Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 No they don't. They are given particular infringements to take more seriously than others ( 'last man' and 'simulation') by the Professional Game Match Officals board headed by Mike Riley. If a referee didn't award a yellow card when a player takes off his shirt that referee is given a black mark. Most referee's don't want to red card a defender because he clipped a heel when trying to catch a striker heading in on goal but they have to. The PGMOB have become the scourge of the game because of TV coverage. They make these decisions to 'protect' referee's but all they do is put even more pressure them and remove considerable amounts of automony. An infringement is just that and should not subjected to 'one infringement is worse that another' scenario. The only exception to that is serious foul play. If for example the PGMOB directed their referee's to be much stricter with 'wrestling' then we'd see far more penalties and sendings off. Its because of them that so many games are spoiled by red cards and no coincidence that red cards now are three times greater than they were 20 years ago. Its not right to blame the referee's for sending off players when most of the time they are only doing what their instructed to do. Firstly I am not blaming referees, if you read what I have said I blame the governing bodies, Jimmy Hill was the first guy to champion the last man, scoring opportunity cynical foul issue back in the early 80's and quite rightly so. But that has brought with it simulation and exaggeration and referees ignoring all in wrestling matches, the way you are speaking you are more or less saying forget the rule book when it suits so as game gets finished where possible 11 v 11 and I am saying if it's seen and it's an offence deal with it and if it is missed but so blatant use retrospective powers but make the punishment heavier because the result may already have been influenced one way or another, this will start to cut it out once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunningdalered Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 When I saw this was about bale I thought it was about the way he buried that header to make it 2 1, quality finish! Funny as! I particularly liked the attitude of the player on the line who smacked it into Bale's face - a sort of 'FFS!' as though Bale could have chosen to get out of the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Firstly I am not blaming referees, if you read what I have said I blame the governing bodies, Jimmy Hill was the first guy to champion the last man, scoring opportunity cynical foul issue back in the early 80's and quite rightly so. But that has brought with it simulation and exaggeration and referees ignoring all in wrestling matches, the way you are speaking you are more or less saying forget the rule book when it suits so as game gets finished where possible 11 v 11 and I am saying if it's seen and it's an offence deal with it and if it is missed but so blatant use retrospective powers but make the punishment heavier because the result may already have been influenced one way or another, this will start to cut it out once and for all. I agree refs have a really hard job and the solution lies with the governing body. I want to see players instructed that they must at all times stay on their feet and play on, and leave the referee to decide if a foul has been committed. Post match video evidence can be used to ban cheaters (diving, simulation) for 10 games. This way, the risk vs reward is shifted so much that it is not worth cheating, and referees can make decisions without having "help" from players. It won't be perfect, but it will be a whole lot better than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Not for me no. Only time I've ever booed a City player was Cotterill for blatantly diving. I don't want to see anybody cheating least of all my own team. +1 Diving is a bane of the modern game and anyone who thinks it was anything like as prevalent in the past as it has become in the past 25 years hasn't been watching football for long. Italy's progress on their way to win the 2006 World Cup was for me the ultimate proof that cheats prosper in the modern game. Totally agree with the retrospective sanction option that Nibor has set out in his last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I agree refs have a really hard job and the solution lies with the governing body. I want to see players instructed that they must at all times stay on their feet and play on, and leave the referee to decide if a foul has been committed. Post match video evidence can be used to ban cheaters (diving, simulation) for 10 games. This way, the risk vs reward is shifted so much that it is not worth cheating, and referees can make decisions without having "help" from players. It won't be perfect, but it will be a whole lot better than it is now. The thing is Nibor it dosen't have to be perfect because as soon as clubs and players realise that this is really happening they will stop, Liverpool for instance only have the one striker so Suarez would be a huge miss for them and stop clubs bringing in loans to cover suspensions as well. Also the Luiz v Kompany wrestling match was a ridiculous episode as well and something that needs to be retrospectively dealt with as well with lengthy bans and once more another embarrassing blight on football namely unseemly wrestling matches at every set piece will hopefully become a thing of the past. PS:-I agree totally with your stance concerning BCFC players