Stripes - I admire people who continue their arguement even when they are completely wrong and look like a twat (it is my Modus Operandi), but you have taken this way too far.[/quote]
That seems open to interpretation. 
[quote=Frankie Mac]I only caught bits and peices of G Nev talking last night about diving, but what I saw was wrong. He was showing examples of Beckham, Gerrard and Lampard dive, and saying "would you call these players cheats?" Well, yes - you have just shown examples of them cheating. It seemed that the arguement was that they were English and we like these players, so it is ok. I love G Nev as a pundit (and a commentator), and Monday Night Football is brilliant now he is on it, but he was completely wrong there.
Neville's position is a bit more sophisticated than an rank appeal to national chauvinism. He does claim that simulation came into the English game over the last two decades via foreign players, such as Dave Clement (b. Battersea, 1948), which is an appeal to national chauvinism and, in case the Clement link didn't make it clear, completely false. But aside from that, Neville argues that we need to be more sophisticated in our understanding of dives. There are at least three different types of "dive" that Neville points out:
- Evasion. With defenders still producing leg-breaking tackles, it's quite understandable that forwards take evasive action. When a player anticipates a strong challenge by leaping and the challenge does not come in hard (or goes wide), the appearance may be that of a deceitful dive.
- Embellishment. This is Neville's main point. He shows footage of players being fouled in the box and not receiving penalties or free kicks, as well as footage of players being fouled and "making the most of it" (including Young). For Neville, if referees do not award deserved penalties and free kicks when a player does what they "should", there is a strong incentive to go to ground.
- Invention. This is the business that generally gets people hot under the collar - going down without any contact.
I think that most people are OK with Evasion, as the alternative is saying that players ought to "harden up" if they get a broken leg.) Similarly, most people take exception to Invention, either on moral ("it's disgraceful", etc) or technical ("that's not going to fool anybody", etc.) grounds. That leaves us with Embellishment. Is this "unsporting behaviour", i.e. an attempt "to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to be fouled"?
Permalink
Permalink
embellishment implies that there has been some form of contact. contact alone is not necessarily a bad thing unless the rules say otherwise - current players propensity to hit the deck even if a 10 year old brushed against them is one of my biggest bug bears, along with Invention of course.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
One of the things I don't like to see is players playing for contact. They may have beaten the defender but rather than carrying on they rather look for contact, normally having to make an unnatural movement to get contact and then embellishing the contact to sell it to the ref - additionally trying to handle the ball ( ) to enforce a stop in play.
The whole game is based on risk/reward. IMHO, at the moment the reward for invention is greater than the risks (potentially a yellow card).
) to enforce a stop in play.
The whole game is based on risk/reward. IMHO, at the moment the reward for invention is greater than the risks (potentially a yellow card).
Permalink
Permalink
But the other side of that coin is that referees don't tend to penalise fouls if players being fouled try to stay on their feet, at which point they lose any real advantage that they may have had. The example Neville gave shows it well, as does the Puyol situation in the AC Milan game. This basically allows defenders to get away with quite a bit more than what they should. So really there is no incentive for the players to do the 'right thing', so to speak.
I also really like Neville's point about defenders not getting themselves in the situations where they can be taken advantage of by players looking to 'embellish'. Some of the examples he gave were truly examples of atrocious defending, and that's stuff that should easily be coached out off players. So maybe that's something that the managers should pay more attention rather than whining to high heavens about the injustice of it all.
I also really like Neville's point about defenders not getting themselves in the situations where they can be taken advantage of by players looking to 'embellish'. Some of the examples he gave were truly examples of atrocious defending, and that's stuff that should easily be coached out off players. So maybe that's something that the managers should pay more attention rather than whining to high heavens about the injustice of it all.
Permalink
Permalink
Free kicks are generally better for a team than retaining possession after a foul, so it makes sense to go down rather than allowing the ref to play advantage which usually won't be much of one anyway. It makes for a bit of a crappy spectacle at times though. IMHO the way to fix this is to allow longer advantages like they have in rugby
BarryZuckerkorn2012-04-20 17:44:31
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
Permalink
Permalink
The thing I find amusing is that some people seem to think this is something new. It has been happening for a very long time. I played with a Croation in the 70's in Auckland that used to get us penalties on a regular basis by diving.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
although i liked the neville piece i thought he brushed over retrospective banning with little intelligent argument
he claimed something like 'there'd be bans all over the place'
that may be true initially, but if the fa took a hardline stance then we could see some change occurring, i.e. bullion's risk vs reward argument coming into play
right now the risk is minimal, a yellow at best, so unless you've already got a yellow in the game then you may as well take a dive and see what you can get
although it was pathetically inconsistent and completely media-driven, i hoped eduardo's ban the other season would herald the start of some real policing, but alas no.
