Yes I have and yes it was.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Winston I told you diving has different meanings to some people. I believed it was going down when you could stay up. Others believe it is going down under no contact. You said you didn't care what people believe it to mean, you use the laws.

I told you I hadn't seen anything in the laws which says what diving is, only that it could come under an attempt to deceive the referee when there has been no foul.

The guy then asked you to quote which law you were referring to. You then spent pages and pages and about 24hrs telling him you had already provided it, when you hadn't.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Can you show me where that sequence of events happened, please?

If that's the case then I will hold my hands up.

But from what I can remember, he wasn't referring to anything I'd said in our [polite] discussion and he was simply referring to something I'd say the day before.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Can you show me where that sequence of events happened, please?

If that's the case then I will hold my hands up.

But from what I can remember, he wasn't referring to anything I'd said in our [polite] discussion and he was simply referring to something I'd say the day before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh. I'll try find it.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Can you show me where that sequence of events happened, please?

If that's the case then I will hold my hands up.

But from what I can remember, he wasn't referring to anything I'd said in our [polite] discussion and he was simply referring to something I'd say the day before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh. I'll try find it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't worry if you can't be bothered - I know I probably wouldn't bother.

Just saying that that's genuinely not what I recall happening. It was all getting very petty though, so maybe I missed it.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 48 minutes ago
Winston I told you diving has different meanings to some people. I believed it was going down when you could stay up. Others believe it is going down under no contact. You said you didn't care what people believe it to mean, you use the laws.

I told you I hadn't seen anything in the laws which says what diving is, only that it could come under an attempt to deceive the referee when there has been no foul.

The guy then asked you to quote which law you were referring to. You then spent pages and pages and about 24hrs telling him you had already provided it, when you hadn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears you did provide the law you were referring to but refused to provide the whole text relating to that law.

We know why that is. It's because there is no mention of diving in the laws. This means that diving can have different interpretations. For me it comes under an attempt to deceive the referee when there has been no foul. Therefore it is legal to go down when you've been fouled, whether you can stay up or not. So it comes down to whether the referee thought it was a foul or not, before judging whether you were attempting to deceive the referee. Therefore I believe that backs up my view on diving when fouled.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Is that you admitting you were wrong and I was right?

You can't do it properly, can you? It always has to be my fault.

Grow up TOOR.

PS - Love the way you've invented your own criteria about when diving is acceptable and then claimed it backs up your view.

Classic TOOR.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Is that you admitting you were wrong and I was right?

You can't do it properly, can you? It always has to be my fault.

Grow up TOOR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.

Yes what?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
PS - Love the way you've invented your own criteria about when diving is acceptable and then claimed it backs up your view.

Classic TOOR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't. I used the law.

attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)

This means there is nothing in the laws about diving when you have been fouled. You stated you didn't care what the interpretation of diving was, when I suggested i believed it was when going down, even when fouled when you could stay up and that other people believe it is going down when you haven't been fouled. You said you didn't care as you used the law.

However the law only talks about deceiving the referee when no foul has been committed. This means you were wrong. Players cannot be punished for going down when a foul has been committed. Correct?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got it wrong when I said you said you provided the law, you only stated what law you were referring to.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

It's your conclusion that's the problem.

"there is nothing in the laws about diving when you have been fouled"

The problem with that, as I have told you in the past, is that a player does not get to decide when he's been fouled.

In your scenario, the player throws himself to the floor before the referee decides a foul has taken place.

So no, I wasn't wrong. You've just invented an interpretation of the laws that make no sense, and I'll briefly explain why.

Because it's possible that the fall to the ground conned the referee into believing that a foul had taken place when in fact, had the player stayed on his feet, the referee would have concluded that the contact was not sufficient for a foul to have taken place.

I understand that this isn't literally written into the laws, but it's the reason why your explanation is flawed - though I don't expect you to accept that.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got it wrong when I said you said you provided the law, you only stated what law you were referring to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You got it wrong because what you said I hadn't done, I actually had.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

It's your conclusion that's the problem.

"there is nothing in the laws about diving when you have been fouled"

The problem with that, as I have told you in the past, is that a player does not get to decide when he's been fouled.

In your scenario, the player throws himself to the floor before the referee decides a foul has taken place.

So no, I wasn't wrong. You've just invented an interpretation of the laws that make no sense, and I'll briefly explain why.

Because it's possible that the fall to the ground conned the referee into believing that a foul had taken place when in fact, had the player stayed on his feet, the referee would have concluded that the contact was not sufficient for a foul to have taken place.

I understand that this isn't literally written into the laws, but it's the reason why your explanation is flawed - though I don't expect you to accept that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree the player doesnt get to decide. The referee does and if he decides he has been deceived when there has been no foul, then fine. What I said was that players will go down when they've been fouled, even if they could stay up, as they don't get the decision otherwise, as Salah didn't the other day until he went down.

There is nothing in the laws which says what a dive is, contrary to what you claimed, only that it is an offence to simulate when you haven't been fouled.

Yes it is possible a fall to the ground cons the referee and that's why it's his job to decide whether there has been a foul or not, if there hasn't, the player should be punished, as per the law. However players will keep doing it when fouled as they don't get the decision otherwise and it doesnt say they can't do it when they are fouled, in the laws. Since Salah was fouled and the referee gave the penalty and the FA decided he didn't attempt to deceive the referee when the was no foul, it seems all laws were followed and there is no problem.

Your problem is bigger than this decision, you simply have a problem with players going down when they could stay up but that isn't part of the law, unless there has been no foul. Until the law is changed or referees give fouls without the player going down, this won't change.

"I understand that this isn't literally written into the laws"

And yet you stated the laws backed you up. When it's actually the opposite.

Okay, so explain this:

Scenario - player is running towards goal and feels a defender touch his arm. He believes he has been fouled (holding) and dives to the floor.

Referee awards the free kick, believing the contact was sufficient to cause the player to fall.

After the game, the referee watches the footage back and concludes that the contact wasn't sufficient to cause the player to fall and actually, that he doesn't believe it was a foul.

So, player thinks he was fouled, referee disagrees.

The player thinks his dive was fair because he'd been fouled. Referee thinks his dive was pretending to have been fouled.

See the problem?

In your description, the player hasn't dived because he thinks he's been fouled. But he has dived, of course.


There's nothing in the laws per se, but that doesn't mean we can't highlight incorrect interpretations of the law because they're flawed.

And yes, my interpretation is that if you dive to the floor you have exaggerated contact and you have cheated. Nothing wrong with that imo.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
"I understand that this isn't literally written into the laws"

And yet you stated the laws backed you up. When it's actually the opposite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did I say that?

I said the laws back me up that Salah was not fouled. They do, if you read the criteria.

You were the one saying he's been fouled and you don't need to know the law to know that.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Okay, so explain this:

Scenario - player is running towards goal and feels a defender touch his arm. He believes he has been fouled (holding) and dives to the floor.

Referee awards the free kick, believing the contact was sufficient to cause the player to fall.

After the game, the referee watches the footage back and concludes that the contact wasn't sufficient to cause the player to fall and actually, that he doesn't believe it was a foul.

So, player thinks he was fouled, referee disagrees.

The player thinks his dive was fair because he'd been fouled. Referee thinks his dive was pretending to have been fouled.

See the problem?

In your description, the player hasn't dived because he thinks he's been fouled. But he has dived, of course.


There's nothing in the laws per se, but that doesn't mean we can't highlight incorrect interpretations of the law because they're flawed.

And yes, my interpretation is that if you dive to the floor you have exaggerated contact and you have cheated. Nothing wrong with that imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the player gets punished retrospectively. There are specific laws surrounding this.

With VAR you won't have this problem anyhow as the referee can see it there and then and decide on it.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
"I understand that this isn't literally written into the laws"

And yet you stated the laws backed you up. When it's actually the opposite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did I say that?

I said the laws back me up that Salah was not fouled. They do, if you read the criteria.

You were the one saying he's been fouled and you don't need to know the law to know that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't. You keep talking about you not believing there was sufficient contact. There's nothing in the laws which say what contact is sufficient as it can't be measured by the human eye. You just have to use your judgement and for me, if you've put the attacker off his stride by pulling his shoulder back, that's sufficient for a foul. I think the fact that Salah went down when he could have stayed up is clouding your judgement despite the laws not saying anything about going down when fouled.

Don't foul players and they won't go down. If they do then it's up to the referee to get it right and punish the player accordingly. From next season that will be easier.

There is nothing in the laws that say Salah was not fouled. So no, the laws have not back you up.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

So that means this is flawed:

"Players cannot be punished for going down when a foul has been committed"

The player does not know if a foul has been committed at the point of going to ground.

So what you said does not make any sense.

See?

"And yes, my interpretation is that if you dive to the floor you have exaggerated contact and you have cheated. Nothing wrong with that imo."

That's fine but the laws don't say anything about that. You can't just create your own criteria and claim you are correct.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

They do back me up, certainly in my opinion.

How would you know whether they do or not, given you didn't even know which law applied?

"There is nothing in the laws that say Salah was not fouled. So no, the laws have not back you up."

It's subjective, so in my view there is. In my view, I can apply the law and conclude he wasn't fouled.

It's a matter of opinion - I've never claimed the laws mean I'm right and you're wrong, only that I am using the laws as the basis for my opinion.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
"And yes, my interpretation is that if you dive to the floor you have exaggerated contact and you have cheated. Nothing wrong with that imo."

That's fine but the laws don't say anything about that. You can't just create your own criteria and claim you are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They don't need to literally say that for my interpretation to be correct.

Read some of the retrospective simulation cases - my interpretation is perfectly logical.

Yours isn't.