July 23, 2017, 05:33:33 AM

Author Topic: Retrospective bans for diving  (Read 571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 17, 2017, 07:29:44 PM
Read 571 times
Offline

TSGun

NSNO Subscriber
What's the general consensus on this proposal?

Although I like the idea I'm not sure it will prevent simulation completely as some have suggested. After all a penalty could still be given nonetheless which may result in a cup final victory for example.

Interesting concept, worth looking at but perhaps even stricter measures are needed to remove diving from the game if that's the driving force behind it.

January 17, 2017, 07:42:06 PM
Reply #1
Offline

blob


not really into retrospective anything...in football terms.

leave it with the ref; warts n'all :)


January 17, 2017, 08:19:43 PM
Reply #2
Offline

sirblue57

NSNO Subscriber
think video ref like in rugby would be much better.
I'm the "trophy husband" from the game my wife regrets playing.


January 17, 2017, 08:46:45 PM
Reply #3
Online

ally2


It's too subjective. I would like it to happen but it would be very difficult to impose and fraught with questions about committees deciding titles. At least we can blame one person of bias. Everyone's happy with that arrangement.

January 17, 2017, 08:51:38 PM
Reply #4
Online

Major Clanger


I'd rather TV channels employed someone with a baseball bat to smash anyone who says "well, there was/wasn't contact". It'd be a lot cheaper, more entertaining and ultimately, more true to the actual laws of the game.

And after a while we'd learn that the rules say an attempted kick or trip is just as much a foul as one that connects.
The Shadow Over Inasmuch - The Adventures of Bicoid, Hunchback and Kruppel

January 17, 2017, 10:17:04 PM
Reply #5
Online

Ridge


While I see the difficulties with interpretation, I think the threat of retrospective action, will curb a lot of the worse offenders. But I also think it'll be used infrequently and only when its absolutely clear, free from contact or any threat. Does whether they appeal make a difference, as you can't really punish someone for evading injury.

Would Otamendi's head clutching fall get a ban? It was clearly a contrived attempt to get an opponent sent off, but it's not clear as day how you'd demonstrate so.

What about Phil Jones simulation that got Feghouli sent off? They scissored into each other, but Jones reacted to absolve himself. He got the ball and people were quick to criticise the ref, but it was his reaction that got Feghouli sent off. Even in hindsight I don't think you can look at that tackle and be entirely certain that Jones was not hurt in the tackle sufficiently to react that way or punish the theatrical nature. Jones was on the back foot and went across him, studs up, it was well timed and got the ball. Is that less of a simulation because it was in defence, or more of a relevant simulation because it changed the game and ref produced a red early in game? If you retrospectively rescind Feghouli's red, it hardly balances things, but punishment of Jones would seem harsh.

Dele Alli and Jamie Vardy have been hanging out legs or clipping opponents in a way that no one seems to acknowledge. It's one thing to defend the ball, your space and get caught, it's another when you see someone to bungee off. If you can move your path across the player and slow down and flail legs, you can get yours caught up with the guy running behind you.

I think most of the ones I've mentioned and plenty of others, will still be too ambiguous to punish.


January 17, 2017, 10:59:30 PM
Reply #6
Offline

Brownie20

NSNO Subscriber
I'd like to see the rule clarified whereby it's only a foul if your legs actually fall off after contact.
[lightbox=image_url|title|group|float][/lightbox]  :cheers:

January 18, 2017, 04:31:28 AM
Reply #7
Offline

bacon sarnie


I'd rather TV channels employed someone with a baseball bat to smash anyone who says "well, there was/wasn't contact". It'd be a lot cheaper, more entertaining and ultimately, more true to the actual laws of the game.

And after a while we'd learn that the rules say an attempted kick or trip is just as much a foul as one that connects.

Well said. My thoughts entirely.

January 18, 2017, 06:40:57 AM
Reply #8
Offline

chang


Personally prefer ref to deal with it (or not)

One thing that I do feel needs more sanction is the so called "professional foul" deliberate puling of a players shirt (or tripping them) to stop a counter attack - always a yellow, but threat of a red might stop it.

And pundits that say "he had to do it" need a word with themselves.

January 19, 2017, 12:16:13 PM
Reply #9
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Personally prefer ref to deal with it (or not)

One thing that I do feel needs more sanction is the so called "professional foul" deliberate puling of a players shirt (or tripping them) to stop a counter attack - always a yellow, but threat of a red might stop it.

And pundits that say "he had to do it" need a word with themselves.

I suppose they had to do it in the context that they only get a yellow.

As you say, if they were to get a red for pulling someone back 50-60 yards from goal then they wouldn't do it; they'd let play develop as there's no guarantee that someone will score from there.

I actually think the rules could be applied as you suggest now.

To me, if there's a 4 on 2 break then that's a goal scoring opportunity; supposedly the marker for whether it's a red or not.

January 19, 2017, 05:18:50 PM
Reply #10
Online

ally2


Here's my solution - no referee on the field. This would confuse everyone.

January 19, 2017, 06:17:15 PM
Reply #11
Offline

Bluenose 91


Don't think it's that big of an issue where rules need to be changed or that.

Players try and cheat.  Always have and always will.  It wouldn't stop anything imo.
A crack on the head is what you get for asking.

January 19, 2017, 06:33:05 PM
Reply #12
Online

Risky

NSNO Subscriber
Far too subjective as to whether contact was made, whether it was enough to cause someone to go down, whether someone went down as a result of avoiding a challenge that would have caught them otherwise etc.

January 20, 2017, 05:27:43 PM
Reply #13
Offline

TSGun

NSNO Subscriber
The obvious premeditated dive does need addressing though.

I've always had in the back of my mind a touch of sympathy for those that are constantly fouled without recognition, which can indirectly encourage certain behaviour.

That said, if the powers that be are seriously considering this idea then it's not a complete preventative measure.