incidentally, i see fergie's come out and said he's "had a word" with young
he claimed something like 'there'd be bans all over the place'
that may be true initially, but if the fa took a hardline stance then we could see some change occurring, i.e. bullion's risk vs reward argument coming into play
right now the risk is minimal, a yellow at best, so unless you've already got a yellow in the game then you may as well take a dive and see what you can get
although it was pathetically inconsistent and completely media-driven, i hoped eduardo's ban the other season would herald the start of some real policing, but alas no.
incidentally, i see fergie's come out and said he's "had a word" with young
Permalink
Permalink
What seems to have been forgotten over the last few years is that football is a contact sport. That means that there is allowed to be contact. That also means that if a player wins a penalty it cannot be accepted "as there was contact". If you throw yourself to the ground when you are touched (like Young vs QPR) you are diving. That is a fact (in my eyes). The contact was not enough to knock you to the ground, and "making the most of it" is just diving. If anyone defending in their own box threw themselves to the ground as soon as they were touched, they would not get a freekick (except Drogba the other night). Likewise, if it happened in the centre circle. Why do we have different rules when an attacker does it in the opposition penalty box?
From memory, netball is a non-contact sport (ie it is considered a foul when a player touches another player), yet is a lot more physical than many parts of football nowdays. Whichever way you dress that up, it is shameful.
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
What seems to have been forgotten over the last few years is that football is a contact sport. That means that there is allowed to be contact. That also means that if a player wins a penalty it cannot be accepted "as there was contact". If you throw yourself to the ground when you are touched (like Young vs QPR) you are diving. That is a fact (in my eyes). The contact was not enough to knock you to the ground, and "making the most of it" is just diving. If anyone defending in their own box threw themselves to the ground as soon as they were touched, they would not get a freekick (except Drogba the other night). Likewise, if it happened in the centre circle. Why do we have different rules when an attacker does it in the opposition penalty box?
From memory, netball is a non-contact sport (ie it is considered a foul when a player touches another player), yet is a lot more physical than many parts of football nowdays. Whichever way you dress that up, it is shameful.
Well, I guess you must be cheer whenever you see something like this:
Isn't that great? I mean, Ben Arfa nearly lost his leg as a consequence, but it's manly contact sport! Hurrah!
Permalink
Permalink
Now, non-red mist replying:
although i liked the neville piece i thought he brushed over retrospective banning with little intelligent argument
he claimed something like 'there'd be bans all over the place'
he claimed something like 'there'd be bans all over the place'
This was on the basis of saying that 95% of players indulged in Embellishment.
I left it as an open question earlier, but let me make this clear now. It's hard to see how Embellishment is deserving of a yellow card by the Laws of the Game. The player can say:
"I was not pretending to be fouled. I was making it very clear to the referee that I believed that I was fouled."
and if the relevant FA states that it was not a foul, they can fall back on:
"I was mistaken in my belief that a foul took place and accept the official's decision, but I maintain my right to appeal for their protection against physical play."
You can scream your moral indignation to the heavens at this sort of business, but before doing so - another glance at the De Jong picture. He got a slap on the wrist from the Netherlands national team, but received no other sanction for almost crippling another man. Is "diving" really the worst thing in football?
Permalink
Permalink
What seems to have been forgotten over the last few years is that football is a contact sport.� That means that there is allowed to be contact.� That also means that if a player wins a penalty it cannot be accepted "as there was contact".� If you throw yourself to the ground when you are touched (like Young vs QPR) you are diving.� That is a fact (in my eyes).� The contact was not enough to knock you to the ground, and "making the most of it" is just diving.� If anyone defending�in their own box�threw themselves to the ground as soon as they were touched, they would not get a freekick (except Drogba the other night).� Likewise, if it happened in the centre circle.� Why do we have different rules when an attacker does it in the opposition penalty box?
From memory, netball is a non-contact sport (ie it is considered a foul when a player touches another player), yet is a lot more physical than many parts of football nowdays.� Whichever way you dress that up, it is shameful.
What you have forgotten is that there does not need to be any contact for a foul to occur - an attempt to trip or kick an opponent in a careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, is also a foul under the Laws of the Game.
It's far, far from being as black and white as you seem to think.
Permalink
Permalink
This was on the basis of saying that 95% of players indulged in Embellishment.
