harvey54 Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 Apparently the FA see it as 'successful deception of a match official by a clear act of simulation'. Ffs, why can't they just call it diving. Life's complicated enough without superfluous verbosity........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, harvey54 said: Apparently the FA see it as 'successful deception of a match official by a clear act of simulation'. Ffs, why can't they just call it diving. Life's complicated enough without superfluous verbosity........ Probably worded to cover all types of simulation rather than just diving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyredredrobin Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 What about deception by the FA relating to the Samson incidents and now blackmailing the player to keep quiet about it. Does that come under ducking and diving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 33 minutes ago, harvey54 said: Apparently the FA see it as 'successful deception of a match official by a clear act of simulation'. Ffs, why can't they just call it diving. Life's complicated enough without superfluous verbosity........ The FA might see it that way. James Linnington sees it as part and parcel of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey54 Posted October 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 48 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said: What about deception by the FA relating to the Samson incidents and now blackmailing the player to keep quiet about it. Does that come under ducking and diving? More like blatant hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted October 19, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 Carlisle United's Shaun Miller is the first player to be charged by the Football Association since simulation laws were introduced in May. Miller, 30, is charged with "successful deception of a match official", after an alleged "clear act of simulation" against Wycombe on Tuesday. Should the charge be accepted or proven, the striker would face a two-match suspension. Miller has until 18:00 BST on Thursday, 19 October to appeal. The charge from the FA reads: "Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player. "Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'successful deception of a match official'. "Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge." Carlisle were awarded a penalty in the first half of Tuesday's League Two game when former Crewe and Morecambe striker Miller went down under a challenge by Wycombe defender Dan Scarr in the area. The spot-kick was scored and the match ended in a 3-3 draw. Carlisle say they are "currently reviewing the evidence pending a decision on an appeal." What are the new laws? The FA defines the offence for which players will be punished as "successful deception of a match official". Only incidents that result in a player winning a penalty or lead to an opponent being sent off - through either a straight red card or two yellow cards - will be punished. The FA says it will act "where there is clear and overwhelming evidence to suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation, and as a direct result, the offending player's team has been awarded a penalty and/or an opposing player has been dismissed". Such bans have been utilised in Scottish football since 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 46 minutes ago, phantom said: Such bans have been utilised in Scottish football since 2011. Is there any evidence to show that they have / haven't been successful? Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39969813 Yes, some - interesting article form May 2017 on how it has been implemented north of the border. Basically, not very well and has really just created a load of admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidercity1987 Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 46 minutes ago, phantom said: Carlisle United's Shaun Miller is the first player to be charged by the Football Association since simulation laws were introduced in May. Miller, 30, is charged with "successful deception of a match official", after an alleged "clear act of simulation" against Wycombe on Tuesday. Should the charge be accepted or proven, the striker would face a two-match suspension. Miller has until 18:00 BST on Thursday, 19 October to appeal. The charge from the FA reads: "Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player. "Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'successful deception of a match official'. "Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge." Carlisle were awarded a penalty in the first half of Tuesday's League Two game when former Crewe and Morecambe striker Miller went down under a challenge by Wycombe defender Dan Scarr in the area. The spot-kick was scored and the match ended in a 3-3 draw. Carlisle say they are "currently reviewing the evidence pending a decision on an appeal." What are the new laws? The FA defines the offence for which players will be punished as "successful deception of a match official". Only incidents that result in a player winning a penalty or lead to an opponent being sent off - through either a straight red card or two yellow cards - will be punished. The FA says it will act "where there is clear and overwhelming evidence to suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation, and as a direct result, the offending player's team has been awarded a penalty and/or an opposing player has been dismissed". Such bans have been utilised in Scottish football since 2011. Begs the question why aren't Carlisle deducted a point and Wycombe given 2 more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 The primadonnas are killing the British game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 13 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Is there any evidence to show that they have / haven't been successful? Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39969813 Yes, some - interesting article form May 2017 on how it has been implemented north of the border. Basically, not very well and has really just created a load of admin. The conversation between McDonald and Graham Spiers is revealing. The problem is the spirit of the game - there should be no deliberate cheating. The question then is: What is deliberate cheating and how is it proved? BTW, Spiers should have just said that diving is cheating, he wouldn't have called McDonald a cheat directly. McDonald could have taken that for what it was i.e. if he didn't think he had been diving, then he hasn't been cheating. If he'd have taken offence then maybe the lady doth protest too much? Personally, I think the football authorities can't just stand back idly while cheating is taking place - the hand wringing can not continue. This means they have to do something and learn from the mistakes that happen. Doing nothing is not an option. And yes, this means there is admin as a consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midred Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 45 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said: The primadonnas are killing the British