Cheating/Diving

[Portland Bill]

I don't know if this has been covered on here or not, from next season we will get this.

19 May 2017 : FA Aiming To Ensure That Cheats Don't Prosper

The Football Association are to introduce new disciplinary measures for the 2017-18 season. The offence is entitled 'Successful Deception of a Match Official' and is designed to removing diving and feigning of injury in the game - i.e. an act of simulation. Or to call a spade a spade: CHEATING.  The FA intend to introduce the offence under three separate circumstances. These are as follows:  1. Where the alleged act leads to a penalty being awarded  2. Where the alleged act leads to a straight red card being given out against an opponent  3. Where the alleged act leads to a yellow card against an opponent, and that opponent is subsequently dismissed (either at that time or later in the game)  By the nature of the offence, the players concerned would not know they had been sanctioned at that time. Instead the FA would react retrospectively. They will use a Video Panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player who will view the video footage independently of each other and then inform the FA if they believe the incident involved an act of deception. If all three agree this to be the case, then the FA can retrospectively sanction the player.  In the case of proven deception, the guilty player will be given a two match suspension by the FA. In addition, the FA's Independent Regulatory Commission would have the right to rescind any caution or dismissal given to the opposition player. In the latter instance, it would appear that this is not guaranteed - for example in the case where a player swings a punch at another player, but fails to connect, the player that falls to the floor clutching his face could be sanctioned for feigning injury, but with violent conduct offences also including intent, the player that attempted the punch may still find himself serving the suspension.  The FA haven't made it clear how such cases will be initiated, given that they will not have been spotted by the match officials during the game. It would therefore seem likely that the incident will need to be sufficiently highlighted within the media, or for a specific complaint to be made by one club, for the FA to spot the incident.  Last night saw a perfect example of where the FA could act. In the League Two Play-Off Semi-Final Second Leg between Luton Town and Blackpool, a fairly obvious dive by Hatters striker Danny Hylton resulted in his side being awarded a penalty kick. Although Hylton scored from the spot kick, next season's rules would entitle the FA to charge Hylton and issue a retrospective ban. It will be interesting to see how many players decide not to fall over in the penalty box, or go down clutching their faces given the obvious threat of the two match ban if they get caught out.  Curiously, the offence will only apply to incidents not seen by the match officials. Where the player dives for a penalty or feigns injury, and this is correctly spotted by officials during the match, the most the player will receive is a yellow card. In addition, for cases where the referee is unsure of whether the player has dived or been fouled, and so chooses to allow play to continue, there will be no punishment. It will apply only to cases where the referee has been duped into awarding a penalty or issuing a yellow/red card.    Comment on this News Item on Facebook or Go back to Top of Page

[wendyredredrobin]

One of the problems with this is that ive watched slomo videos of many incidents and still cant satisfy myself as to whether contact was or was not made.

Yes, I woyld like to see divers banned, but it must be 100% clear to ensure that the innocent do not suffer.

I think this would be useful to punish the countless incidents i have seen where a player goes down clutching his head, where there has clearly been no contact.

Tackles, fouls and mis timed challenges are one thing, but deliberate cheating which includes feigning, diving, shirt pulling and professional fouls should be regarded as cheating and be punished severely to stamp it out.  

Not something the FA can do alone though and needs the support of FIFA as we cant have different rules in different countries, otherwise that would be problematic for international games and competitions.

[CotswoldRed]

Just now, wendyredredrobin said:

One of the problems with this is that ive watched slomo videos of many incidents and still cant satisfy myself as to whether contact was or was not made.

Yes, I woyld like to see divers banned, but it must be 100% clear to ensure that the innocent do not suffer.

I think this would be useful to punish the countless incidents i have seen where a player goes down clutching his head, where there has clearly been no contact.

Tackles, fouls and mis timed challenges are one thing, but deliberate cheating which includes feigning, diving, shirt pulling and professional fouls should be regarded as cheating and be punished severely to stamp it out.  

Not something the FA can do alone though and needs the support of FIFA as we cant have different rules in different countries, otherwise that would be problematic for international games and competitions.

Contact is not entitlement or a guarantee of going down. Just watch a game of rugby. 

Try to stay in your feet at all times and there won't be a problem. 

[MarcusX]

2 hours ago, CotswoldRed said:

Contact is not entitlement or a guarantee of going down. Just watch a game of rugby. 

Try to stay in your feet at all times and there won't be a problem. 

Whilst I agree, using rugby as an example is pointless. There is nothing to be gained by "diving" or exaggerating contact in rugby?

[CotswoldRed]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Whilst I agree, using rugby as an example is pointless. There is nothing to be gained by "diving" or exaggerating contact in rugby?

