NFR Diving in football.

[The Bronsons]

... and while we're at it, stop protecting goalkeepers.

[Artful Dodger]

Marquez is a hack and it's incredibly satisfying to see him as the goat for Mexico.

Certainly agree with the comment about "old cheap shot" Marquez but it did look like he tripped the Dutchman. However, the acting was amateurish at best. That sort of thing goes on all the time. Why a ref would wait until stoppage time to make a call like that is what should be considered. I hate when the ref wins or loses the match for someone.

I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought it may have been a penalty as the guy seemed to stand on his toes, which in this day and age is a penalty. I still think refs are too quick to point to the spot though even when tv cameras do spot 'contact'.

[jmh]

I'd make it a rule that no penalty can be awarded unless the referee believes the player had tried to stay on his feet. That would mean fewer penalties and defenders getting away with contact in the box, but that's good: football is a contact sport.

That introduces subjectivity which just worsens the chance of errors and bias.

[Forever Fulham]

Are you folks crazy?  You want to punish Robben for having the honesty to admit diving in one of the instances in the Mexico game?  Why?  It takes courage to admit you embellished and got away with it.  He was being honest.  That kind of honest admission provokes officialdom to take action against future diving (perhaps with the use of video replays not in use today) as opposed to silence or denials.  He knew he was going to take heat for admitting what he did.  It's so very unusual -- to hear a player actually admit to cheating -- that you must hold back on your initial inclination to jump on him, and instead think what is more likely to come from such public honesty: change.  If you scream for his head for telling the truth after the fact, and if he DOES face some sanction as a result, who will come forward in the future?  Who will tell the truth the next time that person dives?  No one in his right mind, that's who.  Don't direct your anger at the honest player who admits he got away with one.  Direct it at FIFA for wanting to continue to operate as if streamlined and in-place workable technology isn't already in place in other sports to capture what a split focus, bad sightlines referee can't see.

[YankeeJim]

Are you folks crazy?  You want to punish Robben for having the honesty to admit diving in one of the instances in the Mexico game?  Why?  It takes courage to admit you embellished and got away with it.  He was being honest.  That kind of honest admission provokes officialdom to take action against future diving (perhaps with the use of video replays not in use today) as opposed to silence or denials.  He knew he was going to take heat for admitting what he did.  It's so very unusual -- to hear a player actually admit to cheating -- that you must hold back on your initial inclination to jump on him, and instead think what is more likely to come from such public honesty: change.  If you scream for his head for telling the truth after the fact, and if he DOES face some sanction as a result, who will come forward in the future?  Who will tell the truth the next time that person dives?  No one in his right mind, that's who.  Don't direct your anger at the honest player who admits he got away with one.  Direct it at FIFA for wanting to continue to operate as if streamlined and in-place workable technology isn't already in place in other sports to capture what a split focus, bad sightlines referee can't see.

So, if he admits to cheating at another time during the match but of course, not the time he got what he wanted.....in short, sure I stole your watch but I didn't touch your ring. ????? Not buying it. There is only two things that can happen here, we stop the match every time some one is suspected of diving and then look at the replay or we muddle on with what we have. Perhaps, the decision should stand but after the match the play could be reviewed by the FA and the player carded after the fact. Cards could be given to the gaffer as well. That way once he reaches the prescribed amount he'd miss a match as well. Over time that might cut diving down.

[Blanco]

Are you folks crazy?  You want to punish Robben for having the honesty to admit diving in one of the instances in the Mexico game?  Why?  It takes courage to admit you embellished and got away with it.  He was being honest.  That kind of honest admission provokes officialdom to take action against future diving (perhaps with the use of video replays not in use today) as opposed to silence or denials.  He knew he was going to take heat for admitting what he did.  It's so very unusual -- to hear a player actually admit to cheating -- that you must hold back on your initial inclination to jump on him, and instead think what is more likely to come from such public honesty: change.  If you scream for his head for telling the truth after the fact, and if he DOES face some sanction as a result, who will come forward in the future?  Who will tell the truth the next time that person dives?  No one in his right mind, that's who.  Don't direct your anger at the honest player who admits he got away with one.  Direct it at FIFA for wanting to continue to operate as if streamlined and in-place workable technology isn't already in place in other sports to capture what a split focus, bad sightlines referee can't see.

Do you think he would have admitted he had dived if he hadn't been awarded that last penalty? No. He would have complained. The guy is a cheat and it took no courage to admit he had dived because everyone could see he had done it again and again. He was just stating a fact trying to be all high and mighty. It's not like he rarely dives and has acted on reaction and gone down - he does it all the time. He'll carry on doing it as well.

It's a shame because he's an amazing talent.

[HatterDon]

He should be dropped in the middle of Mexico City with a sign attached to his dangly bits reading       "I'm a horrible little wnkr who honed my diving skills at Chelsea and I don't give a poo that I cheated and knocked you out of the World Cup"  
Let 20,000,000 residents of Mexico City decide for themselves and issue and execute the punishment.
They are the ones let down most of all by Robbing Robben

Sounds like a plan to me. Let me know when this happens so I can avoid the carne asada for a bit.