�
I left it as an open question earlier, but let me make this clear now.��It's hard to see how Embellishment is deserving of a yellow card by the Laws of the Game.� The player can say:
�
"I was not pretending to be fouled.� I was making it very clear to the referee that I believed that I was fouled."
�
and if the relevant FA states that it was not a foul, they can fall back on:
"I was mistaken in my belief that a foul took place and accept the official's decision, but I maintain my right to appeal for their protection against physical play."
�
You can scream your moral indignation to the heavens at this sort of business, but before doing so - another glance at the De Jong picture.� He got a slap on the wrist from the Netherlands national team, but received no other sanction for almost crippling another man.� Is "diving" really the worst thing in football?
Pretty much agree with all this.
Permalink
Permalink
What seems to have been forgotten over the last few years is that football is a contact sport. That means that there is allowed to be contact. That also means that if a player wins a penalty it cannot be accepted "as there was contact". If you throw yourself to the ground when you are touched (like Young vs QPR) you are diving. That is a fact (in my eyes). The contact was not enough to knock you to the ground, and "making the most of it" is just diving. If anyone defending in their own box threw themselves to the ground as soon as they were touched, they would not get a freekick (except Drogba the other night). Likewise, if it happened in the centre circle. Why do we have different rules when an attacker does it in the opposition penalty box?
From memory, netball is a non-contact sport (ie it is considered a foul when a player touches another player), yet is a lot more physical than many parts of football nowdays. Whichever way you dress that up, it is shameful.
What you have forgotten is that there does not need to be any contact for a foul to occur - an attempt to trip or kick an opponent in a careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, is also a foul under the Laws of the Game.
It's far, far from being as black and white as you seem to think.
Agree with Jonesy.
You seem to think if a defender leaves his leg out then a striker has a right to have the option of running into it to claim a pen. That is a mockery.
El Grap you need to stop quoting the rule book and get real. If someone does not get fouled and they dive then they are cheating. If they get fouled but exagerate it, then they do so at their risk.
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
What seems to have been forgotten over the last few years is that football is a contact sport.� That means that there is allowed to be contact.� That also means that if a player wins a penalty it cannot be accepted "as there was contact".� If you throw yourself to the ground when you are touched (like Young vs QPR) you are diving.� That is a fact (in my eyes).� The contact was not enough to knock you to the ground, and "making the most of it" is just diving.� If anyone defending�in their own box�threw themselves to the ground as soon as they were touched, they would not get a freekick (except Drogba the other night).� Likewise, if it happened in the centre circle.� Why do we have different rules when an attacker does it in the opposition penalty box?
From memory, netball is a non-contact sport (ie it is considered a foul when a player touches another player), yet is a lot more physical than many parts of football nowdays.� Whichever way you dress that up, it is shameful.
What you have forgotten is that there does not need to be any contact for a foul to occur - an attempt to trip or kick an opponent in a careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, is also a foul under the Laws of the Game.
It's far, far from being as black and white as you seem to think.
Agree with Jonesy.
You seem to think if a defender leaves his leg out then a striker has a right to have the option of running into it to claim a pen. That is a mockery.
El Grap you need to stop quoting the rule book and get real. If someone does not get fouled and they dive then they are cheating. If they get fouled but exagerate it, then they do so at their risk.
So you're basically saying, let's ignore the Laws of the Game, and just adopt the standard that you've set for fouls and cheating?
Permalink
Permalink
What you have forgotten is that there does not need to be any contact for a foul to occur - an attempt to trip or kick an opponent in a careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, is also a foul under the Laws of the Game.
It's far, far from being as black and white as you seem to think.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
What seems to have been forgotten over the last few years is that football is a contact sport. That means that there is allowed to be contact. That also means that if a player wins a penalty it cannot be accepted "as there was contact". If you throw yourself to the ground when you are touched (like Young vs QPR) you are diving. That is a fact (in my eyes). The contact was not enough to knock you to the ground, and "making the most of it" is just diving. If anyone defending in their own box threw themselves to the ground as soon as they were touched, they would not get a freekick (except Drogba the other night). Likewise, if it happened in the centre circle. Why do we have different rules when an attacker does it in the opposition penalty box?
From memory, netball is a non-contact sport (ie it is considered a foul when a player touches another player), yet is a lot more physical than many parts of football nowdays. Whichever way you dress that up, it is shameful.
What you have forgotten is that there does not need to be any contact for a foul to occur - an attempt to trip or kick an opponent in a careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, is also a foul under the Laws of the Game.