and I would be rightly disgusted by any BCFC player who cheated to gain any advantage especially because sometimes that advantage involves a fellow professional being sent off and that is just not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I might counter this idea that incidence of diving has increased (of course it has, a Torres or a Suarez or a Young wouldn't have survived 20 years ago- Neil Ruddock would have broken his leg), by suggesting that opportunity is vastly increased by players being more likely to go 'off their feet' in the tackle than they used to be? I wonder if it might have been more common in the 80s & 90s if some of the more 'creative' players had been given more opportunity? Not that it excuses te dive in any way PS For me, Bale got caught on the toe by a stupid slide tackle which completely missed the ball and should have had a free kick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I might counter this idea that incidence of diving has increased (of course it has, a Torres or a Suarez or a Young wouldn't have survived 20 years ago- Neil Ruddock would have broken his leg), by suggesting that opportunity is vastly increased by players being more likely to go 'off their feet' in the tackle than they used to be? I wonder if it might have been more common in the 80s & 90s if some of the more 'creative' players had been given more opportunity? Not that it excuses te dive in any way PS For me, Bale got caught on the toe by a stupid slide tackle which completely missed the ball and should have had a free kick But the tumble was 'exaggerated' and that is an offence, would he have gone down with the same contact on a London pavement?. All I can say to professional footballers is keep away from crowded shopping areas where you are likely to be jostled and bumped into, pavements hurt you have been warned. PS:-George Best IMO the greatest footballer ever, hardly if ever got caught because he was to far too good and had great balance and also the drive to want to only go down when he had no choice in the matter, pride and the belief he could score wonder goals was enough for George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 No they don't. They are given particular infringements to take more seriously than others ( 'last man' and 'simulation') by the Professional Game Match Officals board headed by Mike Riley. If a referee didn't award a yellow card when a player takes off his shirt that referee is given a black mark. Most referee's don't want to red card a defender because he clipped a heel when trying to catch a striker heading in on goal but they have to. The PGMOB have become the scourge of the game because of TV coverage. They make these decisions to 'protect' referee's but all they do is put even more pressure them and remove considerable amounts of automony. An infringement is just that and should not subjected to 'one infringement is worse that another' scenario. The only exception to that is serious foul play. If for example the PGMOB directed their referee's to be much stricter with 'wrestling' then we'd see far more penalties and sendings off. Its because of them that so many games are spoiled by red cards and no coincidence that red cards now are three times greater than they were 20 years ago. Its not right to blame the referee's for sending off players when most of the time they are only doing what their instructed to do. Some good points RR. I think a lot of the current problems began when the governing bodies started to interfere in the way the game was refereed. In particular I think the thin edge of the wedge was when the authorities sought to protect skilful players by outlawing the tackle from behind. The motive was a good one, but we have reached a point now where today it is those same skilful players that they set out to protect who tend ton be the very worst culprits when it comes to deceiving referees with diving, feigning injury etc. You point out that the number of red cards is 3 times more than 20 years ago. In the past, more red cards would make you think the game had got harder with more nasty fouls and injury threatening challenges and yet I now see a game that is more sterile and with little in the way of real physical contact compared to previous era. I cannot believe that type of challenges that cause a yellow or red card and worry that before very long it will no longer be a contact sport. P.S. Agree completely about the penalty are wrestling match that happens at every corner. Only the other week on MOTD, Schmiecal ( I think) commented on this and said that if the refs gave a penalty every time a defender man handled a striker then it would quickly stop. If I can see it,m you can see it and PS can see it then why can't refs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Some good points RR. I think a lot of the current problems began when the governing bodies started to interfere in the way the game was refereed. In particular I think the thin edge of the wedge was when the authorities sought to protect skilful players by outlawing the tackle from behind. The motive was a good one, but we have reached a point now where today it is those same skilful players that they set out to protect who tend ton be the very worst culprits when it comes to deceiving referees with diving, feigning injury etc. You point out that the number of red cards is 3 times more than 20 years ago. In the past, more red cards would make you think the game had got harder with more nasty fouls and injury threatening challenges and yet I now see a game that is more sterile and