Post of the month!

[The Bronsons]

I'd make it a rule that no penalty can be awarded unless the referee believes the player had tried to stay on his feet. That would mean fewer penalties and defenders getting away with contact in the box, but that's good: football is a contact sport.

That introduces subjectivity which just worsens the chance of errors and bias.

"Introduces subjectivity"?!?!? In what sense is refereeing not subjective already?

It simply changes the standard that referees are asked to apply when making a subjective decision.

[Holders]

I'd make it a rule that no penalty can be awarded unless the referee believes the player had tried to stay on his feet. That would mean fewer penalties and defenders getting away with contact in the box, but that's good: football is a contact sport.

I agree with the Bronsons (Hatter made a similar point) that more penalties should be awarded for fouls in the box where players try to/stay on their feet. I also suggest that no penalty should be awarded to a player who goes down and then appeals. It's not cricket, it should be down to the ref's judgement whether a foul has been committed not the player's acting skills. Dives should get a booking.

[Forever Fulham]

Are you folks crazy?  You want to punish Robben for having the honesty to admit diving in one of the instances in the Mexico game?  Why?  It takes courage to admit you embellished and got away with it.  He was being honest.  That kind of honest admission provokes officialdom to take action against future diving (perhaps with the use of video replays not in use today) as opposed to silence or denials.  He knew he was going to take heat for admitting what he did.  It's so very unusual -- to hear a player actually admit to cheating -- that you must hold back on your initial inclination to jump on him, and instead think what is more likely to come from such public honesty: change.  If you scream for his head for telling the truth after the fact, and if he DOES face some sanction as a result, who will come forward in the future?  Who will tell the truth the next time that person dives?  No one in his right mind, that's who.  Don't direct your anger at the honest player who admits he got away with one.  Direct it at FIFA for wanting to continue to operate as if streamlined and in-place workable technology isn't already in place in other sports to capture what a split focus, bad sightlines referee can't see.

So, if he admits to cheating at another time during the match but of course, not the time he got what he wanted.....in short, sure I stole your watch but I didn't touch your ring. ????? Not buying it. There is only two things that can happen here, we stop the match every time some one is suspected of diving and then look at the replay or we muddle on with what we have. Perhaps, the decision should stand but after the match the play could be reviewed by the FA and the player carded after the fact. Cards could be given to the gaffer as well. That way once he reaches the prescribed amount he'd miss a match as well. Over time that might cut diving down.

YJ, honesty ("Yeah, I flopped.") will more quickly force institutionalized change in officiating than lies or silence from the suspected flopper.  Do I want play stopped each and every time a player goes down?  No.  That sort of stop-start interruption of flow will kill the game.  But your choice of either stopping the game EVERY time someone goes down or else playing on with no review process with teeth is too limiting.  There are other choices available, such as stopping play when the referee has real doubts but doesn't have a clear view at all times during the sequence just before and continuing through the alleged contact.  So you don't stop play for each and every downed player in the box.  Rather, you are judicious with your selection of questionable drops.  And then you go to the video.  And if it appears in the first year of such implementation that there are some refs who are abusing the go-to-video option, you introduce a cap on such use.  Such as, perhaps, no more than three per game.  Certainly the game can survive up to three stops for a video look-see when a player goes down in the box, crying foul, and the ref didn't have a clear view of the sequence. 

But I'd go beyond that.  I'd red card the flopper.  No more yellows.  And I'd yellow card the fouler.

[jmh]

I'd make it a rule that no penalty can be awarded unless the referee believes the player had tried to stay on his feet. That would mean fewer penalties and defenders getting away with contact in the box, but that's good: football is a contact sport.

That introduces subjectivity which just worsens the chance of errors and bias.

"Introduces subjectivity"?!?!? In what sense is refereeing not subjective already?

It simply changes the standard that referees are asked to apply when making a subjective decision.

Maybe I should have "introduces a greater degree of subjectivity".  Obviously whether a foul occurred is a judgment call; there's gray area between things that are obviously fouls and things that are obviously not fouls, and referees often have to decide where in that gray area where actions on the field lie.  But what you're proposing is that they not only have to judge whether a given action rises to the level that it should be punished, but also whether the aggrieved player made sufficient effort to fight through the challenge.  In effect you're asking the referee to judge the player's state of mind - whether he decided to keep fighting through a challenge or go down.  This further opens the window for referees to justify (even retroactively) bias in the case of players who have a reputation for diving, even where a wrongful action by a defender has actually occurred.  A ref could say "The video shows that Marquez definitely tripped Robben, but it looked like Robben maybe didn't try as hard as he could have to stay on his feet, so I was right not to give a penalty."  "Did he try" is a subjective decision about effort and mentality, "was he tripped" is a judgment call but one that is just about actions themselves.  Is that clearer than how I phrased it yesterday?