[Danny]

http://ibroxnoise.blogspot.com/2011/12/whe...e-not-dive.html

I write a Rangers blog, but after the Boateng incident yesterday I decided to write about simulation in general.

[littlechris]

http://ibroxnoise.blogspot.com/2011/12/whe...e-not-dive.html

I write a Rangers blog, but after the Boateng incident yesterday I decided to write about simulation in general.

The Boateng incident was a close call; there was little contact maybe the referee shouldn't have given the penalty. It proved to me how intelligent Boateng he's; he intentionally wait for the keeper and implicate him.

[acid911]

Nicely written, man. Good blog you've got there! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/king.gif) I would agree with it 100% any given Sunday, but yesterday was something different. There was a bit of a contact, the keeper lunged towards Boateng, who went down, play acted and cried in pain - all under the umbrella of a tactical dive. Not the prettiest sight, but I've seen worse.

Still, any other day (and with the GK lunging towards the player like a crazed maniac), I'd have called it a dive.

[Danny]

I saw no contact, but I agree entirely with you that Boateng's response on the turf was ridiculous. At least Rangers' Aluko didn't pretend he'd been cut open with a chainsaw.

[acid911]

I saw no contact, but I agree entirely with you that Boateng's response on the turf was ridiculous. At least Rangers' Aluko didn't pretend he'd been cut open with a chainsaw.

Yes, totally agreed. That's one thing that should be out of the game, this very instant. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Playacting like you've just been shot, and then as soon as the referee awards the penalty, the player is up, smiling, like nothing happened. This wasn't the case a few years back, but this new generation of footballers want everything to go their way by hook or crook.

[William405]

Yes,in slow motion it looks really bad.But,what's not been taken notice of is that Boateng was going really fast,and he didn't have much options.Is it a dive?probably yes.Have I lost any respect from Boateng because of it?No.
Also,there was contact from the goalkeeper's knee to boateng's ankle when Boateng pushed the ball forward.


Nice blog,you have there Danny (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) .The design is horrible though,I'd advise you to change it.

This post has been edited by William405: Dec 18 2011, 06:10 PM

[acid911]

The design is horrible though,I'd advise you to change it.

Well it's noisy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) In a good way. Goes great with the title of the blog!

[Milan Are Brilli...]

I would be frustrated and I still don't like it at all but at the same time I see so many decisions where the player has so obviously, blatantly dived, or cheated to get someone sent off, usually the best teams in the world.

So if you can't beat them, join them.

[han2503]

I would be frustrated and I still don't like it at all but at the same time I see so many decisions where the player has so obviously, blatantly dived, or cheated to get someone sent off, usually the best teams in the world.

So if you can't beat them, join them.

Hear hear

[CHU-LIP]

I rather have our players ''earn'' a penalty with a dive to help us winning than not and see us losing / dropping points.

Think about the pressure, the ambition, etc. For a reason it's rare when there's a player who would never do this. You all can disgust this, but most of you would dive to when the situation for it is ideal.

[kurtsimonw]

It's difficult for referees at the time. I would like to see FAs give players long bans for diving though after they've checked video replays after the game.

[Rossoneri7]

Good blog Danny (IMG:style_emoticons/default/king.gif)

The incident of simulations has always been present with the sport, and as you highlighted in your blog, it is further examined with the help of technology. However, I believe the referee calls it with the split second that he has seen it and not with the help of replays and such. For that, I would suggest what Kurt asserted in the quote below. I think that is a remedy to reduce such incidents in the future.

It's difficult for referees at the time. I would like to see FAs give players long bans for diving though after they've checked video replays after the game.

I believe that is only fair, but in addition, I would recommend adding another official behind the goal line, ala the CL.

[CHU-LIP]

It's difficult for referees at the time. I would like to see FAs give players long bans for diving though after they've checked video replays after the game.

Long ban for a dive? That's ridiculous. One dive, and you got a long ban? Right...

They get yellow at most during the match now. And it are dangerous tackles that deserve long bans, not this.

