• Tottenham Hotspur Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Joe Joe Oct 11, 2012 14:05 Flag

    Dive, dive, dive......

    Glad someone started this thread, cheers John.

    Going out to physically 'do someone', is the worst type of foul, IMO and should have the heaviest punishment. I think this type of foul should have retrospective punishment IE: the 'challenge' Charlie Adam, put in on Bale towards the end of the season before last, was nasty, malicious, late and kept Bale out for what? 6 months?!

    IMO there should be a board made up of ex-pro's and officials, who would be better informed to make a decision on what had 'intent' behind it. IMO Adam knew exactly what he was doing in that challenge and purposefully injured Bale. I think a reasonable ban should be the guilty player should be banned as long as the injured player is out. Harsh maybe, but I have had my leg broken by an opposing player and the connected problems with being injured can be awful.

    IMO Tactical fouls should have a different punishment IE: if a player tactically fouls another more than once in a season, a retrospective punishment should be triggered and the guilty player banned for a game. How often do you see player foul other on the half way line, to prevent being hit on the break? Its not an awful crime, but should be dealt with.

    False claims and Intimidation are an odd ones, I think this has more to do with how players are coached/managed. Some coaches will instruct players to appeal every decision, even if they know better. Maybe teams who continually claim for no reason or continually surround officials, should have their coaches/managers receive sideline bans? It might make them think differently about the instructions they are giving their players?!

    Diving is widely revered around Europe, in Spain and Italy, fans are delighted if their players gain any advantage by diving. It seems that its just us who have a big problem with it. IMO diving or falling to avoid a potentially dangerous challenge is almost acceptable, I have jumped over challenges, which I felt were likely to take 'more than the ball'. I think this depends whether the player appeal afterwards. I am not condoning Bales 'dive' against Villa, but he didn't appeal, so was he looking to get Cuszan sent off/booked or was he trying to avoid a challenge? Only Bale knows! maybe if the ref made a decision to book Cuszan, Bale would have spoken up and told him not too? I doubt it though.

    I have seen officials book players for shouting at each other. In one instance a defender shouted at a striker as he was about to connect with the ball, subsequently making the striker sky it! The defender was booked for unsportsmanlike behaviour and a penalty was given. So a foul by proxy doesn't really sit to well with me as surely its a foul or it isn't?

    Do we want football to evolve or are we all happy with it as it is now?

    COYS!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Joe,
      I think I dislike the 'professional foul' the most. Simply because of it's title - what's 'professional' about purposely fouling someone to stop them having the advantage that they've earned? If they changed the title to 'cynical cheating' it would lose some of it's glamour. I detest shirt pulling and holding players to stop them moving - especially in the area. And maybe that's the other bit I dislike about it - it's so prevalent - it seems to 'infect' even the most honest players. There isn't one corner where someone isn't obstructing, holding or pulling the shirt of an opponent.

      Dodgy challenges - I can understand mis-timed tackles and players who aren't versed in the art getting timing wrong (who said Hoddle?). But how many excuses will Paul Scholes be given? Surely at some stage dodgy challenges stop becoming a '...oh, he always mis times his tackles...' joke. The malicious stuff is totally out of order - but that seems to me to be one of the easiest infringements to spot. Although I heard Vinnie Jones laughing and joking on the TV about how they 'did' players - so maybe the refs aren't too adept at spotting deliberate fouls.

      As for diving, I can and do understand Bale's point about getting out of the way of the mis-timed or dodgy challenges (and I'd rather he got out of the way and stayed fit, rather than get clattered and be out for 6 months), but I thought Bale's 'fall' against Villa was a bit OTT as it 'appeared' to me that he could have stayed on his feet.

      Punishments - I find it odd that a player can be banned for 'n' games for racially abusing a player, but get a quarter of that if he tries to maim him. Seems a bit bum about face to em [sic].

      The problem with all these is 'intent' - was the player actually trying to 'do' the other player? Was the player diving to get an advantage or simply trying to stop getting clattered?

      I'd go with the Monday morning board to assess the dubious challenges - the manager/club should be able to request a review and retrospective punishments (and rescinding of punishments given) should be given, irrespective of whether the ref has seen the issue or not.