FA considers retrospective diving bans

[Dharmabum]

Need log-in.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/fa-considers-retrospective-diving-bans-25cxxs3hz

FA considers retrospective diving bans

The Football Association is taking active steps towards bringing in retrospective bans for players who dive, it can be revealed.

The governing body is to send officials on a fact-finding mission to Scotland to study the rule there, which stipulates a two-match ban for any player who wins a significant advantage for their team by tricking the referee by diving or simulation, and will explore introducing a similar rule to the English game.

Senior FA figures including the chairman Greg Clarke are understood to be keen on the principle of creating a deterrent for players who effectively get away with cheating if the referee does not spot the dive or simulation.

In Scotland, players who dive and escape punishment are identified via video replays and…

 

[Dinghy]

...then banned.

An FA insider said: “On the face of it it’s a good idea. The devil is in the detail, but as a tool to penalise blatant simulation versus ‘did he dive or slip?’ it is now being investigated. It is being discussed with the SFA and some FA people are going up to Scotland for a meeting on how it is working.”

The issue of players diving to win a penalty or overreacting to try to get a rival sent off came to the fore again on Sunday when José Mourinho and Jürgen Klopp clashed during Manchester United versus Liverpool.

The managers were involved in angry exchanges after Ander Herrera went down clutching his face when he appeared to be shoved in the chest by Roberto Firmino.

There was also controversy last month when Robert Snodgrass, the Hull City midfielder, admitted that there had been no contact from Scott Dann when he won a penalty against Crystal Palace. The Scottish FA’s rule 201 on diving has been in operation since 2011 and makes it an offence for a player to mislead a match official to gain a substantial advantage.

It states: “No player shall cause a match official to make an incorrect decision and/or support an error of judgment on the part of a match official by an act of simulation which results in that player’s team being awarded a penalty kick and/or an opponent being dismissed and/or any other substantial advantage being gained.”

The SFA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan, says that the rule has definitely worked in reducing diving and that it is good for the image of the game overall.

Regan said: “Having that rule there is helping the game and reducing the acts of simulation, which we know are frustrating for fans and players, and can be game-changing.”

Last month, rugby union referee Nigel Owens said that he believed footballers who dive should be punished by suspensions.

He said: “I think it would be hugely beneficial. When a player does the dive, I think it’s very difficult for the referee to make a decision at that time. Citing doesn’t stop the flow of the game, and then you ban the player depending upon the seriousness of the offence.”

 

[talkshowhost86]

Just in the nick of time guys.

 

[Mattspur]

I think anything that stops cheating is good for the game.

 

[widmerpool]

Presumably most cheating is overreaction to contact, rather than simulation of contact, and so is less easy to prove with video evidence?

Sensible idea though.

 

[TheChosenOne]

How far back they going with this retrospective stuff ?

I reckon a few Premier titles would be realigned if they really delved into the archives.

 

[kazzah9]

Hopefully they can sort out some kind of rules in time for next season.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I think I must be the only one that sees a dangerous precedent being set with this. Is it a dive if you are diving to get out of the way? Should players just allow themselves to be injured in fear of being accused of diving? Maybe it's just me, but when I ruin at full pelt it doesn't take a lot to knock me over or off my stride.......and for me, the biggest thing is that the team that has been cheated is not the team that benefits from a retrospective ban.......in fact, they are the only team that can't benefit from it!

What if Aguero dived to win a penalty against us in a match City won and was then retrospectively banned from his next match against Chelsea.........where Chelsea go on to win and take 4th place from Spurs by 1 point?

 

[goughie1966]

How far back they going with this retrospective stuff ?

I reckon a few Premier titles would be realigned if they really delved into the archives.

And if UEFA could go back and ban that cheating diving Drogba, that detestable club wouldn't have the Champions League trophy either

 

[Nerine]

Be careful what you wish for.


Isn't half of what makes football entertaining the slight uncertainty of it all? The conjecture, the talking points, the laughable decisions, the drama etc etc.

To be fair, that's one of the things I like about the Premier League. It's just sometimes completely nonsense. It must be great for the neutral. It's like a soap opera.

Don't get me wrong, I go savage if players cheat against us, or if the ref is seemingly a homer or whatever, but ultimately, the thing with football is that as a player you can NOT do things sometimes that you know is going to give the ref a decision to make.

For example if the ref is a bit biased, which I am pretty certain some are, just don't give them the decision to make.

Fortunately, whilst I'm sure that there is sometimes some iffy stuff going on, if you play the game properly, it's very difficult for a corrupt official to give decisions against you. They can only really react to what happens. If nothing happens and for example, the goal or whatever is obviously scored fairly, there's little a ref or something can do to disallow it. They're being scrutinised by millions of people every game. If they did anything too dodgy, there'd literally be outrage.