It's far, far from being as black and white as you seem to think.
Agree with Jonesy.
You seem to think if a defender leaves his leg out then a striker has a right to have the option of running into it to claim a pen. That is a mockery.
El Grap you need to stop quoting the rule book and get real. If someone does not get fouled and they dive then they are cheating. If they get fouled but exagerate it, then they do so at their risk.
So you're basically saying, let's ignore the Laws of the Game, and just adopt the standard that you've set for fouls and cheating?
I am talking about in the context of the rules, as were you, its just that my version is better 
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
What seems to have been forgotten over the last few years is that football is a contact sport. That means that there is allowed to be contact. That also means that if a player wins a penalty it cannot be accepted "as there was contact". If you throw yourself to the ground when you are touched (like Young vs QPR) you are diving. That is a fact (in my eyes). The contact was not enough to knock you to the ground, and "making the most of it" is just diving. If anyone defending in their own box threw themselves to the ground as soon as they were touched, they would not get a freekick (except Drogba the other night). Likewise, if it happened in the centre circle. Why do we have different rules when an attacker does it in the opposition penalty box?
From memory, netball is a non-contact sport (ie it is considered a foul when a player touches another player), yet is a lot more physical than many parts of football nowdays. Whichever way you dress that up, it is shameful.
Well, I guess you must be cheer whenever you see something like this:
Isn't that great? I mean, Ben Arfa nearly lost his leg as a consequence, but it's manly contact sport! Hurrah!
First of all, don't be a f**king idiot.
Two people touching is contact (oo-er) and is allowed everywhere in football except in an attacking penalty area. The first photo I saw when I googled premier league was this:
No obviously I don't remember this incident, as it is the sort of thing that happens a few hundred times in the game, but I am pretty sure that there was contact, no one nearly lost a leg (or arm) and no one would have appealed for a foul. If this happened in the penalty area and a penalty was given, pundits would have gone "Wright Phillips is clearly making contact with Rooney, so you can see why it was given". Bollocks.
Rule and law books provide many grey areas (which is why we have lawyers), but common sense has to be applied in football, and these days it isn't. And that is sad.
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
Hard to tell from a still photo, but that looks like a foul to me.
Permalink
Permalink
why?
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
SWP is clearly shoulder barging (allowed) Rooney's waistline. Not SWP's fault he's 4'10" tall.
PS: He's been absolute dog sh*t at QPR, hence he's got the name of "The headless Chicken".
PS: He's been absolute dog sh*t at QPR, hence he's got the name of "The headless Chicken".
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
I partially agree with Frank, I'm not sure how I feel about this.
maybe another example is the shirt grabbing and wrestling that seems to accompany many corners. Maybe it just appearances but it seems this has a ruling dependant on what part of the field it takes place in.
yes their is worse crimes than diving and yes the Anglo-Saxons are a bit precious over it but it's still the biggest handicap to 'outsiders' getting into football, the gamesmanship/cheating/falsity.
maybe another example is the shirt grabbing and wrestling that seems to accompany many corners. Maybe it just appearances but it seems this has a ruling dependant on what part of the field it takes place in.
yes their is worse crimes than diving and yes the Anglo-Saxons are a bit precious over it but it's still the biggest handicap to 'outsiders' getting into football, the gamesmanship/cheating/falsity.
E's Flat Ah's Flat Too
Permalink
Permalink
SWP is clearly shoulder barging (allowed) Rooney's waistline. Not SWP's fault he's 4'10" tall.
PS: He's been absolute dog sh*t at QPR, hence he's got the name of "The headless Chicken".
PS: He's been absolute dog sh*t at QPR, hence he's got the name of "The headless Chicken".
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
On an unrelated note, anyone know how SWP has been getting on at QPR? I imagine that he has done really well, and the fans have given him a cool nickname that reflects his performances.
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
On an unrelated note, anyone know how SWP has been getting on at QPR?� I imagine that he has done really well, and the fans have given him a cool nickname that reflects his performances.
Permalink
Permalink
This debate is creeping into basketball now with players embellishing contacts to get fouls called and such. This makes me perversely happy, as I'm sick of people acting like there's something special about football players that makes them do this compared to other sportspeople. Every sport has grey areas that people exploit in order to win its just that in football you can see it whereas in say, rugby, it takes place under a huge tangle of bodies so no one can see it.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
Permalink
Permalink
why?
Like I said, hard to tell from a still photo, but looks like charging an opponent situation to me, which is a foul under the Laws of the Game.