And often it's hard to judge if it's a true dive, or not really. Give a long ban for that, gonna be difficult... and over the top anyway

This post has been edited by CHU-LIP: Dec 19 2011, 12:38 PM

[Zed.D]

I believe that is only fair, but in addition, I would recommend adding another official behind the goal line, ala the CL.

I still haven't quite figured out what those fourth officials do there. they certainly do nothing in regards to penalties and corner/goal kicks. I think they're there just to make sure whether the balls has crossed the line on certain (albeit rare) occasions. so having them for dives is pointless anyway.

I think a 3-match ban would be enough for a dive after it's proved with video replays.

This post has been edited by Zed.D: Dec 19 2011, 12:39 PM

[Dracoris]

The keeper did make contact with Boateng but it was certainly minimal. I think it was a dive, the only thing to decide in my mind is whether the contact was minimal enough for it to be punishable by the league.

[acid911]

I think a 3-match ban would be enough for a dive after it's proved with video replays.

Yeah, I'd go with 5-match bans once it's proven. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) The deal is to prevent people from diving, not punishing them. A big, long punishment, or even a 5-match one will help with that. This will be in the players' mind and they will get up as soon as they can. When they can't, that's when they will stay down. Keep it positive, people!

[CHU-LIP]

Yeah, I'd go with 5-match bans once it's proven. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) The deal is to prevent people from diving, not punishing them. A big, long punishment, or even a 5-match one will help with that. This will be in the players' mind and they will get up as soon as they can. When they can't, that's when they will stay down. Keep it positive, people!

Keep it posivite? This is very negative.

You guys are going way over the top here. If there's one thing that should be prevented, it are tackles that can cause of long term injuries. And you know what? Often they get barely punished. And actually, preventing goes by punishing them, acid. Weird sentence you got there.

By the way, to most people it's obvious Boateng dived. A dive is possible even when there's contact. So my question to you is: would you be okay with Boateng getting banned for five straigt games now?

This post has been edited by CHU-LIP: Dec 19 2011, 01:01 PM

[Zed.D]

Nah, 5 match is way too much, acid! IMO 2-3 is enough, depending on the nature of the dive and how it affects the outcome of the game.

Sometimes there's contact, but the player exaggerates in going down, that would deserve less bans than, for example, Gila's dive against Celtic where there was no contact at all and Gila dived 2 seconds late.

At the same time, diving in a regular Serie A game that's almost won anyway cannot be punished as severely as diving in a title decider or a CL semi-final.

Well, it's not as easy to set a rule on diving as one thinks!

[acid911]

You guys are going way over the top here. If there's one thing that should be prevented, it are tackles that can cause of long term injuries. And you know what? Often they get barely punished. And actually, preventing goes by punishing them, acid. Weird sentence you got there.

Yes, because higher the punishment, the more people fear not doing the crime. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Punish a few people and hand them a few matches ban, and they'll think 90 times before doing it again. And for the record, anyone that goes in with those pathetic tackles (and two-foot challenges) should be out of the game for six months, and the club fined as well.

It's just a sports, not war, and well a player does not have any right to seriously injure anyone or break their leg, etc. What they do is basic stuff, yellow and red cards, and sometimes hard tackles earn a few matches ban. We need more strict policies. Just like drugs are not allowed in FIFA, and players/clubs are banned for years. Now we see few and few drug abuse and steroid cases.

But careful analysis is needed after the match, using video replays, and of course, you have to check the intent of the player at fault. If he couldn't help it (for example he was going in one direction, and another player hit him) or tried to slow down, then lesser penalties. And for proven criminals bigger ones. Like I said, the game should be played in a positive spirit and frame-of-mind - making it enjoyable for everyone.

By the way, to most people it's obvious Boateng dived. A dive is possible even when there's contact. So my question to you is: would you be okay with Boateng getting banned for five straigt games now?

If there was contact, it was not a dive, the keeper lunged towards him, and Boateng instead of getting a shoe to his body, went up (reactionary decision, so it's okay), and went down. What he did (playacting and crying in agony) is another thing, but the aggressor in this case was the GK. So not a dive. A dive is where there is minimal or no contact.