That ridiculous offside decision that got given against Jan when he received the ball in our half springs to mind, but fortunately we were winning comfortably anyway in that game. How that was given offside I'll never know. Lino must have just had a brain melt or something.

But yeah. Don't want to get banned for diving? Don't dive.
To escape getting injured in a tackle, you don't always have to go to ground. Dodge, jump, move, etc. Don't always have to throw yourself to the floor.

 

[Lilbaz]

Punish cheats. Stop simulation.

Would also like a 3 second count on players. If they're not up, go to the sidelines to get checked out, opp manager has chance to make a sub.

Don't care if it's messy, stamp this shit out of the game.

 

[yankspurs]

Dont think a retrospective ban is a good way to go about it. Too much, IMO. But i think adding a diving accumulation to yellows would be a good idea as well as retrospective diving yellow

I'd go 3 diving yellows = a 2 game ban. 6 diving yellows = 4 games. Diving yellows count toward its own accumulation as well as regular yellow accumulation.

 

[michaelden]

I'd like a yellow card to mean 5-10 minutes on the side lines like rugby. Costa would be there a lot

 

[Rocksuperstar]

I wonder if the Scottish FA will look into it now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/39620865

Honestly, if that was me and i saw the replay after the game, i'd retire out of shame and get a job on an oilrig in the middle of the north sea.

 

[nailsy]

I think I must be the only one that sees a dangerous precedent being set with this. Is it a dive if you are diving to get out of the way? Should players just allow themselves to be injured in fear of being accused of diving? Maybe it's just me, but when I ruin at full pelt it doesn't take a lot to knock me over or off my stride.......and for me, the biggest thing is that the team that has been cheated is not the team that benefits from a retrospective ban.......in fact, they are the only team that can't benefit from it!

What if Aguero dived to win a penalty against us in a match City won and was then retrospectively banned from his next match against Chelsea.........where Chelsea go on to win and take 4th place from Spurs by 1 point?[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting point, but one that applies to red cards now as well... Especially those coming late in the game. Maybe the player could be banned from playing against the same team the next time they meet. It could get a bit complicated with transfers though.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

I think I must be the only one that sees a dangerous precedent being set with this. Is it a dive if you are diving to get out of the way? Should players just allow themselves to be injured in fear of being accused of diving? Maybe it's just me, but when I ruin at full pelt it doesn't take a lot to knock me over or off my stride.......and for me, the biggest thing is that the team that has been cheated is not the team that benefits from a retrospective ban.......in fact, they are the only team that can't benefit from it!

What if Aguero dived to win a penalty against us in a match City won and was then retrospectively banned from his next match against Chelsea.........where Chelsea go on to win and take 4th place from Spurs ?[/QUOTE]

Shows how we've moved on, doesn't it?

 

[HobbitSpur]

If they are looking to cut out diving, make the retrospective ban a proper deterrent. I propose 12 matches.

People may say this is too much, I say well if you don't want to get a ban, don't dive.

If Mourinho is in the dressing room he may tell his players Mata to go down as he will only loose him for 2 games (this is just an example, not trying to insinuate anything). If he knew he would lose him for 12 games he would tell him to stay on his feet.

Also not every tackle that players dive out of the way of is a bad/dirty tackle. Players get injured innocently, part of the game.

And this leads to the argument what constitutes a dive. I would say if it that obvious a dive, or a player goes down holding his face with no contact, then that is absolute 100% cheating and has absolute no place in the game. And therefore imho deserves a lengthy ban.

 

[Dharmabum]

If they are looking to cut out diving, make the retrospective ban a proper deterrent. I propose 12 matches.

People may say this is too much, I say well if you don't want to get a ban, don't dive.

If Mourinho is in the dressing room he may tell his players Mata to go down as he will only loose him for 2 games (this is just an example, not trying to insinuate anything). If he knew he would lose him for 12 games he would tell him to stay on his feet.

Also not every tackle that players dive out of the way of is a bad/dirty tackle. Players get injured innocently, part of the game.

And this leads to the argument what constitutes a dive. I would say if it that obvious a dive, or a player goes down holding his face with no contact, then that is absolute 100% cheating and has absolute no place in the game. And therefore imho deserves a lengthy ban.

I think it would be better with different degree of punishment according the acting-dive itself rather than the same punishment for all kinds of dives.

 

[Riandor]

I think it would be better with different degree of punishment according the acting-dive itself rather than the same punishment for all kinds of dives.

I think this runs the risk of interpretation. A flat straight up x match ban rule is probably safer.

As for those fearing players won't dive out of the way to avoid injury? Come on... what it will eliminate (hopefully) is the simulation of having been hit/clipped etc and rolling on the floor. If you get up and get on with it, you're not going to get a ban for the dive.

Even if you hurt yourself on the landing,, you just be honest and that goes in the report.

 

[tiger666]

Start with Suarez