Macca,

This is slightly different to your OP about what constitutes a dive, but I think still relevant!

I'm not particularly concerned what happens within game as long as there is consistency with that particular referee, as in, if he gives a foul for something or a card for something, then he has to stay consistent to that for the rest of the game. If you look at the laws of the game, there is a lot of subjectivity in there and allowance for referees to be lenient in some of their choices, I doubt for example most would referee a derby match the same as they would a game with less passion in it, if that makes sense.

The problem I have, though, is with the retrospective action and inconsistencies between refs when it comes to that. It is an example I've used a few times, but take the Kompany sending off against United last year. Now at the time, I didn't have a problem with it, as soon as he made the tackle, I thought that a referee could see it as dangerous and possibly a red. As I said before, all you can expect from that referee is that he is consistent to that and give the same punishment if a similar situation happened again in the same game (which it didn't).

Only a week later, Glen Johnson makes an identical tackle for Liverpool but, if I remember right, I don't think it was even given as a foul, definitely no cards were shown. Again though, as long as that referee is consistent in that particular game, that is all that we can really ask for.

The problem, though, is after the event. Not only were we disadvantaged against you guys from being down to 10 men, we also lost Kompany for the next four games. Johnson for Liverpool did not get any suspension whatsoever. Effectively, due to different referee's perceptions, one tackle influenced five games in one scenario against none in another.

Now, that can't be right. I get the 10 men in the game, everyone knows the risks of that, but not the subsequent punishment. There absolutely needs to be consistency in that.

Hope that makes sense, I realise it is not diving, but still, the inconsistency in the approach is still relevant to both.

In an ideal world, refs would punish bad challenges whether or not a player went down and would play advantage until it was clear that any opening made from a player staying on his feet would not be as good as that from the free kick. In this case, I would be all for players staying on their feet for as long as possible and I think any form of diving would be removed from the game completely. However, as it is today, it seems that refs will refuse to give a foul, especially a penalty, unless it results in the attacking player being brought to the floor. Therefore, any player that feels like they have been under a bad challenge should be allowed to bring that to the attention of the officials by going to ground. I guess what I would call a dive would be if a player went to ground when they clearly had felt no contact at all.

Kidneysnooker

Although, obviously, a player going to ground when there has been no contact at all is one of the key factors in determining a dive, as i've tried to explain above, there doens't always have to be contact for a foul to be given.

Consider a situation in which a winger is running down the wing, a defender comes across to challenge him but the winger knocks the ball past him so the defender cannot win the ball. The defender lunges for the ball and misses but is still going to take out the winger (which would obviously be a foul). Insitinctively the winger jumps out of the way of the challenge to avoid injury but has been slowed down because of the potential challenge from the defender. His momementum is hindered. So he goes to ground (without contact), deciding that it the best option.

In this situation i would have sympathy with the winger and would not label him a diver because he went to ground with no contact. Ultimately, there would have been a foul had he not moved out of the way. And the defender would gain an unfair advantage by blocking his run.

Hey Melton

Yeah, inconsistancies do my head in at times too

The rule whereby the FA can't act after the event if the ref has already ruled on it, despite huis ruling being incorrect, is just stupid.

The Rooney forearm into McCarthey's face incident for example. Both players really should have been punished after the game. McCarthy's body check on Rooney went totally under the radar for some reason.

comment by conormcgrace (U4307)
---------------
Perfectly summed up

Thanks

conormcgrace

Yes, you are correct. I guess there are so many different combinations of events that it's practically impossible to sum up what constitutes a dive in to one sentence. Part of what is so beautiful about football.

comment by conormcgrace (U4307)

posted 35 minutes ago
Kidneysnooker 

Although, obviously, a player going to ground when there has been no contact at all is one of the key factors in determining a dive, as i've tried to explain above, there doens't always have to be contact for a foul to be given.

Consider a situation in which a winger is running down the wing, a defender comes across to challenge him but the winger knocks the ball past him so the defender cannot win the ball. The defender lunges for the ball and misses but is still going to take out the winger (which would obviously be a foul). Insitinctively the winger jumps out of the way of the challenge to avoid injury but has been slowed down because of the potential challenge from the defender. His momementum is hindered. So he goes to ground (without contact), deciding that it the best option. 

=====

This ruling exists if you have played the game....its called obstruction

Your Dad is wrong to distinguish between diving and theatrical diving, he's basically said that if you can dive well then you should, but if you can't then don't expect anything for it.

I think this is one of the 'for' arguments for video technology though, you can't really expect a human to process that correctly every time

"I think this is one of the 'for' arguments for video technology though, you can't really expect a human to process that correctly every time"

To be fair, though, I have seen numerous challenges and "dives" debated on here long after they have actually happened, sometimes even with video technology, there is that difference of opinion.

comment by Arsene Wengooner (U6031) posted 1 minute ago

Your Dad is wrong to distinguish between diving and theatrical diving, he's basically said that if you can dive well then you should, but if you can't then don't expect anything for it.
-------------------
Not really

He is saying go to ground if you know you are going to be illegally impeded but don't put in three summersaults in a pike position and then roll around for 5 minutes.

Tis the best way of avoiding an injury

He is saying go to ground if you know you are going to be illegally impeded but don't put in three summersaults in a pike position and then roll around for 5 minutes.

------------------------

But that doesn't really matter, a foul is a foul regardless of how you react (however annoying it may otherwise be). I'm inclined to believe the British way is to stay on your feet for as long as possible and leave the rest up to the ref

The tumble afterwards (however annoying it may otherwise be) is irrelevant unless the intent is to get a player wrongly booked.

A foul is a foul.

It's really about whether or not the player is attempting to get the ref to make the wrong decision through dishonesty.

Making a meal of a foul is still a foul.

Diving is best left to the swimming pool in my opinion.

But that doesn't really matter, a foul is a foul regardless of how you react
-----------------------
True but not in the eyes of a referree. Far too often you see a player infringed and stay on his feet and the momentum has gone. For me, the defender's got away with it so shouldn't a striker make sure he's rightly punished?

Referee^^

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

anyone who has ever played rugby knows how much contact a fast runner can withstand
-----------------------
You could have three players trying to bring a big tough player to the ground and still struggle but if he's in full flight and my Mrs clipped his heels, he'd tumble.

Maybe one day the football authorities will bring sportsmanship back into the game instead of concentrating on ensuring the favoured few remain favoured.

If they could've stayed on their feet then it's a dive.

-------------------------------

But that doesn't mean it wasn't a foul, and as it happened first it would still be a free kick, for example if I slap van Persie in the face as he's running away from me, he doesn't have to go down crying, but if he does it's still a foul regardless of the scale and grandeur of his dive?

If you win the ball then the referee should never be duped by a dive i.e. not staying on your fett when you could.

Blue

Try to be objective and maybe give me your opinion on the subject matter

The problem is imo and not just diving are the refs. I think a few people have rightly pointed out that if a players run is illegally impeded then its a foul regardless of if the player stays on his feet or not. The same as i hate the "he sheppard the ball out well" - NO HE FRICKING DIDNT it was obstruction! He purposely put his body between a player and the ball without making an attempt to play it. This is the problem with diving and should not be down to the player to "show the ref" it was a foul.

And someone above for me got it spot on - if you go down and could have stayed up, its a dive, it is not down to the player and this is deception and said player imo should be booked.

The same as i hate the "he sheppard the ball out well" - NO HE FRICKING DIDNT it was obstruction! He purposely put his body between a player and the ball without making an attempt to play it.
===============================================
That's 'shielding'. You're allowed to do that, provided you're within playing distance of the ball.

"If a player covers up the ball without touching it in an endeavor not to have it played by an opponent, he obstructs but does not infringe Law 12 para. 3 because he is already in possession of the ball and covers it for tactical reasons whilst the ball remains within playing distance"

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, but when referees begin to penalise fouls that don't necessarily cause a player to go down, diving will slowly be eliminated.

Comment deleted by Article Creator