Feels like the biggest crime is getting caught, just like cyclists and doping.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
We are the worst for diving!
- Thread starter nelto
- Start date
Feels like the biggest crime is getting caught, just like cyclists and doping.
mudshark
Chris Armstrong
That would be insufficient, IMO. Some of the most cynical examples nowadays involve the attacker making sure of the contact, trailing a leg, etc., exactly the way Oscar tried to do the other day. Those would have to be caught as well, or you'd just be encouraging them to get better at it.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
how do you quantify those, in many of those situations it is ostensibly a foul
There can't be many other sports, apart from said cycling, where cheating on a regular basis is not only accepted as part of the game, but almost seen as a necessity. I personally have little belief in taking baby steps countering this kind of culture. As long as the benefits are so much greater than the risks, is only human nature (and a little mathematics) to continually push the envelope. Even training for it (Arsenal, allegedly). Repeated cheating, say "three strikes" or something, regardless of whether the ref took action or not, gives a 6 months ban. Or some kind of disqualification. Something like that. It has to hurt the club, not only the player, to prevent someone "taking one for the team".
May seem a bit drastic, but clubs are punished and punished hard for economics, which will never be a level playfield anyway. The game rules however, are or at least should be.
I agree with you, I'm just saying that we should be doing that at an absolute minimum.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Majority decision of the panel reviewing the incidents. It's only a foul if there is sufficient contact to bring the player down.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Most of that is excuses made by players, managers and ex-pros. It is pretty easy to see on a replay whether there is sufficient contact for a player to go to ground but more importantly, it is very easy to see if there is no contact or if a player is dragging their leg to force a contact both of which are frequently impossible to judge live.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
I agree it will clear up the no contact and leg dragging situations (although both those things can be true and it still be a foul).
I just don't think this is a magic bullet that's gonna condemn diving to the past, I think it's a something must be done solution which could potentially cause far more controversy than it avoids.
I also think that it would make more sense to have this as an instant replay available to the ref and 4o to deal with it at the time.
I just don't think this is a magic bullet that's gonna condemn diving to the past, I think it's a something must be done solution which could potentially cause far more controversy than it avoids.
I also think that it would make more sense to have this as an instant replay available to the ref and 4o to deal with it at the time.
Well every single football player cheats numerous times throughout each game.
eg. they all shirt pull/tug.
surely that is an example of "cheating on a regular basis" that "is not only accepted as part of the game, but almost seen as a necessity"
The example of shirt pulling has become so much "a part of the game" that many people have seemed to forget that it is plain cheating.
some people of this thread seem to think a shirt pull and a dive are two different things. but i've yet to see anyone really give a good example of why they think this.
both have a level of deception to the act and are both against the rules of football. hence, for me they are just as "wrong" as each other.
i can only guess that this is due to the "English football culture". whereby for some reason, diving has been made out to be the worst sin in football, and due to the fact that this view has been indoctrinated into us from a young age, we are unable to see how hypocritical we are being when we try to justify/defend other forms of cheating in football (ie. pulling/tugging/pushing, falsely appealing for throw-ins, professional fouls etc), but yet cannot see that diving is no-worse than them.
As galeforce has mentioned above (via the Guillem Balague quote), the disgust against diving is mainly a cultural thing and is not a globally accepted moral transgression like some in England seem to think it is.
both have a level of deception to the act and are both against the rules of football. hence, for me they are just as "wrong" as each other.
i can only guess that this is due to the "English football culture". whereby for some reason, diving has been made out to be the worst sin in football, and due to the fact that this view has been indoctrinated into us from a young age, we are unable to see how hypocritical we are being when we try to justify/defend other forms of cheating in football (ie. pulling/tugging/pushing, falsely appealing for throw-ins, professional fouls etc), but yet cannot see that diving is no-worse than them.
As galeforce has mentioned above (via the Guillem Balague quote), the disgust against diving is mainly a cultural thing and is not a globally accepted moral transgression like some in England seem to think it is.
I explained why I think diving is worse, but no-one has replied to it.
You seem to have first stated that diving is worse due to the "deception" involved. then seemed to have realised that "deception" is involved in shirt pulls etc too. therefore, you then tried to justify the deception in shirt pulls by claiming that football is a "grown man's contact sport".
my reply to this is:
1) football is a sport for everyone. girls, women, young boys and men.
2) if you follow the rules of football, its really as much a "contact sport" as basketball is.
also, as you have tried to justify "deception" in shirt pulls, surely then "deception" cannot be used at all to beat diving with, making the crux of your argument baseless.
you made a point that cynically bringing down a player is ok, because there is no deception. really? how often do you see a player walk straight off the pitch after a professional foul? they always try to make the professional foul seem as less cynical/deliberate as they possibly can.
and finally, you claimed to genuinely want to break the legs of divers. and yet diving is "disgusting" for you.