with little in the way of real physical contact compared to previous era. I cannot believe that type of challenges that cause a yellow or red card and worry that before very long it will no longer be a contact sport. P.S. Agree completely about the penalty are wrestling match that happens at every corner. Only the other week on MOTD, Schmiecal ( I think) commented on this and said that if the refs gave a penalty every time a defender man handled a striker then it would quickly stop. If I can see it,m you can see it and PS can see it then why can't refs? Because they have too make a judgement from a snapshot of what they see and who is the original culprit, they get no help from their assistants, FFS in european tournaments they have 4 extra officials behind the goals and even they don't help out in fact I cannot recall one of these guys actually making or influencing any decisions, I really don't know why they are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Because they have too make a judgement from a snapshot of what they see and who is the original culprit, they get no help from their assistants, FFS in european tournaments they have 4 extra officials behind the goals and even they don't help out in fact I cannot recall one of these guys actually making or influencing any decisions, I really don't know why they are there. Its has to be because the officials have been instructed that the blantant 'wrestling' that goes on is not a serious infrinegment as something like 'last man'. It happens virtually every time there is a corner or set piece situation and is illegal according to the rules of the game but it goes unpenalised 90% of the time. Its the 'one infringement is different from another' that has been created by the PGMOB as is totally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Its has to be because the officials have been instructed that the blantant 'wrestling' that goes on is not a serious infrinegment as something like 'last man'. It happens virtually every time there is a corner or set piece situation and is illegal according to the rules of the game but it goes unpenalised 90% of the time. Its the 'one infringement is different from another' that has been created by the PGMOB as is totally wrong. I suggest you try to find a link to the Luiz v Kompany WWE wrestling match because I promise it takes this issue to a whole new level, Kompany is as strong as anyone in the prem and Luiz puts so much effort into wrestling with him, he not only closes his eyes and arches his back to get more leverage and the overall effort he has to put into this piece of blatant cheating beggars belief. i'm sorry if this does not constitute a a serious infringement but chasing an attacker whose foot then catches your leg causing him to go down is and results in a free kick and the defender being booked, something is seriously wrong. I have seen less contact in a rugby scrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I saw it just as thousands of others did but the fact that nothing was given seriously suggests that referee's do not see that kind of infringement as serious. By serious I mean the infringements that they get poor marks against them if they don't issue a yellow or red card for. Players taking off their shirt for example..... Its all down to Mike Riley and his happy band of followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I saw it just as thousands of others did but the fact that nothing was given seriously suggests that referee's do not see that kind of infringement as serious. By serious I mean the infringements that they get poor marks against them if they don't issue a yellow or red card for. Players taking off their shirt for example..... Its all down to Mike Riley and his happy band of followers. So are you suggesting that refs are being told to ignore the rules of the game? because Peter Scheimcel quite rightly said "if that is not a penalty, I don't know what is". if that is the case football is in big trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So are you suggesting that refs are being told to ignore the rules of the game? because Peter Scheimcel quite rightly said "if that is not a penalty, I don't know what is". if that is the case football is in big trouble. I wouldn't say ignore but because their bosses directives there are certain infringements where they have no discretion. They do have discretion when it comes to wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcityman Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Totally agree with Nibor and EMB, so glad I had the chance to watch football when it was a mans game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 "I thought I got clipped a bit" hahaha hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I was at a Guiseley match (Blue Square North) the other week and one of the players was quite blatantly clipped in the box. He tried to keep his feet and ended up winning a corner. The bloke next to me thought it necessary to tell his young son that the player 'should have gone down.' It's no wonder it happens with people setting that kind of example to their children. Hopefully the lad takes more from what he saw than what he was told. I hope he doesn't take from what he saw. What would you prefer? A Pen or a corner?? If you get clipped it's not a dive. It's a foul, and if referees aren't good enough to see it without making it obvious then 'flopping' is the only option. Actual dives I can't stand. Going down when you've been fouled even if you might be able to reclaim your balance is fine, you've