And yes, I'd be fine with a 5-match ban for Boateng if he cheated and dived. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Perfectly fine. Usually when a player dives with malicious intent, he looks back at the referee for the penalty, does some playacting, and shtick like that. That's a million miles away from sportsman spirit. Crooked behavior should be kicked out.

In genuine injury case (minor or a hard knock), players usually take their time to come back on the pitch, if at all.

[acid911]

Nah, 5 match is way too much, acid! IMO 2-3 is enough, depending on the nature of the dive and how it affects the outcome of the game.

Well anything that creates the fear in their mind. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) And just take this pathetic exercise out of their system. Maybe 2-3 for first offense and higher number for repeat ones. I mean, what Gilardino did deserved a big slap on the wrists, ban plus fine. Same goes for that actor from Barcelona (who peaked through his fingers).

And really, 5 matches are not too much, come to think of it, usually a month on the sidelines. Players spend three or four times as much visiting hospitals. But like I said, the real point is preventing people from deliberate diving. It is a negative thing, reflects poorly on the game as well as the club, and is plain cheating. Same goes for harsh and vicious tackles.

I mean, if Pato did not have such a fear of harsh tackles, he'd let lose every Sunday. You know it. I know it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Just like the good old days. Now when I see Pato, the guy is just too careful so as not to get hurt or injure himself.

[acid911]

Sorry for the triple post, but remember how Ribery got banned from the CL final. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) Even though I think it wasn't that malicious a tackle (he caught the other player on the back of foot). But the world didn't end when he was banned and everyone moved ahead. You get the drift.

If the fine for shoplifting was $10 an instance, people would still do it when they can. If it was six month jail time, few would even think about it. That's just the way human psychology works. Fear can do wonderful things sometimes!

[CHU-LIP]

If there was contact, it was not a dive,

That's not accurate, acid. Actually, it happens all the time someone dives, or falls out free will, when there's contact, because then you can say it's not a Schwalbe (dive). Ideally, when a player feels a very soft touch of his opponent, a touch which does not bring you anything close to unbalanced, I mean, the touch doesn't matter one bit, yet it is there, then the player falls (or dives), and yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, a free kick, or even a penalty kick.

I know it's a zillion times clearer that a dive is a dive when there's no contact, and that it's hard to give yellow when there's been contact. But if anything, hard to make this rule you guys got in mind. Especially for you, because you are not even aware of the zillion times a player has made a Schwalbe when there's been contact (good timing, you can call that).

[acid911]

Yes, well that's a bit of a concern. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And something I'd leave for the judges that analyze the video. I agree that even with minimal contact some people dive and cheat. Whoever dishes out the punishment will have to keep it in mind. Fact is that, in a perfect world, people who can get up after falling would get up and carry on the attack.

Just like in cartoons. If they are genuinely hurt then yes, well it's impossible and understandable. But acting? No!

[Danny]

Yes,in slow motion it looks really bad.But,what's not been taken notice of is that Boateng was going really fast,and he didn't have much options.Is it a dive?probably yes.Have I lost any respect from Boateng because of it?No.
Also,there was contact from the goalkeeper's knee to boateng's ankle when Boateng pushed the ball forward.


Nice blog,you have there Danny (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) .The design is horrible though,I'd advise you to change it.

I've fiddled about with the design. Some people like, some don't. I need to find some universally accepted design.

[Milan Are Brilli...]

There's no chance UEFA/FIFA would enforce that on certain FA's though, 99% of the best players in the world do it a number of times a season, some more than others but you'd end up leaving a load of superstars at home and watching reserve teams half the time.

As for extra officials behind the goal, the only thing they improve are employment ratings. They are completely useless and just obscure people behind the goal's view without adding anything to the game.

[kurtsimonw]

Long ban for a dive? That's ridiculous. One dive, and you got a long ban? Right...

Yep.

A bad tackle may not even result in injury and you get a 3 match ban. I think that's right because you did something wrong. But in reality you've not affected the game in any way except to make it harder for your team.

