Straya - A-League and State Leagues

Simulation

90 replies · 4,530 views
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Where I think it gets difficult is dealing with diving and someone making the most of contact. The penalty that Heart won there was a shirt tug and the guy went to groud. For me that isn't a dive, its someone making the most of a foul. The Baird situation I think he took a dive.
 
Diving you can retrospectively punish but when someone goes down easily after contact you really can't because the situation gets so murky about degrees of it.
 
Its a bit like De Rossi at the WC, Smith had hold of his shirt so he went to ground. Yes you can argue all you like about him making the most of it but in the end there was contact.
 
Its a tough one, I applaud the FFAs stance, they now just need to be consistent.

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Critical_Lemon wrote:

It is of great concern that the players themselves get absolutely no chance to tell their side of the story. It is just a bunch of FFA officials watching video footage of the incident, and that isn't right; the players get no chance to explain or even appeal, and if the panel get it wrong then a player could potentially lose income (appearance fees) unjustly, as well as restricting their practice of their trade. The PFA says that it won't take the FFA to court but will back any club that does.http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/181898,pfa-legal-threat-on-dive-bans.aspx

So when a ref hands out a red card to Reddy for supposedly fouling Perez, should the ref allow Reddy to defend himself? If it wasn't for the MRP Reddy would be serving a ban and potentially losing income unjustly.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
bopman wrote:
Where I think it gets difficult is dealing with diving and someone making the most of contact. The penalty that Heart won there was a shirt tug and the guy went to groud. For me that isn't a dive, its someone making the most of a foul. The Baird situation I think he took a dive.

Diving you can retrospectively punish but when someone goes down easily after contact you really can't because the situation gets so murky about degrees of it.

Its a bit like De Rossi at the WC, Smith had hold of his shirt so he went to ground. Yes you can argue all you like about him making the most of it but in the end there was contact.

Its a tough one, I applaud the FFAs stance, they now just need to be consistent. IMO "making the most of a foul" can still be simulating. They are still trying to make something look worse than it might actually be. Their intention is to have an influence on the referee's decision.
Either way I don't think any kind of simulation belongs in the game and I hope this move by the FFA will make players think twice about simulating to any degree.
Fruglo on 15.01.2013 wrote:

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Bullion wrote:
Critical_Lemon wrote:

It is of great concern that the players themselves get absolutely no chance to tell their side of the story. It is just a bunch of FFA officials watching video footage of the incident, and that isn't right; the players get no chance to explain or even appeal, and if the panel get it wrong then a player could potentially lose income (appearance fees) unjustly, as well as restricting their practice of their trade. The PFA says that it won't take the FFA to court but will back any club that does.http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/181898,pfa-legal-threat-on-dive-bans.aspx

So when a ref hands out a red card to Reddy for supposedly fouling Perez, should the ref allow Reddy to defend himself? If it wasn't for the MRP Reddy would be serving a ban and potentially losing income unjustly.


But can we categorically say that he didn't catch Perez? It would have been a very light contact if he had, but the evidence isn't water-tight because we don't have a decent angle of the moment when Perez passes Reddy.

And I'm pretty sure that Reddy did try to defend himself, which is more of a chance than Perez got.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

That Sydney FC should come out in public support of this decision is heavily ironic (as the picture accompanying the YF news page headline wittily notes). In Brosque, Bridge and ex-Sydney striker Chris Payne we have masters of the art of going to ground with little or no contact.

I also think the penalty given for the foul on Terra was a poor decision. Falling over because you felt a bit of contact earlier is still cheating, and a ref who gives a penalty is rewarding that cheating and punishing the defender for an intent to foul.
 
 
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
pull a shirt and get suspended? get a grip (lame pun). the only danger is they will have to be consistent,and itll have to be pretty clearcut if they are to hand out suspensions. but f**king great news. couldnt quite believe it when first read it.


I never mentioned getting supended for pulling shirts.I suggested that they clamp down on it. Suggest you don't jump to conclusions.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
TopLeft07 wrote:
bopman wrote:
Where I think it gets difficult is dealing with diving and someone making the most of contact. The penalty that Heart won there was a shirt tug and the guy went to groud. For me that isn't a dive, its someone making the most of a foul. The Baird situation I think he took a dive.

