ridiculous theatrics.

What we likely would have gotten instead if the rules at the start of my post were applied consistenly:

• One penalty awarded to Sunderland for Larsson beating his man with skill and then being obstructed by an illegal challenge (that was outside the box, but that's entirely irrelevant for this debate).
• One penalty awarded to City for Dzeko beating his man with skill and then being obstructed by an illegal challenge.
• One free kick awarded to Sunderland for Larsson beating his man with skill and then being obstructed by an illegal challenge.
• 0-3 pieces of ridiculous theatrics punished by an equal amount yellow cards to discourage that behaviour in the future. (It is likely that Larsson and Dzeko would have refrained from diving on those occurances, if diving regularly resulted in cards, hence the 0-3)

Wouldn't that be fair enough?

Yes, referees would get it wrong on occasion, warning players for genuinly stumbling, and would fail to spot some clear penalties because the fouled player didn't exaggerate and so on. But that's part of the game and the same goes for every piece of football rule there is. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an improvement over the current situation, which I think we all agree is ridiculous in regards to both the endless diving and the extremely inconsistent officiating of it. The football federations and associations need to get their thumbs out and sort it out.

But my main reason for posting this thread is that I have a difficult time understanding why such a huge amount of fans, pundits, footballers and referees, particularly in England, seem to think that a foul is not a foul if the fouled player dives. Don't you agree that my points would be the proper way of dealing with it?

Do you hate diving so much that you want to see the diver's team unproportionally punished to discourage it to such an extent that diving becomes completely unviable in the future, even it it means there will be a ridiculous transitional period and that the balance of cheating will tip in favour of the defending team, with the shirt- and arm-tugging or other stealthy fouls that may be even more difficult for the referees to detect.

Or is it just that you don't think that late challenges that have more of an obstrucive element than a physical one, should be considered illegal challenges?

[Ashley In!!]

Tldr

[Bukowski]

I'm not reading all that.

[not spavin]

It's a tough one. Simulation to imply contact where there's none is clear enough, and should IMO come with a retrospective 1 game ban. Exaggeration where there was contact is very different. Far harder to prove, and in some ways you can say it's simple the aggrieved player ensuring the correct decision is taken. The equivalent of an appeal.

That was Larsson yesterday.

Dzeko was more a player creating a foul. It's a worse offence, but is it simulation? Is it any worse than a player knocking a ball past an on rushing keeper to draw a foul?

The big problem in all this is that, for some inexplicable reason, FIFA govern the game with vague laws rather than specific rules. That's the real reason there's no technology IMO - it'd highlight the fact that the governing bodies do not fully understand their own rules.

[York Black Cat]

did they show sebs on motd last night? i was very pissed at the timeof weatching it i cant remember!

[Claxton]

I do tend to agree with the points made at the beginning of your post.

I think the best way to discourage it is going to be handing out retrospective bans.

The worrying thing for me is that the media and fans are starting to struggle to tell the difference between a player unnecessarily going to ground and genuinely going down.

The fact is.. you are more likely to get a freekick if you go down as appose to staying on your feet. Thats the problem.

It would be great if an attacker, running with the ball in the oppositions penalty area could be caught by a defender, stay on their feet to try and score but becasue they have been forced wide or lost control still receive a penalty for it.

[Billy Batts]

Originally Posted by Bukowski

I'm not reading all that.

This!

[Cats]

Originally Posted by Claxton

I do tend to agree with the points made at the beginning of your post.

I think the best way to discourage it is going to be handing out retrospective bans.

The worrying thing for me is that the media and fans are starting to struggle to tell the difference between a player unnecessarily going to ground and genuinely going down.

The fact is.. you are more likely to get a freekick if you go down as appose to staying on your feet. Thats the problem.

It would be great if an attacker, running with the ball in the oppositions penalty area could be caught by a defender, stay on their feet to try and score but becasue they have been forced wide or lost control still receive a penalty for it.

This is exactly what I want to see as well and it can only happen if FIFA are absolutely clear to both the professionals and the viewers that it's the effect of a mis-timed challenge that matters, and not the physical impact. If you make an attempt to break up play with a challenge and miss the ball while still hindering the attacker in a significant way, it's a foul.

Exaggeration and simulation should be dealt with seperately, with warnings or bookings for the offending players regardless if they were fouled or not, and instead let whether they were fouled or not be the only factor in who gets the free kick. If the referee can book a player for diving while still awarding him a free kick, the referee will be much less reluctant to do so, as the consequences for getting it wrong would be so much slighter.

These steps would both discourage diving as well as late, clumsy or speculative challenges like Gardner's on Dzeko and Wolves' on Larsson.

[MalcolmX]

Originally Posted by Bukowski

I'm not reading all that.

me neither but it would be canny if Nathan came on and told us how many are expected to read it

[Tex]

^ so you're saying if a defender in his own box comes in with a sliding scything tackle on an attacker, the attacker jumps out of his way/over his legs, no contact is made but the attacker loses possession and the ball goes out of play for a goal kick, that a pelanty should be given?

Pundits think it can only be a foul if contact is made so there would be hell on on MOTD.