Are the Nix a team of cheaters?

So Ernie has got the team playing better football.

But, there's been a few instances of players going down suspiciously in the box. There was a home game last year where Cunningham dived to win a penalty.

And last night against the Roar Bertos dived in the box. He's never done that before in a Nix shirt.

I've heard at least one of the players say that Ernie encourages them to cheat if they think they can get away with it.

Under Ricki, at least the team were keeping the moral high ground against the cheating Aussies (apart from Daniel's diving in the first season, but that was soon stopped).

It sets a bad example to children watching.

And we can't chant anymore "same old Aussies, always cheating", if we are doing it too.

Your thoughts?

No, we aren't.

Bertos didn't dive, there was contact and he fell. Not a penalty, not a dive. Just play on.

So far this year I have seen Stein, Kenny and now Bertos (contact and then 4 steps Patrick is a dive) and there was Boyd looking suspiciously at the referee either last week or the week before.

Personally I absolutely hate it cause I hate it when people do it to us and I will continue to call them cheating diving cunts just like I do to opponents. 

Fact is last night the ref got the Bertos one right and the Broich one wrong. 

It's just a really bad look and says quite a lot about our club that it is condoned. Beat them with skill not with cheating.

i don't think Bertos has ever minded going down - it was just his first time in the box for yonks. Was harsh to get carded as it wasn't actually a dive.

Wasn't a dive. 

Cunningham is terrible though. 

Are we cheaters?    No. 

If you want to see divers have a look at Ashley Young, now there is a cheater.

can't really call it a fact when it's being questioned can you?

I'm not sure where you found four steps from either.

For me - he doesn't really appeal for a PK, from memory no-one else really does either - i did think the ref got the Broich one wrong and i think he looked for a square up and Bertos coped it for being a little unco in the box (i think he would rather have it called a dive in that case).

Riera was lucky to escape a card last night (which would have ruled him out for the next game).

Didn't Hicks get up after being tackled in the box at the start of the season and Ernie gave him a bolocking in the media about it?

Yep - Hicks or Tyler Boyd?

...Hicks I think...

I thought Vinnie's lack of pace was exposed a bit last night.

A bit off topic,sorry

i thought the TV coverage was very bias as they didn't really look at leos card like i would of thought.

they replayed the offside goal disallowed plenty of times to check the refs call as well as the hand ball with magnification.

they didn't even look at the blatant hand of god from the Brazilian that upset Moss and muscat.

there is something about cunningham that really rubs me the wrong way. He's always at the ref and the opposition bitching and moaning (even when kenny is clearly wrong). 

think it fires him up...but also i think it was frustration as he thought he was better than the level and then was struggling to dominate

Not a problem at all,doubt if there is any footballer who dosnt try and and bend the rules to their advantage.Its just that players going down is seen to be worse than the other things they do.Doubt there would a game we watch in which freekicks and throw ins are taken from the correct spot.Our guys arnt in the same league as some of the divers in A league. 

As for a bad example to children surely its no worse than them watching players surrounding the ref waving their arms and swearing which is much more prevalent than diving

Don't think he (Bertos) dived and Kenny came from playing in South America so sad but no suprise

Same old Kiwis

Always debating about cheating!!!

There's a difference between diving to cheat and going down easily. If you are fouled I don't see anything wrong with falling over. The guy shouldn't have fouled you in the first place. Broich does this all the time. You have to make sure the ref has seen the foul because in this game the slightest of touches can mean the difference between you being able to keep the ball or not.

Whether you fall over like you've just been shot really shouldn't change the fact you've been fouled.

I hate diving.  But I think clipping people, technical fouls when they up and away is the most annoying part of the game, it destroys the game more than diving. They should punish that harder.

I also don't like the endless replays of offsides, handballs, fouls etc. It happens and as long there is no video replay for the ref's there is no point. Maybe good for some post game analyzes if you like that stuff.