Diving you can retrospectively punish but when someone goes down easily after contact you really can't because the situation gets so murky about degrees of it.

Its a bit like De Rossi at the WC, Smith had hold of his shirt so he went to ground. Yes you can argue all you like about him making the most of it but in the end there was contact.
Its a tough one, I applaud the FFAs stance, they now just need to be consistent.
IMO "making the most of a foul" can still be simulating. They are still trying to make something look worse than it might actually be. Their intention is to have an influence on the referee's decision.
Either way I don't think any kind of simulation belongs in the game and I hope this move by the FFA will make players think twice about simulating to any degree.


Kinda have a mixed view on this one. Shirt tugging I find as annoying as diving- both are cheating to get an advantage. Arguably "diving" in such an instance  is demonstrating to the referee that the other player has been cheating? De Rossi cheated in the hope of getting a penalty by falling to the ground when nothing had happened that would cause him to fall. Smith cheated in the hope of preventing De Rossi from getting into a position to score a goal. While one looks more dramatic than the other, is one really worse than the other?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The only reason we have a Match Review Panel is because our referees are sh*te!

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
TopLeft07 wrote:
bopman wrote:
Where I think it gets difficult is dealing with diving and someone making the most of contact. The penalty that Heart won there was a shirt tug and the guy went to groud. For me that isn't a dive, its someone making the most of a foul. The Baird situation I think he took a dive.

Diving you can retrospectively punish but when someone goes down easily after contact you really can't because the situation gets so murky about degrees of it.

Its a bit like De Rossi at the WC, Smith had hold of his shirt so he went to ground. Yes you can argue all you like about him making the most of it but in the end there was contact.
Its a tough one, I applaud the FFAs stance, they now just need to be consistent.
IMO "making the most of a foul" can still be simulating. They are still trying to make something look worse than it might actually be. Their intention is to have an influence on the referee's decision.
Either way I don't think any kind of simulation belongs in the game and I hope this move by the FFA will make players think twice about simulating to any degree.


While making the most of a foul is probably simulating as well I don't agree with you in that it's wrong.  If a player savages me from behind (man that sounds bad) and I don't think the ref is going to see it then going down isn't such a bad thing at all.  Just ensures the ref gives what should definitely be a free-kick which he otherwise may have missed.  In actual football I've only done that once, maybe twice, but certainly wouldn't look down on others for doing it more regularly.  If anything you're helping the ref, and it's only when players blur the line between this and going down under very little or zero contact that the idea of this being alright becomes more complicated.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
loyalgunner wrote:

TopLeft07 wrote:
bopman wrote:
Where I think it gets difficult is dealing with diving and someone making the most of contact. The penalty that Heart won there was a shirt tug and the guy went to groud. For me that isn't a dive, its someone making the most of a foul. The Baird situation I think he took a dive.

Diving you can retrospectively punish but when someone goes down easily after contact you really can't because the situation gets so murky about degrees of it.

Its a bit like De Rossi at the WC, Smith had hold of his shirt so he went to ground. Yes you can argue all you like about him making the most of it but in the end there was contact.
Its a tough one, I applaud the FFAs stance, they now just need to be consistent.
IMO "making the most of a foul" can still be simulating. They are still trying to make something look worse than it might actually be. Their intention is to have an influence on the referee's decision.
Either way I don't think any kind of simulation belongs in the game and I hope this move by the FFA will make players think twice about simulating to any degree.
While making the most of a foul is probably simulating as well I don't agree with you in that it's wrong.� If a player savages me from behind (man that sounds bad) and I don't think the ref is going to see it then going down isn't such a bad thing at all.� Just ensures the ref gives what should definitely be a free-kick which he otherwise may have missed.� In actual football I've only done that once, maybe twice, but certainly wouldn't look down on others for doing it more regularly.� If anything you're helping the ref, and it's only when players blur the line between this and going down under very little or zero contact that the idea of this being alright becomes more complicated.