mudshark
Chris Armstrong
^^
Sorry, but dismissing the idea that a diver deserves a more severe sanction than a shirt-puller on that basis is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. First, you've tried to sneak it past us that a shirt-tug is a "deception" in the same sense as diving is, when that's nowhere near the case. If you pull someone's shirt, you are clearly the instigator of the offence and you are almost certainly the only one running the risk of being penalised for it if it gets spotted. If you dive to win a penalty, you are deliberately trying to get someone else in trouble, and perhaps sent off, as well as advantage your own side with a free shot that carries a high probability of resulting in a goal, and therefore a much larger detriment to the other side than is likely to result from interfering with someone's jersey. In my view, equating the two is rather like trying to claim that stealing a loaf of bread ought to lead to the same punishment as committing a fraud that cheats a pensioner out of their life savings. Let the punishment fit the crime, I say, and yes, that's partly about consensus. If you think shirt-pulling is as bad as diving, then, by all means, argue that it ought to be targeted and rooted out as well. I don't think you'll find as many takers for retrospective bans for shirt-pullers as you will for divers, but you can try and make the case. What doesn't make sense is to say we shouldn't try and stop players diving to win penalties because we think it might be difficult or impractical to deal with umpteen less-focussed-upon types of offences. If they are focussed upon less, it's probably because fewer people are wound up about the other side having won the game unfairly doing them.
Sorry, but dismissing the idea that a diver deserves a more severe sanction than a shirt-puller on that basis is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. First, you've tried to sneak it past us that a shirt-tug is a "deception" in the same sense as diving is, when that's nowhere near the case. If you pull someone's shirt, you are clearly the instigator of the offence and you are almost certainly the only one running the risk of being penalised for it if it gets spotted. If you dive to win a penalty, you are deliberately trying to get someone else in trouble, and perhaps sent off, as well as advantage your own side with a free shot that carries a high probability of resulting in a goal, and therefore a much larger detriment to the other side than is likely to result from interfering with someone's jersey. In my view, equating the two is rather like trying to claim that stealing a loaf of bread ought to lead to the same punishment as committing a fraud that cheats a pensioner out of their life savings. Let the punishment fit the crime, I say, and yes, that's partly about consensus. If you think shirt-pulling is as bad as diving, then, by all means, argue that it ought to be targeted and rooted out as well. I don't think you'll find as many takers for retrospective bans for shirt-pullers as you will for divers, but you can try and make the case. What doesn't make sense is to say we shouldn't try and stop players diving to win penalties because we think it might be difficult or impractical to deal with umpteen less-focussed-upon types of offences. If they are focussed upon less, it's probably because fewer people are wound up about the other side having won the game unfairly doing them.
mudshark,
you seem to think that i tried to "sneak past" the fact that i thought shirt pulling was a form of deception. i just want to confirm that i wasnt trying to sneak it past you or anyone. i am clearly stating it is a form of deception. because players try to hide the fact that they are shirt pulling as much as possible. hence, for me, a clear form of deception.
your main point however seems to be that diving is worse, because it can get your opponent booked/sent off etc whilst shirt pulling cannot. although i think this point is basically irrelevant, by your logic, would a small dive in the middle of the pitch where you are not getting your opponent booked be the same as a shirt pull for you then?
you seem to think that i tried to "sneak past" the fact that i thought shirt pulling was a form of deception. i just want to confirm that i wasnt trying to sneak it past you or anyone. i am clearly stating it is a form of deception. because players try to hide the fact that they are shirt pulling as much as possible. hence, for me, a clear form of deception.
your main point however seems to be that diving is worse, because it can get your opponent booked/sent off etc whilst shirt pulling cannot. although i think this point is basically irrelevant, by your logic, would a small dive in the middle of the pitch where you are not getting your opponent booked be the same as a shirt pull for you then?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Meh, variance.
I didn't 'then realise' that deception is involved in shirt pulls. I was making my first point about deception to show why I think diving is worse than professional fouls, that don't involve deception. And then went on to say why I also think diving is worse than other deceptive acts.
Okay, men's Premier League football - which is the context in which we're talking about this - is a grown man's contact sport.
I never tried to justify shirt pulls, I just said I think diving is worse.
Neither did I say that cynically bringing down a player is 'ok'. It's not okay, and it almost always gets punished, often by a red card and a one match ban. And it is less deceptive than a dive, because regardless of what you say, they often do it knowing they are going to get booked or sent off (see Rooney's arm pull on Dembele or Dawson's recent clattering of someone, I forget who).
Okay the leg breaking comment was a flippant comment - obviously I wouldn't actually break someone's leg or stamp on their head (as I said, I've never even thrown a punch). That's just a reflection of the anger I feel at a) such pathetic and unsportsmanlike behaviour, and b) the fact that the authorities still don't do anything significant about it despite how easy it would be to crack down on it.
And you never actually addressed my main point, so can I just finish with a question: do you honestly not think that grown men behaving like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBPGXJE86I - is worse than pulling shirts?
I don't think we're the worst at it despite our having more bookings for simulation than anyone in that time period. We're probably the second most guilty. Man Utd may have amassed one less booking but I bet they've got away with loads of dirty dives in that time. Even Welbeck didn't get booked despite being penalised for his dive against us t'other day.
mudshark
Chris Armstrong
No, it wouldn't, and we aren't talking about small dives in the middle of the pitch, either; we're talking about diving to win a penalty. The difference in advantage gained is part of the point, and whether or not shirt-pulling constitutes "deception" in your as-broad-as-possible sense isn't the point either. For reasons I've already given explicitly in my previous post, it's not deception in the same sense that a dive is. It self-evidently ain't the same thing, and if you really can't see the difference, and you aren't just trying to be debating-society clever, then frankly, I wouldn't trust you to tell the difference between a (diving) сunt and a half-eaten kipper.
Last edited: