Diving
By that argument, Pearson & Fisher should be booked for entering the field of play.
Straight forward - if found to be a blatant dive (as in this case), then the player should be banned for 3 games and the goal scored as a result chalked off. Following that, a ‘totting’ up process should follow and if it happens again, the amount of games banned is doubled with a fine. This way, you are punishing the player and scrubbing out what has happened as a result in the game.
If West Brom had of been 6 or 7 up at that time, it would then be ridiculous to have the penalty retrospectively ruled out and the 3 points handed to us. I think most of us would also be pissed off if we we’re battering a team for that to happen and then lose the game because of one player.
I thought incidents like this were reviewed by the league in cases of diving?
If West Brom had of been 6 or 7 up at that time, it would then be ridiculous to have the penalty retrospectively ruled out and the 3 points handed to us. I think most of us would also be pissed off if we we’re battering a team for that to happen and then lose the game because of one player.
I thought incidents like this were reviewed by the league in cases of diving?
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 367
Agree with Chartley regarding 10 minutes in the sin bin and feel it would be a good idea in dealing with cheats instantly. In the West Brom match however the game had only two minutes to go so it would not have prevented the cheat from diving and winning the penalty.
In this case the competency and physical fitness of the so called referee should be brought into question. He couldn't keep up with the play and chickened out of not giving a so called club the decision. How about suspending incompetant referees?
Can you see that ever happening?
LancasterRed
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Messages
- 4,184
If a referee makes a mistake that directly impacts the result, dock all pay from that game and demote for a game week at least. 3 week ban for the player at least depending on the incident that led to a goal or red card.
Sadly Langford was 4th official on the Man City game just a day later...
Sadly Langford was 4th official on the Man City game just a day later...
Perhaps Maguire should have a word with Bodin then
I can't forget his blatant dive soon after he joined us;
What rudd should've done (apparently) is ignore his natural instinct to not get his cheek bone caved in his orbital bone twatted by another human being running towards where his face would have been had he committed...
Your legs go right upto your bum you lot. Think on and looook sharp
No they play for us wth
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,876
Like polatitions above the law ?
A stupid & blinkered response which gives no alternative view, shows zero awareness of what goes on outside football & gives no indication as to whether poster wants to stop cheating. Btw, I don't smoke!
Proven cheats in other sports get more severe penalties than the pathetic measures applying in football. Also, note that lifetime bans exist in other sports eg Athletics. I dont see much difference between deliberate drug taking to cheat your athletic opponents & deliberate diving to cheat your football opponents.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 28,468
Because it's very hard to prove in a lot of slight contact cases. It might get rid of the obvious cases, but then is someone risking their career if they slip? Or they take a slight knock off balance? We have to give the benefit of the doubt to the diver if the punishments are that harsh. Which ironically might increase diving because if they get touched, they get away with it.
You have proved my point! To stop diving you have to change the psychology and attitude of footballers towards diving. You have raised (valid) questions about what would need to happen if a career could be ended by a diving adjudication, ie your attitude towards diving has been affected.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 28,468
Of course it would change, that's never in question. The point is that logistically it's not a realistic way of looking at it.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 6,233
Rudd may well have done the 'hands up I never touched him' manoeuvre but from my view of it Rudd was already flying into the path of the player - enough to make contact and perpetrate the foul - before the player fell somewhat easily. Maguire's attempts to win fouls were far more callous and blatant.
In answer, yes, suck it up.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,461
I think there is a simple answer to that. There would quickly be a shortage of referees.
Thracia
Club Owner, or wingback, depending on your view
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 30,692
We could just reverse the law creep that has occurred over the last couple of decades "in favour of the attacker", and make slight brushes of contact (and therefore the appearance of slight brushes of contact) in the box no longer a penalty (and elsewhere no longer a free kick).
To compensate the poor wee attacking lambs, we could restore the "clear daylight" rule to offsides, so that toenails and nasal hair can no longer play someone offside.
Both changes would have the added benefit of significantly speeding up VAR decisions too.
To compensate the poor wee attacking lambs, we could restore the "clear daylight" rule to offsides, so that toenails and nasal hair can no longer play someone offside.
Both changes would have the added benefit of significantly speeding up VAR decisions too.
/
logistically or logically?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 28,468
Logistically. As in the logistics mean it wouldn't work or create a better footballing environment to try and use draconian punishments as a deterrent.
Disagree - without severe punishment diving will continue. I accept you need a strict procedure (with benefit of doubt going to the player) if career ending penalties can apply but it is logistically possible to put a procedure and expert panel in place to adjudicate on diving imo. If not, it is a cheater's paradise and I do not want to watch that.