Well the onus is on the ref to see you being savaged from behind ( ). If you've been fouled badly enough that the opposing player has gained an advantage then it should be obvious enough. If he's given you a tickle then harden up, don't flap around like a pansy to gain a free kick or peno.

I guess I would say that though, being Dutch.
Fruglo on 15.01.2013 wrote:

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Shauneboy wrote:

TopLeft07 wrote:
bopman wrote:
Where I think it gets difficult is dealing with diving and someone making the most of contact. The penalty that Heart won there was a shirt tug and the guy went to groud. For me that isn't a dive, its someone making the most of a foul. The Baird situation I think he took a dive.

Diving you can retrospectively punish but when someone goes down easily after contact you really can't because the situation gets so murky about degrees of it.

Its a bit like De Rossi at the WC, Smith had hold of his shirt so he went to ground. Yes you can argue all you like about him making the most of it but in the end there was contact.
Its a tough one, I applaud the FFAs stance, they now just need to be consistent.
IMO "making the most of a foul" can still be simulating. They are still trying to make something look worse than it might actually be. Their intention is to have an influence on the referee's decision.
Either way I don't think any kind of simulation belongs in the game and I hope this move by the FFA will make players think twice about simulating to any degree.
Kinda have a mixed view on this one. Shirt tugging I find as annoying as diving- both are cheating to get an advantage. Arguably "diving" in such an instance� is demonstrating to the referee that the other player has been cheating? De Rossi cheated in the hope of getting a penalty by falling to the ground when nothing had happened that would cause him to fall. Smith cheated in the hope of preventing De Rossi from getting into a position to score a goal. While one looks more dramatic than the other, is one really worse than the other?

Two wrongs...

Diving is a much uglier part of the game than shirt pulling and I think diving is a much bigger problem. Leave it up to the refs to decide if it's a foul. You're there to play football, not act.
Fruglo on 15.01.2013 wrote:

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Football Federation Australia (FFA) today confirmed that the suspensions imposed on two Hyundai A-League players for simulation last weekend will stand. 

 

In doing so FFA reaffirmed its strong stance that simulation had no place in football in Australia.

 

�The match review process in place is designed to supplement and support referees in their adjudication of on-field incidents,� said FFA CEO Ben Buckley. 

 

�The Match Review Panel comprises three independent highly experienced, independent professionals. They have the advantage of viewing broadcast footage with multiple angles and they have the luxury of time, unlike the referee who is operating in the match environment.

 

�We�re committed to ensuring we have a robust, independent, fair and efficient disciplinary system.

 

�Every year at the end of the season we review the system and consult separately with the Clubs and the PFA.

 

�Over the course of the last few days, the Clubs involved in this weekend�s incidents have raised some issues of concern with us over the operation of the system.

 

�We have assured the Clubs that they will have the opportunity for significant input during the annual review process. 

 

"FFA remains committed to this consultative process and will ensure that it provides a forum to hear the views of all relevant stakeholders through a working group comprising representatives of Clubs, the PFA and referees. Any recommendations arising from this review that are adopted will come into force for next season." 

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
the thing i hate is the "there was contact" arguement, which you get all the time nowdays.  Now things may have changed, but when I was growing up (everything was in black and white, etc) football was a contact sport.  Did that change somewhere along the way?
 
If a player hits the ground expecting a free kick everytime "there is contact" anywhere on the pitch, we wouldn't go 10 seconds without a free kick.  Yet somehow it is acceptable to do it when in the box.
 
If there is excessive contact that knocks a player off their feet, it is a foul.  If there isn't, and the player ends up on the ground, he (or she) is diving.

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
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Absolutely agree. There is nothing that pisses me off more than hearing commentators disecting the slo-mo replay of a penalty incident and triumphantly announcing "there was contact!" when it's quite clear it was utterly minimal.
 
We have been consequently brainwashed into nodding in sage agreement whenever we hear the 'c' word and accepting the validity of penalties which have no right to be given.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The same thing happens with "he got the ball!" Yes he got a tiny touch on the ball, but he completely cleaned up the man as well.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Critical_Lemon wrote:
The same thing happens with "he got the ball!" Yes he got a tiny touch on the ball, but he completely cleaned up the man as well.
 
that should be more than allowed, and actually encouraged.  Remember - it is a contact sport.

