Set the pigs out for the return match / Cheats / Fracas on touchline (Merged)

[NOTBLUE]

10 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Made me laugh (Thanks)

New one on me so I googled it and found this 

 

Good,but not the picture I keep imagining.

[Olé]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I don't know what you do for a living but if a 'fellow professional' of yours accused you of wrongdoing that you clearly did not commit there would quite rightly be outcry.

The player who kicks an opponent up into the air these days inevitably gets punished for that indiscretion end of, the player who feigns contact and then exacerbates that by rolling around as if he has been shot is after one thing only the hope that the 'fellow professional' is booked or worse sent off, but somehow in some quarters that is considered a skill, me I think it shows total lack of self respect.

My point was less right or wrong, but the motives for those who do it and their reasoning (having heard their side of the argument), which I tried to get across.

I don't actually agree with your response because as I illustrated there are different varieties of diving and to say "clearly did not commit" is perpetuating this myth that everything is "dark arts" done without precedent in the course of play. If a limited footballer comes steaming into a footballer trying to play skilful football at speed, just because said footballer can avoid the challenge, if they do go down it doesn't simply make the opponent an innocent victim - and it does deter such tackles in future. 

You also seem to place disproportionate concern with the wronged where bookings are concerned and yet nothing on the risk of serious injury. It's bizarre because to use your analogy, if someone misrepresents me at work, I can trust the good judgement of whoever the arbitrator is, or even failing that by way of escalation/appeal. If someone breaks my legs at work, whether or not they get punished is absolutely irrelevant, they are out of work, reduced earnings, career jeopardised regardless.

I'm not defending diving by the way, but you describe extremes of the behaviour while not recognising the other side of the coin. Moral outrage at the 'professionalism' subject in these matters is warranted only if it is applied equally to the professionalism of more limited footballers who play simply to disrupt the game, often knowing full well that they will be committing offences. Frankly both cultures just reinforce their own self-righteousness in ignorance of the reasons for their opponents approach.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

43 minutes ago, Olé said:

My point was less right or wrong, but the motives for those who do it and their reasoning (having heard their side of the argument), which I tried to get across.

I don't actually agree with your response because as I illustrated there are different varieties of diving and to say "clearly did not commit" is perpetuating this myth that everything is "dark arts" done without precedent in the course of play. If a limited footballer comes steaming into a footballer trying to play skilful football at speed, just because said footballer can avoid the challenge, if they do go down it doesn't simply make the opponent an innocent victim - and it does deter such tackles in future. 

You also seem to place disproportionate concern with the wronged where bookings are concerned and yet nothing on the risk of serious injury. It's bizarre because to use your analogy, if someone misrepresents me at work, I can trust the good judgement of whoever the arbitrator is, or even failing that by way of escalation/appeal. If someone breaks my legs at work, whether or not they get punished is absolutely irrelevant, they are out of work, reduced earnings, career jeopardised regardless.

I'm not defending diving by the way, but you describe extremes of the behaviour while not recognising the other side of the coin. Moral outrage at the 'professionalism' subject in these matters is warranted only if it is applied equally to the professionalism of more limited footballers who play simply to disrupt the game, often knowing full well that they will be committing offences. Frankly both cultures just reinforce their own self-righteousness in ignorance of the reasons for their opponents approach.

i'm sorry but you seem to be making up exactly what you think I am saying.

To answer the highlighted sentence players who commit cowardly, horrendous or dangerous tackles are so punished either at the time or retrospectively and those punishments are normally severe and quite rightly so, because the outcome are or might be career threatening and that is the extremes of behaviour that you are describing, so that dealt with and both in agreement.

The limited players that you describe them have and are being dealt with and quite severely and the sadly the cheats who set out to gain an unwarranted advantage of a free kick, penalty and the added unwarranted advantage of a fellow professional becoming yellow carded or red carded are not being properly dealt with despite the promise of a crackdown.

One question just for clarification, if one of your gifted player runs into a limited player who is just occupying the space stood standing still, who has the right of way?, I am not talking about a limited player who deviates in a deliberate blocking action, I am talking about a player who is stood still.

Also I notice that the pundits believe that the Mane sending off for Liverpool at Manc although correct by the letter of the law, was incorrect because they would expect him to go for the ball, even though he was ignoring his duty of care for the safety of an opponent, where does that one sit in your analogy?.