• Tottenham Hotspur Message Board

  • Jlock Jlock Oct 11, 2012 09:52 Flag

    Dive, dive, dive......

    After Bale's woeful dive and now Owen saying that he has 'fallen over' what is the worst form of cheating?
    It seems that we are conditioned to accept certain things and to see others in a bad light. The focus seems to be currently on diving (and I'm not condoning Bale at all here - I'll do that later!) - but is it any worse than other forms of cheating?

    What do we have:
    Fouling a player intentionally - the commentators appear to condone this - you so often hear '...he'll take one for the team for that...' after a player has pulled back or deliberately fouled someone.

    Holding/shirt pulling - every game has multiple instances of this. How come every one watching sees this at every corner, but the officials don't?

    False claims - how many times do you see this? Claims for offside, goal kicks, corners, throws etc knowing fall well that the decision should be going the other way. I'll even include 'false goals' here - bringing in Senor Mendes and Utd.

    Intimidation - the constant act of intimidating the officials to try to gain advantage. Rooney was a typical exponent (although I must admit he seems to have calmed down a bit of late). Old Red Nose isn't even on the pitch and he manages to intimidate the whole FA.

    I will now go back on myself and semi justify the dive. If I was kicked as many times as forwards/wingers are, I think I may attempt to avoid the challenges coming in as well. If I then 'truly' lose my footing by getting out of the way, isn't it still a foul by proxy? I would also say at school, we used to flick the heel of a person walking in front of us, so the person tripped 'over their own feet'. That was at walking pace. Minimal contact. What effect when someone is running or already off balance? So is the commentator's '...it was only a minimal touch...' even valid - especially when watching something at 1 frame a second...

    To me, the dive can then be excused to a degree, but I can't think of any excuses for the other offences.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Nice to see ye--to see ye--
      In RU the ref is a figure of respect, Jimmy, you know that full well. Any bullshyte and the captain is summoned to face the consequences and get it sorted. Plus the fact, tell the ref or a linesman to fuskc off what would happen..
      H---a television, a camera, a tea-set, a lawn mower, a picnic hamper-----

      • 1 Reply to Alan H
      • yes...but it's an enforced respect...rarely will a ref get any praise, far from it...but you're right H, there is very much a feeling of 'letting your teammates down' if you transgress...as I personally know only too well, it's often simply giving too much lip...this comes from so many unpunished offences leading to a sense of grievance, leading to an unconrollable rage at life being so unfair and the wish to f****n batter someone...usually just before you get sent off...anyway, moving on...

    • ...reminds me of Beat the Clock on Sunday Night At The London Palladium.....

      No idea....Is it because you can dive in Rugby? (Maybe it's also acceptable in Bognor as well)

      Did I time out?

    • I'm no soccer player but have played rugby for nearly 40 years, on and off...and believe me H, flaunting the laws is far more commonplace...if a ref applied the letter of the law in rugby, there would be no game, in rugby it's all about interpretation...so many 'wrong doings' for almost the whole game...whether it be kneeling, puting pressure on the opponents neck while slowly getting up from the mosh pit fist fight on the floor, to deliberately knocking a ball forward to break up an attack, when there is no chance of actually catching it, then protesting your innocence...refs cannot see all that goes on and players generally accept this...eye gouging is one of the few things that all players consider crosses the line...
      it's a mess but I love it!

    • 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?


      • 1 Reply to Joe
      • 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.

    • I don't see the problem, it wasn't a dive to win anything...he thought he was going to be clattered and instinct took over, different if he'd actually appealed for anything...he didn't dive, he took evasive action to protect himself...so what?

      • 1 Reply to jimmy pearce
      • I'm not so sure. Having watched it a couple of times in slow motion, the keeper does look as though he was going to kick out, but then stopped himself. Bale looks to me to throw himself down - I didn't see a loss of footing that appeared to be caused by him evading the challenge.

        I know this is a 'what if', but I think Bale would have taken the foul had it been given. I don't see him saying '...no, he didn't make any contact...'.