game Carlisle? It's interesting that their starting at the bottom rather than making charges in the premier league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 Ask Rudolph he knows all about Diving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 1 hour ago, bcfcfinker said: BTW, Spiers should have just said that diving is cheating, he wouldn't have called McDonald a cheat directly. Ha wouldn’t want to argue with you! For me the odd theing here is that they are only penalising it when there is a concrete consequence. Surely a dive is still a dive even if it doesn’t result in a penalty, free kick or other. The diver still has he mindful intention to dive, and does dive. I understand that practically it would be very hard to punish a dive that had no consequence but still seems a bit of a cop out to not even attempt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Ha wouldn’t want to argue with you! For me the odd theing here is that they are only penalising it when there is a concrete consequence. Surely a dive is still a dive even if it doesn’t result in a penalty, free kick or other. The diver still has he mindful intention to dive, and does dive. I understand that practically it would be very hard to punish a dive that had no consequence but still seems a bit of a cop out to not even attempt it. Agree with you, it's a fudge. Let them start with the big decisions, get a workable solution in place and then make it consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderMB Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 4 hours ago, harvey54 said: Apparently the FA see it as 'successful deception of a match official by a clear act of simulation'. Ffs, why can't they just call it diving. Life's complicated enough without superfluous verbosity........ There's a good reason for it, and it's one that a few ex-pros have challenged over the past few years. If the ball is at your feet, and a 6'3 shithouse of a player has launched themselves at your feet, what is your natural reaction? If you're a young player, a forward, or anyone that doesn't want to spend the next six months with a snapped leg, your natural reaction is going to be to get out of the way, and the quickest way of doing that is by diving away from the tackle. Should that be considered a dive? It meets every fan's criteria for a dive, as there was minimal or no contact, and the player took to the ground to get away. It's extremely difficult for a referee to determine the nature of the tackle. It's why the FA are so keen to steer clear from the diving controversy. The referees know how hard it is, and they're being made to be scapegoats. At the same time, they need to assert their authority, so the use of technology could be considered as undermining. With that being said, there is such a painfully easy way to stamp out diving as a form of cheating, where everyone is happy. Video technology used where the referee deems it necessary, and a team of referees brought in to retrospectively judge any simulation. If this team find someone diving Barcelona-style then they can deliver their findings to the referee that officiated that match and ask if they would like to retrospectively punish that player. This decision can be used to judge the performance of referees, meaning that a referee that admits mistakes and spots a correct violation retrospectively is considered a better referee than one that dismisses anything outside of what they initially see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingswood Robin Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 8 hours ago, harvey54 said: Apparently the FA see it as 'successful deception of a match official by a clear act of simulation'. Ffs, why can't they just call it diving. Life's complicated enough without superfluous verbosity........ They could just call it "Doing a Vardy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 Think they've screwed up here watching the highlights, the guys avoided a challenge and fallen over. Thing is he hasn't appealed for a penalty and has instantly tried playing the ball after he's gone over (kicked it to a teammate). Looks like the ref has realised he's made a mistake after the match and covering his ass if they're the one who reports the player for diving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 One of the problems is the intrusion by football authorities in referees' interpretation of the laws of the game over the years. In my youth players like Tommy Smith, Ron Harris , Norman Hunter and many others were fierce defenders who would "take out" opponents regularly with challenges that today would attract an immediate red card, but back then were "just" fouls. The authorities then outlawed the tackle from behind, which was a positive move, as up until then defenders would just go right through a striker from behind taking the man , not just before the ball but often without any consideration for the ball. Since then , and especially as the game has grown massively as a international television phenomenon, they have moved further and further to "protect" the skilful players that they see as the main attraction in the game - the players that fans want to see. As a result the game has become less and less a physical contact sport, with almost every challenge now deemed to be a bookable offence. Unfortunately, many of those skilful players that the authorities have increasingly tried to protect, choose to take advantage of the referees increasing desire to protect them by conning refs with their ability to simulate tackles. It's not so much the jumping out of heavy challenges that is the issue, it is the going over without any obvious contact in and around the penalty area in order to secure a free kick or penalty. Back in my youth there were players who "dived" - Francis Lee was one of the high profile players in this bracket - but they were by far the exception. On the other hand there was a whole host of exceptionally skilful players who were able to ride the heaviest challenges without going over, let alone simulating a foul ( look up old video of George Best for evidence of this). Nowadays the most skilful players seemingly have little or no sense of balance, such that the zephyr of breeze from a defender passing close by is enough to send the over in a sprawling heap and a 6' 6" striker can be poleaxed by a challenge Joe Allen. As another poster commented, it is interesting that the authorities have chosen as their first victim a Carlisle player and perhaps therein lies perhaps the biggest problem. What will Carlisle do about this judgement - the answer is nothing? Had it been a Man City, Chelsea or Man United player in the frame then the club concerned would have thrown every thing bar the kitchen sink at defending their player and would the authorities want the fuss and parlava and the risk hat they would have to reverse their decision? How much impact will it make for Carlisle's player to be penalised in this way - apart from the immediate headlines, I suspect very little? How much would the impact have been had the first offender been an international playing for Man C, Chelsea or Man U? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.