The whole handball rule is a joke anyway, to much space for interpretation.

I don't think the Nix or any other Team in the league are particular known as cheaters.

Team Payne?

(aussie phonetics)

It was a pretty clear foul on Hicks  that the ref just waived 'play on'. Hicks did not appeal and Ernie said later (in the postgame press conference I think) that the Kiwis are too nice and do not complain.  Maybe that's why Kenny strikes some as a bit of a moaner when fouled.

Edit: it was an early season game. Not sure anymore which one. 

Wrong.

No.

So much of this is just wrong.

- A slight touch IS a foul if it is not within the rules of the game. You don't even have to make contact - intent is enough.

- If you break the rules whilst playing tiddlywinks you are penalised accordingly. So it is in football.

- I agree players looking for contact is not good and this is where the simulation penalties come in. However there is a difference between trying to deceive the referee into giving a foul when there wasn't one, and exaggerating an existing foul to make sure the ref has seen it.

- If a keeper dives to get the ball and misses, you do not have to jump over him or go around him - it's a careless act by the goalkeeper and results in a penalty (if inside the area). If he deliberately attempts to pull you down then he will also be carded - either yellow or red depending on the situation.

I want to help clear up some misconceptions that exist around simulation and fouls which may well cloudy the issue for some people

Simulation has been through 3 clear stages of evolution in the last 20 years.

1: The player falls over with no contact. Then it evolved to
2: The player initiates the contact then goes down. Then its evolved to
3: The player sees the contact coming and starts the process of going down
so when they are hit, it looks like the contact has sent them to ground.

The key phrase around simulation is 'attempts to deceive the referee by
feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)' (Page 125)

Previously we used to look at simulation and go 'Well if there is contact, it can't be simulation'. That's changed back to the original wording of 'is the player pretending to have been fouled'

What Spartacus refers to is true to a point. The LotG refer to it as a trifling foul. An example of that is where a player is on the end of a foul, but manages to ride the challenge/stay on his feet and keeps playing with possession. Generally a trifling foul is very much at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of contact. An example may well be a player that is
tripped with minimal force and he stays on his feet.

Intent that Wibblebut refers to does not exist in the LotG. That was replaced with careless, reckless and excessive force. So a foul that where you may say 'well he has no intent' is still careless in nature and is still a foul. That's the biggest misconception that still exists in the game today - the word 'intent' As referees, we now look at other things - the ability
to be able to play the ball when making the tackle, the speed of the tackle, the force of the tackle, the contact on the opponent, the part of the leg making contact, the potential for injury to the opponent (which is quite a key component as well because guys that launch into tackles and make no contact, still can endanger the safety of an opponent, which is defined in writing as a red card) and the control the player has of himself when making the tackle. A search of YouTube will show you some shocking tackles where the guy committing the foul has every intention of going for the ball. It's still a foul though based on the careless-reckless-excess force criteria
(page 117)

There will always be players that exaggerate the contact. That's for FIFA
and the IFAB to deal with in the future but that does not detract from the fact that if it's a foul, it is a foul. Referees base their decisions on the foul and contact, not the outcome and reaction.

One of my biggest gripes playing football is when an opposing player goes into a tackle dangerously (studs showing etc) so you pull out to save yourself a broken bone but then the player takes the ball cleanly and gets away with it. Obviously the answer is to engage in the tackle and risk injury (which I tend to do 90% of the time) but I feel like you shouldn't have to draw contact to get the free kick in that situation.

yes i should of been more elaborate as to what i meant.

which is just because there is contact it dose not mean it is a automatic penalty

i did say it is if the contact is a foul (not within the rules)

perhaps i should of used bring down rather than pull down.

a keeper can hold his ground and if he dives in front of you and is no longer sliding he is allowed to lay there if you fall over him bad luck.

but refs don't see it this way anymore for some reason…..

Was a beta tester for the app and the posts were wiped before go live. Knocked me back below 0.

One day, I may count!