Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dive,dive,dive

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Dive,dive,dive

    So Niasse has been charged for his dive v Palace.
    My impression was that yes, he dived, but there have been worse examples unpunished this season.
    I really don't like this trial by TV; when people like Danny Murphy can influence league positions, the game is buggered
    Last edited by kiwicherry; 21-11-2017, 19:10. Reason: spelling

    #2
    Imho he made the most of contact rather than dived. Not the same thing at all.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post
      Imho he made the most of contact rather than dived. Not the same thing at all.
      Yes - I think he was blocked and took advantage of the contact.

      Comment


        #4
        He's got a two game ban. Ridiculous decision as nothing would have happened to him if it had been anywhere else on the pitch.

        Are they going to ban the defender who goes down from a little shove in his back when he is shepherding a ball out of play?

        Comment


          #5
          It's a harsh one. The defender seems to come across him. Probably not enough contact to lift him off the ground but it looked like a minor foul, certainly not the Jurgen Klinsmann style dramatics you'd expect for a retrospective ban

          Comment


            #6
            Not that I'd want to bring race into the debate but... let's just say, the optics aren't great.

            Comment


              #7
              I think its more of him being a foreigner with a low profile than just being black.
              Dele Alli is a pretty blatant diver and has so far got away with it.

              Comment


                #8
                If Everton were to appeal they'd be able to gather together clips of dozens of other clubs' dives from this aeason alone. And if Everton do successfully appeal where does that leave the whole process?

                Comment


                  #9
                  TG has a point though. When one of the serial cheats who plays for one of the serious big boys gets charged then we'll know this is a real thing. (Sorry, Everton fans. Everton are obviously a small enough club now to be guinea pigs for the process.)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post
                    Imho he made the most of contact rather than dived. Not the same thing at all.
                    I think they're exactly the same thing. Or rather, that one is subset of the other. It's one type of diving.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      This. Throwing yourself to the deck is throwing yourself the deck. Whether or not someone brushed against you first is immaterial.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                        TG has a point though. When one of the serial cheats who plays for one of the serious big boys gets charged then we'll know this is a real thing. (Sorry, Everton fans. Everton are obviously a small enough club now to be guinea pigs for the process.)
                        Hey ey, we got there first in the small club guinea pig stakes dontcha know.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I’m with Ton Ton and AH on this. The decision was correct judging by my reading of the laws of the game. Law 12 requires the referee to deem that the defender used “careless, reckless or excessive force”. The argument that “there was contact” is irrelevant - a foul can be given even without contact.

                          If any of our resident refs want to correct me, please do, but I’ve long felt that a player deciding to tumble “because he felt contact” is taking liberties and therefore fair game for punishment.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            See also: "He's entitled to go down, there".

                            Rightho.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by SouthdownRebel View Post
                              If any of our resident refs want to correct me, please do, but I’ve long felt that a player deciding to tumble “because he felt contact” is taking liberties and therefore fair game for punishment.
                              You are right in quoting Law 12, which is the plain guidance referees have to know and understand regarding fouls and misconduct, and is something as an instructor I try and hammer home to the officials I work with on a regular basis. The terms 'careless, reckless or excessive' are used to determine whether no card, yellow or red are used for each offence. It is a judgment call. Law 12 states that direct free kicks (and therefore a penalty kick if awarded for an offence in the penalty area) are:

                              "A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
                              charges
                              jumps at
                              kicks or attempts to kick
                              pushes
                              strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
                              tackles or challenges
                              trips or attempts to trip

                              If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
                              Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
                              Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
                              Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

                              In this particular case, the ref has to decide if the defending player was careless when making his challenge on the attacker. As a ref of many years, I still use the adage that it is a contact sport, and contact happens between players all over the pitch. It is a case of being even more aware of the above guidance when challenges/tackles are made in the penalty area, as these are the big decisions that can affect the whole game. Do I really care if I get a '50/50' call wrong in the centre circle? Not really. Do I care if I make a mistake in the penalty area? Of course I do, I have to be 100% certain that an offence took place. If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Essentially, if I believe a player 'made a meal' of any contact, especially in the penalty area, that could not be deemed as 'careless' or more, then I don't give a penalty/free kick. I have to decide in a very short period of time if the attacker is taking the piss and clearly 'looking for it', sometimes given away by the player shooting a quick glance to see where the ref is.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Thanks BI, your explanation is as I broadly understood it, but appreciate the additional detail.

                                You raise a related point - it's a judgement call for the referee to make in that moment. All these demands for consistency from our professional pundits are ridiculous - the very laws of the game are written in such as way as to ensure that inconsistency is basically hard-coded into the game. But then, I'm cynical as to how many of them have ever actually read the laws.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  You are welcome. One word always heard by the 'experts' is 'intent' - this word will not be found in Law 12 of the Laws of the Game. As a ref, you can't get inside a player's head or second guess what he/she was 'intending' to do when they challenge for the ball, or the ball hits their hand for example. It will always be a judgement call - was an offence committed or not, and if so, to what level (careless, reckless, excessive)? If, in the ref's opinion, an offence was not committed, yet the player went over like they had been shot, screaming for a penalty or free kick, then they are cheating bastards and deserve a yellow.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Is Hazard going to get charged for his little tangle of feet and appeal for a penalty?

                                    I doubt it.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Where does "Well he left his leg/foot out, he was asking for trouble" fit into this debate?

                                      As far as I can tell one side tries to score while the other side tries to stop them. It might be me but it seems rather unfair to be penalised because you were standing too close to an opponent while your foot offered the "Perfect Penalty Creation Scenario".

                                      Apropos of nothing, I remember when Andy Johnson used to dive in the same fashion for nearly every penalty.
                                      Last edited by Kowalski; 26-11-2017, 00:47.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        I'd hate to be a referee, it's a thankless task.

                                        Thoroughly trained, regularly debriefed and psychologically prepared yet you're constantly surrounded by 1000s of judgemental fans waiting for a mistake whilst you attempt to control 22 egomaniacs under the omnipresent threat of forensic trial by media.

                                        And that's just in the Welsh Premier League.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post
                                          Is Hazard going to get charged for his little tangle of feet and appeal for a penalty?

                                          I doubt it.
                                          If the ref didn't give a pen, then under the FAs current guidelines he can't be charged. Those only deal with successful dives.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by Janik View Post
                                            If the ref didn't give a pen, then under the FAs current guidelines he can't be charged. Those only deal with successful dives.
                                            That's just a ridiculous rule. Just seen Ayew dive blatantly, he didn't fool the referee but got no card.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              The same regulation also means that they other bit you highlight, defenders that flop over to win free-kicks when under pressure with nowhere to go, also can't be subject to further action. Unless the player who 'fouled' them gets a second yellow, that is.
                                              I believe the rule the FA have set for when their diving commission can take retrospective action is something like occasions when the referee is mislead into a decision that materially affects the outcome of the game. So pens and red cards. It's not clear whether a dive that wins a free-kick that is scored from, or a dive that gets an opponent a first yellow of a yellow-red would count.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                A dive to create or deny a goalscoring opportunity or get a player a card of either colour should probably incur a ban, but maybe for one match not two. Maybe there should also be a sin bin purely for diving - 15 minutes off the pitch?

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  15 minutes sin-bin for diving? Wow, what a deterrent. They'll all instantly stop doing it with such a punishment facing them...

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X