been restricted by the clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I hope he doesn't take from what he saw. What would you prefer? A Pen or a corner?? If you get clipped it's not a dive. It's a foul, and if referees aren't good enough to see it without making it obvious then 'flopping' is the only option. Actual dives I can't stand. Going down when you've been fouled even if you might be able to reclaim your balance is fine, you've been restricted by the clip. There is the law of exaggeration, rule 12 something, nobody is entitled to go down because he has been 'clipped' that in anybody's language is exaggeration and against the rules of football and of course the accompanied scream, rolling and tumbling and feigning of a non existent injury is simulation, "he was entitled to go down" is bullshit perpetrated by football pundits not wishing to dis their football mates and not wishing to de-rail footballs disgusting gravy train. PS:- there is a word called pride as well, not a word many modern day pros are familar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I hope he doesn't take from what he saw. What would you prefer? A Pen or a corner?? If you get clipped it's not a dive. It's a foul, and if referees aren't good enough to see it without making it obvious then 'flopping' is the only option. Actual dives I can't stand. Going down when you've been fouled even if you might be able to reclaim your balance is fine, you've been restricted by the clip. If you go over deliberately it is a dive, no matter how much or little contact there is. It's cheating. I blame Andy Gray and his equally shitty colleague pundits for a whole generation of misinformed football fans that think this is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 If you go over deliberately it is a dive, no matter how much or little contact there is. It's cheating. I blame Andy Gray and his equally shitty colleague pundits for a whole generation of misinformed football fans that think this is acceptable. Taking the high morale ground again Nibor. You must surely be 100% British. Virtually no other soccer nation takes the same view of 'diving' or 'simulation' as we Brits do. They think we are mad to make such a fuss over what most nations see as part of the game. Personally I think its down to the referee. He thinks its a dive then wave play-on. Its a simple enough approach. How many times in our own City games have we seen blantant penalties denied? In fact its probably more frequent for that to happen than a penatly be awarded after a dive. There's a lot of hype about diving or simulation thats purely down to TV exposure and the ourage shown by TV pundits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Taking the high morale ground again Nibor. You must surely be 100% British. Virtually no other soccer nation takes the same view of 'diving' or 'simulation' as we Brits do. They think we are mad to make such a fuss over what most nations see as part of the game. Personally I think its down to the referee. He thinks its a dive then wave play-on. Its a simple enough approach. How many times in our own City games have we seen blantant penalties denied? In fact its probably more frequent for that to happen than a penatly be awarded after a dive. There's a lot of hype about diving or simulation thats purely down to TV exposure and the ourage shown by TV pundits. Fishing again RR, you have proved in the past and again here that what you have described is the sort of world you inhabit. it's not about moral high ground or what other soccer nations think, it's about sport and teaching 8 year olds it's ok to cheat, when they should being taught about pride and for pros it's about being able to look in the mirror when you have deliberately gotten an opponent sent off, it's tantamount to telling your work line manager lies about another employee to gain an advantage for a promotion, it's wrong and unprofessional, but I suspect you probably have experience, for you it's 'some you win and some you come first in'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Taking the high morale ground again Nibor. You must surely be 100% British. Virtually no other soccer nation takes the same view of 'diving' or 'simulation' as we Brits do. They think we are mad to make such a fuss over what most nations see as part of the game. Personally I think its down to the referee. He thinks its a dive then wave play-on. Its a simple enough approach. How many times in our own City games have we seen blantant penalties denied? In fact its probably more frequent for that to happen than a penatly be awarded after a dive. There's a lot of hype about diving or simulation thats purely down to TV exposure and the ourage shown by TV pundits. I'm not sure what your point is really, you're making excuses for cheating on some basis that seems to be about the fact that some people cheat. It's a tautology, one that makes no sense at all. Nationality has precisely nothing to do with it. Cheating is shit. It's shit to watch, it's shit to be on the receiving end of and it's shit to do. The FA should take whatever steps are necessary to eradicate it and apologists for it from the game. It would be far more enjoyable if that were done. If you want to watch people dive, go to a swimming pool. Don't try and defend it in football especially with such a non existant argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 it's not about moral high ground or what other soccer nations think, it's about sport and teaching 8 year olds it's ok to cheat, when they should being taught about