Printable View
Sorry for being cynical but saying it and doing it are another matter. Proof will never happen, it will be an 'internal matter'.Quote:
Originally Posted by GARNETT
For a man who condoned Huth and Shawcross getting away with murder as does Jedinak now at Palace doesn't it look great saying this ?
And might not some refs be conned into believing that it can't be a dive in the area as Pulis fines his players ?
So he said its all part of todays game. Well its true, it is, you except it to a degree, but when it becomes a common problem a line has to be drawn. Enough is enough.
As for refs reputation. I cant see that as being a problem because it is hard to see some dives whilst in the thick of it, easier retrospectively via video. And lets be fair a few have been spotted , and still some of us debate as to whether it was or not.
You cant alter a result after the game, so fines and bans should be according to damage caused. If your dive resulted in a goal, then a longer ban and higher fine etc.
Some how though, i cant see this problem ever being sorted by the F.A. I think its down to clubs and management, and when the going gets tough many will resort to anty means to ensure survival.
Sorry Jon, but I think you're missing an important point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon15u
In an ideal world no one on the football pitch would cheat. There would be no diving, no trippin
To be honest, i cant see what point i am really missing. I agree with your " in an ideal world. " scenerio, but we all know its not. In sports such as football there is always going to be some form of attempt to gain advantage by breaking the rules through shirt pulling obstruction or general fouling. The difference between these and diving is that the former is perpertrated by the offender, hence his choice, the latter the innocent gets the punishment, not his choice.
Totally agree with the officiating remark, but as i stated there are cases where a dive or some other act can go un-noticed. Not in all cases, granted, but on occassions. Officials at times can be proven to be lax in their judgement, but i think scrutinising videos will maybe make refs less tolerent of such offences and maybe they`ll be less likely to let them ride. The F.A covered their asses with the intent clause, regarding Carroll, an arguement that can be argued until doomsday. The fact though is that on the eviden
XD Pullis anti football? Allardyce, hello.
Looking for angles to win? Nolan, keeper at corners, hello.
Dirty players like shawceoss? Carroll, hello.
Allardyce and Pulis
Pair of dinosaur (unts that 'some' chairman like
Very few fans like them or their football but the pressure of surviving in 2014 means they get a decent job
More's the fu(king pity ...
[quote="jon15u" scenerio, but we all know its not. In sports such as football there is always going to be some form of attempt to gain advantage by breaking the rules through shirt pulling obstruction or general fouling. The difference between these and diving is that the former is perpertrated by the offender, hence his choice, the latter the innocent gets the punishment, not his choice.
[/quote]
The innocent only gets punished if the officials fail to spot the perpetrator cheating. In exactly the same way as the "general fouler" in your example only gets punished if he is seen cheating by the officials.
If the officials miss either type of offence the perpetrator gets away scot free. Not saying you're wrong but imo a penalty gained by cheating (diving) is no worse than a penalty denied by, for example a trip (cheating), that is not awarded.
I hear what you are saying. Just think that diving is the worse form of cheating cause it doesnt affect you in the sense that it gets you sent off, it affects the other.
I suppose you could debate it for a while, but in the end it comes down to ones own opinion, cause the synical foul, the one set out to hurt is as bad, but not on the same level as shirt pulling etc. To me there are degrees of cheating , and diving and acting ranks top with synical fouls, ( the ones intended to hurt. ). As with certain actions, the punishment should fit. Even retrospectively.
Yes, unfortunately, the officials fail , but at least, as in Carrolls case, the punisment could be carried out.
Just a couple of things to say about it "affecting the other".Quote:
Originally Posted by jon15u
The laws are in place for the referee to punish the diver--in other words making it affect the perpetrator. Also, if I'd been good enough to make it as a pro, I think I'd rather have a penalty given against me because some bloke dived than sustain a serious injury as a result of a McManaman like challenge.
I'd get the chance of revenge against the diver later in the game. But I couldn't exact revenge on a thug if I'd been carted off with a bad injury.
Just a couple of things to say about it "affecting the other".Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyman
The laws are in place for the referee to punish the diver--in other words making it affect the perpetrator. Also, if I'd been good enough to make it as a pro, I think I'd rather have a penalty given against me because some bloke dived than sustain a serious injury as a result of a McManaman like challenge.
I'd get the chance of revenge against the diver later in the game. But I couldn't exact revenge on a thug if I'd been carted off with a bad injury.[/quote]
Well i cant argue with that, only to say that often the offence goes unpunished through some reason or other, and should be retrospectively punished. Obviously there would have to be guidelines,