Permalink
Permalink
Frankie, we're thinking of giving him, Rowan Vine & Pat Ageymang to West Ham on frees
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
First of all, don't be a f**king idiot.[/quote]
Not when the only alternative is being a celibate idiot!
From the still photo, it may have been "careless" charging, which typically results in a free kick. However, the referee is required to allow play to continue if it is to the advantage of the team that suffers the foul.
[quote]Rule and law�books provide many grey areas (which is why we have lawyers), but common sense has to be applied in football, and these days it isn't.� And that is sad.
Not when the only alternative is being a celibate idiot!
Two people touching is contact (oo-er) and is allowed everywhere in football except in an attacking penalty area.[/quote]
That's not even close to the Laws of the Game.
[quote]No obviously I don't remember this incident, as it is the sort of thing that happens a few hundred times in the game, but I am pretty sure that there was contact, no one nearly lost a leg (or arm) and no one would have appealed for a foul.� If this happened in the penalty area and a penalty was given, pundits would have gone "Wright Phillips is clearly making contact with Rooney, so you can see why it was given".� Bollocks.
That's not even close to the Laws of the Game.
[quote]No obviously I don't remember this incident, as it is the sort of thing that happens a few hundred times in the game, but I am pretty sure that there was contact, no one nearly lost a leg (or arm) and no one would have appealed for a foul.� If this happened in the penalty area and a penalty was given, pundits would have gone "Wright Phillips is clearly making contact with Rooney, so you can see why it was given".� Bollocks.
From the still photo, it may have been "careless" charging, which typically results in a free kick. However, the referee is required to allow play to continue if it is to the advantage of the team that suffers the foul.
[quote]Rule and law�books provide many grey areas (which is why we have lawyers), but common sense has to be applied in football, and these days it isn't.� And that is sad.
As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." The Laws of the Game are not built on prejudice, and no amount of outraged howling will change that.
Permalink
Permalink
But common sense is always applied. Especially in the box, in a way you are arguing against yourself there. You look at any corner or freekick into the box and there are shirts being pulled, and any number of fouls occurring.
Of course common sense has to come into any decision that is made.
On the other hand, you could take the approach that if you blew a foul or penalty everytime an offence occurs, then eventually players will stop doing it. Is that the approach you are suggesting?
Of course common sense has to come into any decision that is made.
On the other hand, you could take the approach that if you blew a foul or penalty everytime an offence occurs, then eventually players will stop doing it. Is that the approach you are suggesting?
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
That is the strange thing - from that photo El Grap and Stripes see one player "charging" another player, which is something I don't. I see two people running for the ball, and both jostling to get their bodies in front of the other while chasing a ball, which is something that is part and parcel of the game.
I am loathe to bring this up, especially as I do not know either of you from a bar of soap, but I wonder sometimes if these differences in attitude are due to the level that a somebody has played the game? I am sure that someone who has played with a ref and two linesmen at a serious level, will always have a different opinion on these matters to someone who has played with the opposition right back's mother as a ref.
Now that I have said that, El Grap probably played for Croatia in the 1998 World Cup, while Stripes is Phillipe Albert. Well even if that is true, I once won the Coastlands Cup, so f**k you.
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
That is the strange thing - from that photo El Grap and Stripes see one player "charging" another player, which is something I don't.� I see two people running for the ball, and both jostling to get their bodies in front of the other while chasing a ball, which is something that is part and parcel of the game.
�
I am loathe to bring this up, especially as I do not know either of you from a bar of soap, but I wonder sometimes if these differences in attitude are due to the level that a somebody has played the game?� I am sure that someone who has played with a ref and two linesmen at a serious level, will always have a different opinion on these matters to someone who has played with the opposition right back's mother as a ref.
�
Now that I have said that, El Grap probably played for Croatia in the 1998 World Cup, while Stripes is Phillipe Albert. Well even if that is true, I once won the Coastlands Cup, so f**k you.
[IMG]smileys/smiley2.Leggy2012-04-24 20:21:45If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
rooney clearly has the ball under control in that pic, open your eyes FM
and now the rubbish argument about who's played to what level, good grief...
Permalink
Permalink
Nice edit there paul.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
made me lol. Should have kept it. Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
and now the rubbish argument about who's played to what level, good grief...
I think it is - not in a "I played at a higher level than you, so I know more than you", but just in the way that the games are officiated.
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
Nice edit there paul.
LOL thought better of it in hindsight, no need for the personal stuff (although the person in question never holds back!)
Permalink
Permalink