pride and for pros it's about being able to look in the mirror when you have deliberately gotten an opponent sent off, it's tantamount to telling your work line manager lies about another employee to gain an advantage for a promotion, it's wrong and unprofessional, but I suspect you probably have experience, for you it's 'some you win and some you come first in'. Do you suppose that the coaches of 8 years olds in Argentina, Uruguay or Ivory Coast ( to name just three) have the same attitude as British coaches? Not in a million years. Yeah, its morally wrong to dive and try to con the ref but only in the eyes of us Brits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 If you go over deliberately it is a dive, no matter how much or little contact there is. It's cheating. I blame Andy Gray and his equally shitty colleague pundits for a whole generation of misinformed football fans that think this is acceptable. Can't agree, it doesn't have anything to do with Andy Gray. If you're playing football and you get clipped and lose even a minor part of your balance and don't go down, invariably the chance is lost or much more difficult. The referee won't pull it back if you don't go down. So, you go down. Of course you do. Same reason when your shirt is tugged as you're breaking free you stop and complain to the ref, because otherwise that cheating from the defender goes unpunished. Football is about winning, if a defender makes a challenge and doesn't get the ball but catches you, it is a foul. You go down. You take your pen or free kick that you have justly won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Can't agree, it doesn't have anything to do with Andy Gray. If you're playing football and you get clipped and lose even a minor part of your balance and don't go down, invariably the chance is lost or much more difficult. The referee won't pull it back if you don't go down. So, you go down. Of course you do. Same reason when your shirt is tugged as you're breaking free you stop and complain to the ref, because otherwise that cheating from the defender goes unpunished. Football is about winning, if a defender makes a challenge and doesn't get the ball but catches you, it is a foul. You go down. You take your pen or free kick that you have justly won. Sorry mate if that is what you are teaching your 8 year olds I pity them. You should be teaching them honesty and pride and winning deservedly because they've earned it. One day they will cheat you in their performance and you will know that and you will be partly responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Can't agree, it doesn't have anything to do with Andy Gray. If you're playing football and you get clipped and lose even a minor part of your balance and don't go down, invariably the chance is lost or much more difficult. The referee won't pull it back if you don't go down. So, you go down. Of course you do. Same reason when your shirt is tugged as you're breaking free you stop and complain to the ref, because otherwise that cheating from the defender goes unpunished. Football is about winning, if a defender makes a challenge and doesn't get the ball but catches you, it is a foul. You go down. You take your pen or free kick that you have justly won. You can disagree all you like, you are simply wrong about what constitutes a foul. It's not a subjective opinion, infringements are clearly described in the laws of the game. Contact does not mean foul. Going down deliberately unequivocally is cheating. You've been misled, and that's why you think what is actually cheating is ok. It's a real shame because most of your generation thinks this way, which makes the game far less enjoyable to watch and play. Football is not primarily about winning, never has been. No sport is, and if you think that you probably shouldn't be involved in coaching young people at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzle Jordan Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this. Some people view it as fair, some don't. All we do know though is going down with zero contact is definite cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this. Some people view it as fair, some don't. All we do know though is going down with zero contact is definite cheating. of course there is it's called the rules of football, try reading them sometime. Law 12: "Over exaggeration tends to be a reaction to minimal contact whereby the player is seeking to ensure the referee is aware of the contact." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Do you suppose that the coaches of 8 years olds in Argentina, Uruguay or Ivory Coast ( to name just three) have the same attitude as British coaches? Not in a million years. Yeah, its morally wrong to dive and try to con the ref but only in the eyes of us Brits. What about the USA?, also remember this guy?, nice to see one soccer association taking it seriously. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/07/29/rsls-sabor%C3%ADo-fined-suspended-dive-vs-quakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this. Some people view it as fair, some don't. Depends in which country you are brought up in. Here in Britain we ( well some ) see it as cheating whereas virtually everywhere else in the world conning the ref is an acceptable part of the game. Its a cultural difference. Why we Brits have to take the higher morale ground just confuses other nations. Maradonna when confronted about the 'hand of god' incident by British journo's simply could understand what the fuss was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.