A dive may wrongly win your team points. You could change the entire league based on the way you cheated. In my opinion it should be a big punishment.

[acid911]

A dive may wrongly win your team points. You could change the entire league based on the way you cheated. In my opinion it should be a big punishment.

Exactly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And well, like I said the point is not the punishment - it's avoiding the ban, by not doing cheating and doing stupid shenanigans. Likewise for deliberate handballs that result in goals. Long fines will deter players from these things. And big fans will deter the clubs from encouraging such tactics. Win-win for us as fans.

[kurtsimonw]

Pretty much. If all diving is is a 1 match ban or something, it isn't really a big punishment and is almost worth doing if it wins you points. If you get a long ban for it, players just won't dive, it's not going to be worth it.

[CHU-LIP]

Yep.

A bad tackle may not even result in injury and you get a 3 match ban. I think that's right because you did something wrong. But in reality you've not affected the game in any way except to make it harder for your team.

A dive may wrongly win your team points. You could change the entire league based on the way you cheated. In my opinion it should be a big punishment.

You give me the expression you value a result higher than the health of a person. I can't agree with that.

And BTW, Kurt, when is a ban a long ban to you?

[acid911]

And BTW, Kurt, when is a ban a long ban to you?

Well Kurt will answer that for himself, but I consider a 5 match ban medium length. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) For repeat offenders. I think it should be 3 match the first time, 5 the next, and 7 or more for a hardened criminal. Plus fines for the club. Of course, it requires the officials who watch the video replays to be absolutely sure, plus testimonials from the players involved.

If they are not 100%, and is somewhere between the lines, then they can give it a pass. For the record, I consider cheating and malicious tackles as two things equal, punishable, and out of the game for good!

[kurtsimonw]

You give me the expression you value a result higher than the health of a person. I can't agree with that.

We aren't debating that so how do you know my feelings on it? If you must know, I think if a player injuries someone and it is deemed reckless or intentional, their ban should match the length of the injury (for a minimum of 3 games). So a minor injury is likely a 3 game ban. If you end someones career? Say goodbye to football, you don't deserve to be playing.

And BTW, Kurt, when is a ban a long ban to you?

4/5 games+

This post has been edited by kurtsimonw: Dec 19 2011, 07:33 PM

[CHU-LIP]

We aren't debating that so how do you know my feelings on it?

I don't. I said I got that impression. So why you respond with that sentence? I thought because you said about a bad tackle with 3 games ban is alright, but for diving a long ban, which is longer than 3. I didn't know you judge a tackle based on what actually happened until now.

Personally I feel all FAs should have their own medical teams to see how bad a players injury is. If it was a red card that caused the injury, then in my opinion the player should be suspended for as long as the injury is. If you end someones career with a stupid tackle, say goodbye to football. I do not value a result over health, but seeing as this was a thread about diving, and not injuries, I never stated my opinion on the matter.

After this post I understand that now better. I don't agree with how long someone is out, that long you need to be banned. It's just a matter of (bad) luck if something happens and if it's really bad. When one makes a tackle that can cause something really bad, it need to be punished hard, whether the player got lucky or not. Else one gets (close to) nothing and the other is banned for a long time, while they actually did exact the same. I can't agree with that.

This post has been edited by CHU-LIP: Dec 19 2011, 07:40 PM

[kurtsimonw]

After this post I understand that now better. I don't agree with how long someone is out, that long you need to be banned. It's just a matter of (bad) luck if something happens and if it's really bad. When one makes a tackle that can cause something really bad, it need to be punished hard, whether the player got lucky or not. Else one gets (close to) nothing and the other is banned for a long time, while they actually did exact the same. I can't agree with that.

You were too quick for me.

I did delete and re-write this section of my post to make it clearer. Like you said, some long term injuries are more unlucky than fully the blame of the person making the foul. In my edit I do say if its deemed reckless or intentional - meaning a complete disregard for the 'victims' health, then the ban should match the injury. I thin it is unfair if you intentionally go in 2-footed on someone, ending their career, that you get to earn millions doing what you want in 4 games time. It' just not right.