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
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
i think he means an incident where you slide to get the ball,which you couldnt possibly get to without cleaning out the man first. of course if contact is simultaneous or even after having got the ball then i definetly agree theyre too quick to blow foul. it seems whenever a player goes to ground people are screaming either foul or dive,when a lot of the time its neither. a tackle was won,and its a contact sport,move on.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
OMG,I agree with Frankie Mac.

In those cases where there are technical fouls and excessive over-acting (Italy's pen v NZ a case in point) I would like to see referees have the balls to both give a free kick (or penalty) AND at the same time book the "victim" for simulation (over-acting to attempt to sway the referees decision).

Makes perfect sense to me (and I believe is allowed for in the rules of the game), but quite seriously, I don't think TV commentators would know how to handle it. They'd get in a right tizz.

So well done FFA. This is a blight that needs to be clamped down on, and is a particular issue in Aus/NZ where football is a developing sport trying to gain a foothold, ie we have a much more intense "code war" than other countries and play acting is one of the most cited criticisms of football vis a vis other footballing codes.

Next step, dissent. That also needs a good kick in the goolies.

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I think a few people need to read the laws of the game first before entering this debate.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
I think a few people need to read the laws of the game first before entering this debate.
 
This

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:
Critical_Lemon wrote:
The same thing happens with "he got the ball!" Yes he got a tiny touch on the ball, but he completely cleaned up the man as well.

�

that should be more than allowed, and actually encouraged.� Remember - it is a contact sport.


Yeah that's exactly what we need, more brutish thuggish leg breaking tackles.

Jesus wept.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I agree and disagree with Frankie. I get sick of 'contact' however insignificant being used as justification for what really is diving. However, I also tire of hearing 'but he got the ball' when, prior to getting the ball, the tackler has gone straight through the ball carrier and wiped him out.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The FFA have to be very very clear what is and is not simulation, because there are huge grey area in this. I don't agree that it's black and white i.e. foul = penalty, no foul = dive because that's not how fouls are judged outside th box. You can clearly have both contact and no foul on the pitch...
Personally I think Perez is hard done by. It's probably a dive but there is also slight contact which means a foul almost anywhere else. Look at the way the world cup was refereed. I'm not saying that's right but compare that to this incident and I do feel concern. Also, why is it an automaitc 2 match ban when the offence is only a yellow card?? And no appeal is silly for a number of reasons. Why not have the standard ban as 1 match, but that you can appeal but if you lose it's a 2 match ban?

And I still think that protecting skilful players from the likes of Muscat is a much bigger issue than diving in the A-League which has comparitively little of it. This smacks of headline grabbing by the FFA (and witness the mutual back slapping that's resulted).

Finally, will referees who missed these decisions be made an example of? If not, why aren't they subject to the same standards?

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
I think a few people need to read the laws of the game first before entering this debate.

I know where you are coming from as the simulation law is "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled".

However, I would like to think that a liberal interpretation could be applied so that those that fall in dramatic fashion (as if injured - big cry of anguish etc) and/or in a manner quite out of character with the nature of the challenge/contact also fall within definition (ie, there is pretense in their behaviour intended to deceive/influence referee).

OK, maybe I'm stretching it a bit.

I'd still like to see "over-acting" punishable.

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jag wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
I think a few people need to read the laws of the game first before entering this debate.



�

This


Genuine qu, is there a defn of simulation in the rules? Because there is a huge difference between actual diving, and exaggeration. One is the real issue, the other is not. If someone is leaning on you or pulls you back it's a foul. If you go to ground to alert the referee to that what is the issue? WHy are you in the wrong when you're being fouled - especially when referees don't encourage players to stay on their feet because they won't give fouls for it (prime example, Robben in the WC final pulled back by Puyol. If he'd gone to ground Puyol is off, he stays on his feet no foul. Would you criticise Robben for going to ground next time?)

