Further proof that footballers are THICK...

[Guy Fawkes]

Ban the players and fine the manager and club. It would stop the obvious coaching and tactics and an easy remedy.

If a player is caught diving by the ref, they get a yellow card at worst but could get a penalty if they dive in the box and get away with it. Benefit is greater than reward.

The problem is that the ref has a split seconds view and has to decide if it was a dive or a foul, they don't get a second chance to view it and from several angles that TV uses. If there were no cameras to highlight this dive, then almost everyone would think it was a real penalty and a right decision.

There are plenty of examples where the ref gets it wrong and books a player for diving when it was a clear foul.

The alternatives are to either change the rules allowing more bruising tackles again, meaning it is more advantagous for a player to stay on their feet as they may not get a free kick anyway if they dive (but increases risks of serious injuries) or video evidence, either during the game (but disrupts the flow of the game) or after by a panel (what if the incident changed the result, ie, penalty awarded and scored or player sent off - what then?) The video evidence is then used to punish the player with a 2 / 3 match ban making it unworthwhile.

However things will stay as they are once the publicity over this incident dies down.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

One thing that might improve things a little would be to make the award of a penalty a bit less harsh than it is now - how about changing the rules so that when a penalty is awarded no other sanction to be taken - no red or yellow cards, unless, of course it is for a violent or dangerous tackle? That way, divers might still be rewarded by getting the penalty, but they wouldn't be further rewarded by continuing the game against ten men.

Also, now that TV coverage is so extensive, isn't it time for retrospective action to be allowed? If a penalty is awarded, and TV replays clearly show it was a dive with no contact, then a one match ban for the diver; that might discourage them a bit!

The problem with not carding a player unless it was a dangerous tackle is that a dive could look like a dangerous tackle, so the player might still be sent off (wrongly)

Tv coverage may show a dive, but it would be found out too late and the divers team may have equalised / won the game because of that dive, so even if the player gets a ban, the team has benefitted from cheating so some managers may deem it a worthwhile tactic, (especially as teams have big squads nowadays and can cover a player for a match or two.)

 

[sam86]

The alternatives are to either change the rules allowing more bruising tackles again, meaning it is more advantagous for a player to stay on their feet as they may not get a free kick anyway if they dive (but increases risks of serious injuries or video evidence, either during the game (but disrupts the flow of the game) or after by a panel (what if the incident changed the result, ie, penalty awarded and scored or player sent off - what then?) The video evidence is then used to punish the player with a 2 / 3 match ban making it unworthwhile.

Your missing a close bracket.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

The fact Sellik won the European Cup with a team comprised solely of ging-er 'weegies back in 1967 shows how far the competition has come on, while Scottish Football has declined in opposite fashion.

Interesting stance. I would think the majority of NSCers would love to see a return to the days of the European Cup being more competitive between the champions of many European countries, who accurately represent their communities, as opposed to a money-making scam which is endlessly played out between the richest European clubs largely made up of players that have never even lived in the cities they represent.

I don't think anyone really thinks that Celtic will win the European Cup again with conditions as they are. I think gone are the days when sides like Porto & Monaco will contest the final as well.

 

[GT49er]

The problem with not carding a player unless it was a dangerous tackle is that a dive could look like a dangerous tackle, so the player might still be sent off (wrongly.)

Yes, but the diver could still get a one match ban from subsequent TV coverage.

Tv coverage may show a dive, but it would be found out too late and the divers team may have equalised / won the game because of that dive, so even if the player gets a ban, the team has benefitted from cheating so some managers may deem it a worthwhile tactic, (especially as teams have big squads nowadays and can cover a player for a match or two.)

You're missing what I said about the punishment being retrospective. That means it could be applied AFTER the match has finished (which is not allowed under present rules). No, it wouldn't reverse the decision, or affect the match result, but it would be a real sanction against the diving cheats.

 

[happypig]

I think that for players retrospectively seen to dive, the manager should be fined 1 weeks wages; if a foul was given, the money goes to the player that the foul was awarded against.

 

[xenophon]

Interesting stance. I would think the majority of NSCers would love to see a return to the days of the European Cup being more competitive between the champions of many European countries, who accurately represent their communities, as opposed to a money-making scam which is endlessly played out between the richest European clubs largely made up of players that have never even lived in the cities they represent.

I don't think anyone really thinks that Celtic will win the European Cup again with conditions as they are. I think gone are the days when sides like Porto & Monaco will contest the final as well.

I agree totally, the giant killing days are long gone, I'd love to see a return to the days when the actual champions of each and every league in Europe slugged it out from the start. Manure wouldn't have won the treble under the old set up - they didn't win the league the year before.

