Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

FA considers retrospective punishment for diving/feigning an injury watch

    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    The FA is looking at bringing in retrospective punishments for players who dive or feign an injury, thoughts?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38650163
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like a good call, it's embarrasing to see professional sportsmen using pathetic techniques like this. I find it very hard to take football seriously when grown men stoop to such levels.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    The FA is looking at bringing in retrospective punishments for players who dive or feign an injury, thoughts?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38650163
    On surface, good. But in reality, any punishment isn't likely to be much of a deterrent. Players still commit fouls, despite there being a measure in place to fine/ban them.

    There'll still be clubs and players who'll challenge any decision.

    And once a player has been done for it, are referees likely to offer them the benefit of the doubt the next time they go down?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is a waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, they may as well decriminalise diving.

    What I can't understand is that if there is is no contact, it is seen as diving but if there is contact but not enough to actually make you fall over, that is fair game. A player can be in the box, already going down and a touch of the oppositions shoe laces is the difference between him being a cheat worthy punishment and him been a smart player.

    It is totally entrenched in the culture of football that it is acceptable to try to buy a foul or a card off the ref from theatrical skill so why punish people for diving?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I think it is a waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, they may as well decriminalise diving.

    What I can't understand is that if there is is no contact, it is seen as diving but if there is contact but not enough to actually make you fall over, that is fair game. A player can be in the box, already going down and a touch of the oppositions shoe laces is the difference between him being a cheat worthy punishment and him been a smart player.

    It is totally entrenched in the culture of football that it is acceptable to try to buy a foul or a card off the ref from theatrical skill so why punish people for diving?
    Because you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise you are saying it is acceptable for someone to blatantly dive with zero contact and win a penalty or try and get someone sent off. Referees are human and will not be able to catch all dives in real time even if they are obvious (we have the benefit of replays where as referees don't), retrospective action means anything missed out can be caught due to replays.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samir12)
    Because you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise you are saying it is acceptable for someone to blatantly dive with zero contact and win a penalty or try and get someone sent off. Referees are human and will not be able to catch all dives in real time even if they are obvious (we have the benefit of replays where as referees don't), retrospective action means anything missed out can be caught due to replays.
    I don't think you do have to draw the line somewhere. I think the battle on diving has been lost and people should just accept it now.

    Players will dive and refs will be fooled by it but so much gamesmanship goes on anyway I don't think it is a big deal.

    Penalties and red cards are usually overkill. They are almost never a proportionate punishment for the impact the offence had on the game. That means there is an incentive for teams to play for them and that has been accepted into the culture of the game as a valid tactic.

    Think of the situation where the player is 1 on 1 and the keeper comes charging out. The player has two opinions. They can try to score a goal or they can try to get a penalty. Both are seen as acceptable tactics. If the player chooses the second option, he dinks it past the keeper and goes down. The objective of the mini game is to convince the ref it is a pen. Everybody knows that to be the case. Whether there is actually contact or not is irrelevant. The ball is going out for a goal kick anyway.

    Deception of the referee is part of the game. Nobody says players are supposed to act in a natural way in a foul situation to present a fair view of the incident to the ref. That is obvious from the fact that any contact gives you the right to go down. Refs are never going to get a fair view, as I say, that battle is lost. We may as well allow everything and if the refs miss some, so be it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The crusade against diving is pretty pathetic in my opinion and this plan is yet another pathetic attempt to protect the totally fictional moral heart of the game.

    I personally dont think diving needs t be a specific offense, any particularly egregious attempt could be covered by unsportsmanlike conduct.

    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I think it is a waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, they may as well decriminalise diving.

    What I can't understand is that if there is is no contact, it is seen as diving but if there is contact but not enough to actually make you fall over, that is fair game. A player can be in the box, already going down and a touch of the oppositions shoe laces is the difference between him being a cheat worthy punishment and him been a smart player.

    It is totally entrenched in the culture of football that it is acceptable to try to buy a foul or a card off the ref from theatrical skill so why punish people for diving?
    I don't know where the myth abput 'contact' came up but the rule book makes no mention of contact when a ref should be deciding whether a tackle is a foul or not, any contact or lack thereof is absolutely irrelevant to the awarding of a foul (or it should be anyway).

    There was an incident a few weeks back when Pogba was booked for diving, cant recall who it was against, when his opponent had come in and taken a swipe at his legs. Pogba was essentially punished for trying to not have his legs broken. That is ridiculous. Even under the current rules of the game, the first offence is punished, so surely, the foul tackle comes first so it shpould have been a free kick to Pogba, but the opposite decision was given.



    Edit: it was this one. Still a ridiculous decision.

    Until the FA can enforce the rules they have in a cnsistent and reasoned way, they should really think twice about making moves to sate the baying morality mob that spend all their time pontificating about pointless rubbish, usually on a Sky Sports set.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: January 17, 2017
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.