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
In Law 12 of the LOTG, simulation is defined as "attempting to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled."
 
So, in terms of that definition, exagerrating contact when a foul HAS been committed is NOT simulation.
Jag2010-09-02 11:34:51

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
The FFA have to be very very clear what is and is not simulation, because there are huge grey area in this. I don't agree that it's black and white i.e. foul = penalty, no foul = dive because that's not how fouls are judged outside th box. You can clearly have both contact and no foul on the pitch...
Personally I think Perez is hard done by. It's probably a dive but there is also slight contact which means a foul almost anywhere else. Look at the way the world cup was refereed. I'm not saying that's right but compare that to this incident and I do feel concern. Also, why is it an automaitc 2 match ban when the offence is only a yellow card?? And no appeal is silly for a number of reasons. Why not have the standard ban as 1 match, but that you can appeal but if you lose it's a 2 match ban?

And I still think that protecting skilful players from the likes of Muscat is a much bigger issue than diving in the A-League which has comparitively little of it. This smacks of headline grabbing by the FFA (and witness the mutual back slapping that's resulted).

Finally, will referees who missed these decisions be made an example of? If not, why aren't they subject to the same standards?


All very valid questions/points JD.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hello, this is my first time posting in this forum and so far I like the threads and the replies.

'Simulation' more commonly known as 'Diving' certainly does bring the game into disrepute and it is great to see the powers that be, clearly making examples of those who persist...I like watching players who are 'Contenders not Pretenders'.

Cheers
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Turfmoore wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
I think a few people need to read the laws of the game first before entering this debate.

I know where you are coming from as the simulation law is "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled".

However, I would like to think that a liberal interpretation could be applied so that those that fall in dramatic fashion (as if injured - big cry of anguish etc) and/or in a manner quite out of character with the nature of the challenge/contact also fall within definition (ie, there is pretense in their behaviour intended to deceive/influence referee).

OK, maybe I'm stretching it a bit.

I'd still like to see "over-acting" punishable.
 
Over the past few years I've had to tell players a few times that "Yes, you were fouled and I've given the free-kick, the dive wasn't necessary. So pack it in."

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I am annoyed when players play for contact, they leave their leg out to draw contact. Obviously making an unnatural action to draw contact.

This is evident when players go past an opponent and instead of trying to move their landing leg in position to land and carry on their movement/momentum they position their leg to get contact and even if there is no contact they go to ground as their leg is not where it should be to land.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jag wrote:
Over the past few years I've had to tell players a few times that "Yes, you�were fouled and I've given the free-kick, the dive wasn't necessary. So pack it in."


I think that's a good way to go about it Jag. As opposed to the "yeah you were fouled, but you went down quicker than a $2 hooker, so you can get f**ked" approach.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Buffon II wrote:
Jag wrote:
Over the past few years I've had to tell players a few times that "Yes, you were fouled and I've given the free-kick, the dive wasn't necessary. So pack it in."


I think that's a good way to go about it Jag. As opposed to the "yeah you were fouled, but you went down quicker than a $2 hooker, so you can get f**ked" approach.
 
It's still bugging you then, Buff?

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
In a word: Yes.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I encourage diving. I think it is all apart of the game and if you can get away with it. Then it is the refs fault.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rayhan wrote:
I encourage diving. I think it is all apart of the game and if you can get away with it. Then it is the refs fault.
 
Glad you could bring your enlightened and visionary thoughts to the debate.
 
Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jag wrote:
rayhan wrote:
I encourage diving. I think it is all apart of the game and if you can get away with it. Then it is the refs fault.
 
Glad you could bring your enlightened and visionary thoughts to the debate.
 
Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.
Well you obviously have no idea about football at all.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I have a fair idea about trolls though.

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jag wrote:
I have a fair idea about trolls though.
Oh so you understand mythical creatures. Ho interesting. But we are talking about football here.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rayhan wrote:
I encourage diving. I think it is all apart of the game and if you can get away with it. Then it is the refs fault.
 
So by the same logic, a well placed uppercut to your opponents jaw is fine as long as you do it when the referee is looking the other way? And this would be a part of the game.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink