Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
David Coleman and Bob Marley would be interchangeable then.
Brazil vs Croatia (Group A) Thursday 12th June 2014
- Thread starter Badgers
- Start date
David Coleman and Bob Marley would be interchangeable then.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
I would include retrospective punishment in that, yeah.
I get that. The player would be punished but the result would stand I assume? Assume that Ashley Cole dives, gets a penalty or free kick that leads to a goal he might get an X number of games ban? Still would not be much consolation to the opposing team, in fact it would benefit other teams in the game following.
Last night there were a few dodgy decisions but the main two were the penalty and the disallowed goal I think.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Disallowed goal was 50-50. I think you'd feel a bit hard done by as a keeper to not get a free kick when the striker's arm is on top of you.
Fez909
toilet expert
It would benefit the other teams therefore Chelsea would be less than happy with Ashley for diving, so the manager would be the enforcers of fair play. It would be in their interests to not-cheat, whereas the opposite is true now.
I'd also make diving a professional foul, not a bookable offence, so if the ref sees it then it's a straight red.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I wonder if it does, though. The parallel problem in our game - hockey - is fighting. Fighting has a long tradition in hockey, and it too can be a game-changer, if the soldiers are able to rattle the scorers. But... it looks unseemly, grown men punching it out like they were on a schoolyard.
And when you see the game played clean, without fighting, as is usually the case with European hockey, for instance, it's a beautiful thing to watch. I think soccer - oops, sorry: football
- without diving would be the same.
But it merited a second look for sure?
The Neymar elbow was a 50/50 yellow/red card.
The penalty was very soft but I have seen softer given.
If Croatia go out then none of that would matter a jot
Fez909
toilet expert
No, but the discussion has moved on from the actual game
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
But it merited a second look for sure?
The Neymar elbow was a 50/50 yellow/red card.
The penalty was very soft but I have seen softer given.
I thought the disallowed goal was nothing out of the ordinary as a decision. Subjective, but ordinary.
Neymar elbow I didn't notice.
Penalty was very soft, but I don't think you could or should retrospectively punish Fred for his dive. There's a hand on his shoulder, and it's difficult to judge how much force is applied. Not certain enough to overturn the ref's decision.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
On a second look, it would have been disallowed. You can't touch the keeper in the six yard box.But it merited a second look for sure?
The Neymar elbow was a 50/50 yellow/red card.
The penalty was very soft but I have seen softer given.
On a second look, I think that elbow's a clear red. There is intent there.
On a second look, that is never a penalty in a million years.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
If that's true, then an answer is to make the penalties for diving, more harsh.
There are certain penalties in hockey that used to be more prevalent [and dangerous, like boarding], that are rare now, because no one wants to take one of those penalties anymore since they were beefed up.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The only thing is a straight red, then. It's currently a yellow card.
Problem with that is that refs do get it wrong the other way, too, and think a player's diving when he is not, and you will get players sent off for doing nothing.
Post-match review and suspension is the answer, imo. Two-match ban if the video evidence is conclusive.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
I think you would inadvertently create other problems. A lot of diving is in a grey area, where you feel a touch and let yourself fall. A lot of it isn't deliberately malicious, it's an instinctive reaction. So you wouldn't abolish it just by making it a red card offence.
In the decision itself you'd have to decide whether to interpret diving liberally encompassing any time you go down when you could have stayed stood up or limiting it to deliberately propelling yourself to the ground. If it's the former you get lots of people being sent off after marginal, highly subjective decisions, if the latter you don't stop the majority of dives.
You're just opening up another field of marginal decisions which will massively affect games. Then on top of that you'd the added irritation of defenders demanding that people be sent off all the time.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
When some guy gets touched as you say, then falls down writhing and grimacing like he's giving birth - it seems like an intentional magnification.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
When some guy gets touched as you say, then falls down writhing and grimacing like he's giving birth - it seems like an intentional magnification.
But people often do that when they have actually been fouled, as well.
Fez909
toilet expert
This is another thing that's shit about football. You don't see rugby players surrounding the ref and making demands and being really agressive. The ref last night looked scared at times when he was being surrounded by the Croatian players.
As to your other points, it's the same as fouls in general. Sometimes a foul is not a foul and people get sent off for it. It happens, but it's accidental. The difference is diving is deliberate. It has no place in football.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep.Neither play nor reffing is perfect: it's done by human beings.
It's hard. The worst kind of ref is the one who struts around and makes a great show of booking/sending off players for virtually nothing. They really do ruin the game, and there have been a few like that in the WC over the years. Hate giving a copper credit, but England's Howard Webb is one of the best ones - and even he had trouble in the last final with Holland deciding they were going to kick the players rather than the ball.
Firm but not petty is the best kind of ref. Like Collina.
Fez909
toilet expert
Which is another symptom of the cheating culture which is now accepted and defended by you.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Agreed. Thing is, in rugby, the players don't do that because the ref has the power to increase the penalty - move the game up 10 yards, etc. As ever, behaviour is a result of the conditions of play, not some innate differences in culture.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Is all diving deliberate? Fred's felt a hand on his shoulder and not resisted it, but he hasn't propelled himself to the floor, has he?
And if deliberate is the issue, then why not a straight red for everyone who deliberately ends a counter attack with a cynical foul? Or defenders that hold onto shirts at corners and set-pieces? and the other array of illegal things teams deliberately do to get a slight advantage?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Guys in hockey who've taken a stick across the neck or a blade across the calf don't show as much pain behavior.
When we were kids, we played soccer/football every day at school - it was the preferred recess and lunchtime activity. It was rare for anyone to actually get very hurt, and we loved playing it. And we played hard.
Without any refs to give an advantage, kids were never taking dives.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Like I said, this generation of footballers didn't invent cheating.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tbh I think a yellow for diving is right. Sendings off ruin games. It's just that the refs have got to spot it better!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Guys in hockey who've taken a stick across the neck or a blade across the calf don't show as much pain behavior.
padding/armour
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Refs have got to be encouraged to change emphasis. At present, reffing guidelines are "yellows for diving if you're 100% sure". Fred wouldn't have been booked under present guidelines, even under review.
(and the sending offs things is what I meant by inadvertently creating new problems. We'd go from a situation where refs occasionally give dodgy penalties to one where they occasionally give dodgy penalties AND occasionally send people off for nothing. This is not an advance)
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well the important thing is that the penalty isn't given. tbh the booking is a bit of a side issue for me. If you're not totally sure, don't give either the penalty or the booking. One thing that is for sure is that he did not resist going down - any player going down that easily should not be getting a penalty.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I mentioned the neck and the calf because they're two areas of the body not protected by hockey padding - but sticks and blades do find them.
http://www.businessinsider.com/coll...-being-slashed-in-the-neck-by-a-skate-2010-10
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I know almost zero about ice hockey, but isn't hitting someone with your stick considered a very serious offence? Punching, body-checking fine, but the stick can do real damage.
Similar threads