My point is, contact is only contact, there is almost never a reason to fall unless tripped if the referee/system doesn't tolerate cheating of any sort. 

Losing the ability to use one's legs is where the problem lies. Making no clear effort to remain on your feet should convince the referee not to award a free kick as it's simulation. The benefit of any doubt should shift to the player making the foul. 

Imagine if there was no referee. The players would find it much easier staying on their feet. As children in the park do.  

The problem is a simple one to eradicate imo. Insist that players will not earn any free kick where any exaggeration has occurred.

[Lanterne Rouge]

8 hours ago, CotswoldRed said:

My point is, contact is only contact, there is almost never a reason to fall unless tripped if the referee/system doesn't tolerate cheating of any sort. 

Losing the ability to use one's legs is where the problem lies. Making no clear effort to remain on your feet should convince the referee not to award a free kick as it's simulation. The benefit of any doubt should shift to the player making the foul. 

Imagine if there was no referee. The players would find it much easier staying on their feet. As children in the park do.  

The problem is a simple one to eradicate imo. Insist that players will not earn any free kick where any exaggeration has occurred.

Or, if it is actually a foul but the player rolls around clutching his face in an attempt to make it look worse than it was and his team mates surround the ref waving imaginary cards, move the kick back ten yards. If it`s in the box, it becomes a free kick outside and not a penalty.

[Meh]

13 hours ago, CotswoldRed said:

Contact is not entitlement or a guarantee of going down. Just watch a game of rugby. 

Try to stay in your feet at all times and there won't be a problem. 

100% agree with this and it's what real players with respect for the game and themselves do.

BUT - it frustrates the hell out of me when a player like this gets chopped in the box, stays on his feet, gets an off balance shot away and often misses as a result and a goal kick is awarded.

Provided the shot is no more than a couple of seconds after the foul, bring it back for the deserved penalty - why do refs do this in open play but not the box?

[Lanterne Rouge]

3 hours ago, Neo said:

100% agree with this and it's what real players with respect for the game and themselves do.

BUT - it frustrates the hell out of me when a player like this gets chopped in the box, stays on his feet, gets an off balance shot away and often misses as a result and a goal kick is awarded.

Provided the shot is no more than a couple of seconds after the foul, bring it back for the deserved penalty - why do refs do this in open play but not the box?

Absolutely mate, anywhere else on the pitch it`s stopped if no advantage accrues so why not in the area? Just fear from the ref I expect.

How does it encourage the honest players though - it was refreshing seeing Lee Gregory (?) for Millwall yesterday get tackled cleanly in the box and then trying to stay on his feet even though the defender had got the ball away - in the prem he would have no doubt gone down and rolled around for a bit.

[Midred]

According to the experts on match of the day contact is everything and adds to the divas' sense of entitlement. Equally galling is the childish,  "mum's going to be so cross with me", reaction from a player who thinks he is entitled to foul without any consequences. 

[MarcusX]

16 hours ago, CotswoldRed said:

My point is, contact is only contact, there is almost never a reason to fall unless tripped if the referee/system doesn't tolerate cheating of any sort. 

Losing the ability to use one's legs is where the problem lies. Making no clear effort to remain on your feet should convince the referee not to award a free kick as it's simulation. The benefit of any doubt should shift to the player making the foul. 

Imagine if there was no referee. The players would find it much easier staying on their feet. As children in the park do.  

The problem is a simple one to eradicate imo. Insist that players will not earn any free kick where any exaggeration has occurred.

I actually agree with you completely - like I say its just the rugby point, it doesnt happen in rugby because there is no advantage to be gained by "going down easy". Unfortunately in football there is often an advantage because at present going down under the slight contact does tend to earn you a free kick.

Your suggestion is right and what should happen, if someone exaggerates contact, initiates the contact themselves (sticking their leg into a player that wouldnt otherwise contact them) or in other way "goes down" when it would have been possible to stay up then no free kick to be given.

However there is a few issues there...

1. Its very hard to tell sometimes, even from a video replay, if contact was enough to take someone down. Its all a matter of opinion sometimes.

2. If someone is fouled, stays on there feet but then proceeds to lose the ball then a foul should be given. On many occasions I see this not given and thats what convinces players they need to go down.

3. There doesnt have to be contact to be a foul. If you knock the ball past someone, they lunge in and you have to evade them to try and carry on your run but then lose the ball it should be a foul. So many times a ref will say "he didnt touch you" etc. If you impede someone its a foul, sometimes that can be without contact.

Until referees start taking those points into consideration, you'll continue to see players going down at the faintest touch.

As a bit of a more traditional "tough" centre-mid / centre back myself, there's nothing I hate seeing more than someone diving or exaggerating contact against me, but ive often had free kicks / penalties not given my way because i stayed on my feet. Its incredibly frustrating.