What's wrong with diving?

In that respect, you could be even more general - is a player obliged to cheat (dive, handball, lie to the ref etc) to make sure his team wins and thus ends up as high in the table as possible, thus maximizing profit?

Well, personally, I'd prefer the thought of fair play, I have to admit. This is not just due to some romantic notion, but also due to the fact that increased cheating would lessen the sporting aspect of a match. If a match is decided by who is the better play-actor or liar, then football could as well turn into a fake show like WWE, and somehow this wouldn't appeal to me at all. Maybe there are others who would prefer it that way, but then I'd probably give up on the highest level of men's football and rather watch the women play as that way of cheating is still comparatively rare there.

Diving is not ok, but it's not such a terrible thing as it's made up to be.
A player dives, everyone is incensed and tens of threads are opened.
A player does a brutal tackle, only a thread is open.
A player makes a tactical foul that goes unnoticed (same punishment in FIFA rules) absolutely no thread is opened.

Constantly fouling is worse for the show than diving, and yet we don't see any complain about it.

Diving is bad, but refs have to pay attention and punish diving with what it deserves (a yellow card). As well as in many other cases, technology (instant replay) could help referees to determine wether it's a penalty, no penalty-but no dive (which it's possible!! something no one takes into consideration), or a dive.

Well, fouling is usually instantly rewarded with a booking of the offender. Diving is more often rewarded with a booking of the player who is not at fault.

rwo power wrote:Well, fouling is usually instantly rewarded with a booking of the offender. Diving is more often rewarded with a booking of the player who is not at fault.

No.

There are tons of yellow card fouls that go unpunished.

free_cat wrote:

rwo power wrote:Well, fouling is usually instantly rewarded with a booking of the offender. Diving is more often rewarded with a booking of the player who is not at fault.

No.

There are tons of yellow card fouls that go unpunished.

My point is more that diving often causes the innocent player to get punished and the offender goes free, while when fouling, usually the correct player gets punished (or none).

Lex wrote:white_star, what about throwing coins at players as long as the TV cameras don't catch it on film? Surely that's somewhat acceptable?

Ya as long as you deceive the stewards and the camera it is fine.

rwo power wrote:

free_cat wrote:

rwo power wrote:Well, fouling is usually instantly rewarded with a booking of the offender. Diving is more often rewarded with a booking of the player who is not at fault.

No.

There are tons of yellow card fouls that go unpunished.

My point is more that diving often causes the innocent player to get punished and the offender goes free, while when fouling, usually the correct player gets punished (or none).

Yes, but fouling can injure another player or ruin the attacking game (which is the interest of football) while diving doesn't.

But going from the argument of any foul to injury is a huge leap in logic in your argument, especially since reckless fouls that obviously risk injury are an automatic red card, and very few fouls actually result in injury, in fact most injuries are from colisions where both players are equally (not) at fault, at least from my anecdotal experience, not that I've conducted, or read, a study on it or anything.

But a dive already carries the intent of not just get yourself an (illegaly obtained) advantage, but also penalizing the opposition due to risk of a yellow, or even red, card, for an offense they did not, in fact, commit.

rwo power wrote:Well, fouling is usually instantly rewarded with a booking of the offender. Diving is more often rewarded with a booking of the player who is not at fault.

But diving is also punished with a yellow card, as are fouls. It's not like there is no risk. If the referee sees it as an intent to gain an illegal advantage then he can, and should, show the player a card for simulation. And many times they do, if it's obvious. I feel like that is being completely ignored.

Also, some FAs, the Italian in particular, have retroactively banned players for diving based on video evidence, as was the case with Krasic two seasons ago (and maybe Eto'o if I remember correctly?), for black and white dives. And those are rare. 95% of the times someone calls "dive" it's an embellishment to show the ref that he has been fouled, not feigning injury or simulation of being tackled.

free_cat wrote:

rwo power wrote:

free_cat wrote:No.

There are tons of yellow card fouls that go unpunished.

My point is more that diving often causes the innocent player to get punished and the offender goes free, while when fouling, usually the correct player gets punished (or none).

Yes, but fouling can injure another player or ruin the attacking game (which is the interest of football) while diving doesn't.

Your defending diving

I bet you go to the same diving pool as busquets and Sanchez in Barcelona.

I'm not defending diving, I'm defending that is not the worse thing in football by far.

I'd rather watch agaim where there are 10 dives but both teams attack and score 3 goals, than watch a game with 0 attack, constant tactical fouls and no diving whatsoever.

Fouling the opponent is also a way of trying to deceive the ref,unless you go to the ref afterwards and admit you made a foul.

how is fouling deceiving the ref? if you foul a player and it is whistled there is zero deception.

however when a player dives it is very often never called. in addition the player who made the non-foul on the diving player will be penalized and often carded.

that is the height of deception in football.

i think what rwo was saying is that bad tackles are usually punished by cards every single game. diving is punished like once a month and generally goes unpunished 99% of the time. hence why more threads are created about diving

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

rwo power wrote:Well, fouling is usually instantly rewarded with a booking of the offender. Diving is more often rewarded with a booking of the player who is not at fault.

But diving is also punished with a yellow card, as are fouls. It's not like there is no risk. If the referee sees it as an intent to gain an illegal advantage then he can, and should, show the player a card for simulation. And many times they do, if it's obvious. I feel like that is being completely ignored.

Also, some FAs, the Italian in particular, have retroactively banned players for diving based on video evidence, as was the case with Krasic two seasons ago (and maybe Eto'o if I remember correctly?), for black and white dives. And those are rare. 95% of the times someone calls "dive" it's an embellishment to show the ref that he has been fouled, not feigning injury or simulation of being tackled.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

rwo power wrote:Well, fouling is usually instantly rewarded with a booking of the offender. Diving is more often rewarded with a booking of the player who is not at fault.

But diving is also punished with a yellow card, as are fouls. It's not like there is no risk. If the referee sees it as an intent to gain an illegal advantage then he can, and should, show the player a card for simulation. And many times they do, if it's obvious. I feel like that is being completely ignored.

Also, some FAs, the Italian in particular, have retroactively banned players for diving based on video evidence, as was the case with Krasic two seasons ago (and maybe Eto'o if I remember correctly?), for black and white dives. And those are rare. 95% of the times someone calls "dive" it's an embellishment to show the ref that he has been fouled, not feigning injury or simulation of being tackled.

It was just Krasic...Eto'o was never banned for diving. He played for FC Honor and Grace fgs



















He was banned for headbutting some prick in the chest

Jurgen Klinsmann

free_cat wrote:

rwo power wrote:

free_cat wrote:
No.

There are tons of yellow card fouls that go unpunished.

My point is more that diving often causes the innocent player to get punished and the offender goes free, while when fouling, usually the correct player gets punished (or none).

Yes, but fouling can injure another player or ruin the attacking game (which is the interest of football) while diving doesn't.

+1

Two good example of this is Alves vs Racing a couple of years back, although it was not intentionally, he injured a player who had to miss a couple of games, I don't know how many, and yet Alves only got a yellow. And then we have Figo vs Cesar Jimenez. Figo breaks Jimenez leg and yet he only get's a yellow card. And later, Jimenez had to end his career because of that tackle.

A tactical foul has the potentional to be a million times worse than any dive. So I have to agree that, although dives is bad, it ain't the worst thing in football..

I think at most a dive is acceptable when avoiding a horrible challenge to save yourself, But don't cry or exaggerate the minimal or no contact, That's the highest diving can be allowed in football but even that you could earn you a yellow.