 

[Safeway]

Your missing a close bracket.

You're missing an apostrophe and an e.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes, but the diver could still get a one match ban from subsequent TV coverage.

You're missing what I said about the punishment being retrospective. That means it could be applied AFTER the match has finished (which is not allowed under present rules). No, it wouldn't reverse the decision, or affect the match result, but it would be a real sanction against the diving cheats.

Did i?

Guy Fawkes
the divers team may have equalised / won the game because of that dive, so even if the player gets a ban, the team has benefitted from cheating so some managers may deem it a worthwhile tactic, (especially as teams have big squads nowadays and can cover a player for a match or two.)

Also so what if there was alot riding on that game? - say a cup final or the final game of the season with the title / promotion / or relegation riding on the result? Would that thought of a retrospective 1 match ban be enough to stop people diving to try to get a penalty to win the match?
- for example, if Leon Knight penalty at the Millenium Stadium was later deemed a dive, he gets a match ban, but the club got promotion to the Championship because of it. Would the club prefer Knight to have not dived and miss out on Championship football, or wouldn't they care he dived as they got what they wanted out of the season.

Who would decide which incidents to review in case there was a dive? would they have to review every challenge in every match in case there was a dive that was missed by everyone at the time. Also TV footage can be indecisive depending on the angles too, lower league games usually only have the one camera view to go by (if the cameraman doesn't miss it)

It is a money driven results business nowadays (more important than i was pre Sky imo) so banning a player retrospectively for 1 match isn't much of a deterant.

 

[GT49er]

Also so what if there was alot riding on that game?

Yes, there would be times when somebody decides the risk is worthwhile. That's no reason not to have a sanction available. There are sanctions if you rob a bank, but some people still take the risk.

Who would decide which incidents to review in case there was a dive?

Easy one that. The team that felt they'd been done over by somebody diving would request it be reviewed.

Also TV footage can be indecisive depending on the angles too, lower league games usually only have the one camera view to go by (if the cameraman doesn't miss it).

Again, simple. Same rules as for third umpire in cricket. If the TV evidence is inconclusive, then the alleged diver is deemed to be innocent.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes, there would be times when somebody decides the risk is worthwhile. That's no reason not to have a sanction available. There are sanctions if you rob a bank, but some people still take the risk.

Easy one that. The team that felt they'd been done over by somebody diving would request it be reviewed.

Again, simple. Same rules as for third umpire in cricket. If the TV evidence is inconclusive, then the alleged diver is deemed to be innocent.

But also who gets the benefit of the punishment, the wronged team or the next team to play against the team whose player dived? especially if it cost the wronged team a result that could serious financial implications to them. (like the difference between staying up or relegation or a trophy / league)

Wouldn't video evidence during the game be better, meaning that it could be viewed straight after the incident if contencious and therefore any benefit from the dive is eliminated from the match, also the offender could be sent off, and punished by the FA in the same way as serious foul play, ie, 3 match ban

 

[GT49er]

But also who gets the benefit of the punishment, the wronged team or the next team to play against the team whose player dived? especially if it cost the wronged team a result that could serious financial implications to them. (like the difference between staying up or relegation or a trophy / league)

On that basis you could argue that red carding a player shouldn't result in a ban, because that might benefit the next opponents, but that's what happens now anyway.
The punishment is not there to benefit any one - that would be a matter of compensation, and I'm not advocating that; it is to punish the guilty player / team - and of course, the sanction could be progressive for repeat / persistant offenders. The benefit would be fewer deliberate attempts to cheat, once the message got round that there could be a price to pay for cheating.

 

[keaton]

I agree about footballers being thick, but what do you expect? There's a load of "football fans" on the other thread saying what Nathan Tyson did was funny and there was nothing wrong with it, how f***ing thick are they?

 

[stss30]

On that basis you could argue that red carding a player shouldn't result in a ban, because that might benefit the next opponents, but that's what happens now anyway.

If you red card a player during a match it gives the opposing team an advantage, whereas if you give the player for example a 3 match ban after the game it doesn't give the team which the dive took place against an advantage at all so most teams wouldn't bother following up on cheats

 

[stss30]

Wouldn't video evidence during the game be better, meaning that it could be viewed straight after the incident if contencious and therefore any benefit from the dive is eliminated from the match, also the offender could be sent off, and punished by the FA in the same way as serious foul play, ie, 3 match ban

Agreed. Although I think the delay's would be annoying as it would slow the pace of the game down and when would they decide to view the video footage? When the team appeals? Otherwise it would be virtually impossible to view all the incidents as football is so fast paced.

 

[xenophon]

Awesome avatar sam - like it a lot