We are the worst for diving!

[Neymar]

mudshark, your above point seems to highlight why you think diving is different to shirt pulling. i cant really see how you have justified why it is any worse.
your whole point seems to be that the diving form of deception is worse than other forms ie. shirt pulling.

hence, highlighting my view that the english footballing public in general have grown up being indoctrinated that diving is the "worst sin in football", and therefore maintain that view throughout their lives, without being able to see that there is really no difference with diving and other forms of cheating that go on throughout football matches.
in cultures that do not have this form of indoctrination, ie. south america, this hatred against diving doesnt exists.

my view is that; if you want retrospective action against diving, have it against all forms of cheating, not just singling out diving (like us english seem to love doing).

and although i now know you arent specifically referring to this; could you elaborate as to why you think a small dive in the middle of the pitch where you are not getting your opponent booked isnt the same as a shirt pull? (i suspect you would probably point out again why this offense and a shirt pull is different, not why it is worse).

 

[Baleforce]

I think a dive is a dive anywhere on the pitch, same as a handball or a push or a shirt pull

there is nothing in the laws of the game suggesting any difference in an offence based on location

 

[Neymar]

I think a dive is a dive anywhere on the pitch, same as a handball or a push or a shirt pull

there is nothing in the laws of the game suggesting any difference in an offence based on location

spot on.

 

[mudshark]

If that were the case then we'd award a penalty for every offence, regardless of where it's committed, wouldn't we. I'm already tired of saying it, but as well as the fact you are trying to make it look as though your opponent is the guilty party, the level of advantage illegally gained is partly the point. That's about the degree of the offence, not just whether it's different. What you are arguing, to my mind, is that someone who lifts a fiver from your back pocket deserves the same treatment as someone who embezzles your life savings or murders your first-born, since it's all "crime" after all. There's a certain "logic" to that, I suppose, but if you don't think the majority of people would consider diving for a penalty to be a worse offence than tugging a shirt in the centre-circle, then I really have nothing more to say on the matter than that I disagree profoundly.

 

[Neymar]

Why would there be a penalty for every offense regardless of where it was committed?

also, i think a more appropriate analogy would be that i believe that stealing a £5 note via pickpocketing is similarly wrong to stealing £5 through online fraud. furthermore, i am trying to point out that due to the majority of the population being working class, stealing via pickpocketing is more accepted as it is not a white collar crime. then, the working class population try to justify it by saying real life pickpocketing is less "deceptive" than the online version of the crime.

for me this is massively hypocritical.

 

[mudshark]

Alright, this really is my last word on the subject, which has already dipped close to OT.

Why would there be a penalty for every offense regardless of where it was committed?

Because, according to you, there's no difference in the offence. I'm just applying the same (absurd) logic to the punishment.

also, i think a more appropriate analogy would be that i believe that stealing a £5 note via pickpocketing is similarly wrong to stealing £5 through online fraud. furthermore, i am trying to point out that due to the majority of the population being working class, stealing via pickpocketing is more accepted as it is not a white collar crime. then, the working class population try to justify it by saying real life pickpocketing is less "deceptive" than the online version of the crime.

Wrong, because it fails to take into account that the level of advantage gained (hence of detriment to the opponent/victim) forms part of the consideration when judging the seriousness of the offence. If you haven't understood that, I'm not surprised you're still trying to argue the point about jersey-tampering being equivalent to diving to win your side a penalty.

for me this is massively hypocritical.

It would be, were it not a straw man.

 

[Neymar]

Because, according to you, there's no difference in the offence. I'm just applying the same (absurd) logic to the punishment.

no. i think the rules should be followed. if a foul has been committed outside the box, it should be a freekick on the spot the foul was commited. i cant see any evidence of where i have suggested otherwise.

Wrong, because it fails to take into account that the level of advantage gained (hence of detriment to the opponent/victim) forms part of the consideration when judging the seriousness of the offence. If you haven't understood that, I'm not surprised you're still trying to argue the point about jersey-tampering being equivalent to diving to win your side a penalty.

what about shirt pulls inside the penalty box. just as much of an advantage is gained through this as in through diving. think about it, how often do defenders keep giving attackers annoying niggles when they enter the box? that gives the defenders a massive advantage. the difference btween shirt pulls/niggles and dives in the penalty area is that for some reason niggles are generally accepted but dives are not. if you think about it, it is contradictory and hypocritical.

i guess you are just the typical example of the person i was referring to when explaining the indoctrination against diving in the British football culture.