If there is slight contact but you massively exaggerate it, should it count as a dive?

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by sullydnl, Nov 4, 2019.

  1. Nov 4, 2019
    #1

    sullydnl Ross Kemp's caf ID

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    20,075
    Should it count as a dive if a player massively overreacts to a slight bit of contact? Or is it only a dive if there is no contact at all?

    I sometimes see posters accusing players of diving when they overreact to the slightest touch. Meanwhile, other posters defend players from these accusations by pointing to any sort of contact as justification for going down, no matter how dramatically. So which is it?

    Also, do you think obvious playacting from a player should make a referee less likely to award them a foul?

    What say ye oh knowledgeable caf?
  2. Nov 4, 2019
    #2

    thepolice123 Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    9,580
    Obviously.
  3. Nov 4, 2019
    #3

    adexkola Arsenal supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    36,267
    Location:
    The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
    Supports:
    orderly disembarking on planes
    It's a contact sport last time I checked.
  4. Nov 4, 2019
    #4

    711 Full Member Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,581
    Location:
    Don't Sign Old Players
    Who? Name names, or you've made it up.
  5. Nov 4, 2019
    #5

    macheda14 Full Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,338
    Location:
    Manchester
    If the contact does nothing to negatively impact your ability to continue your action, then to go down is a dive. However, if its enough that it would put you at a disadvantage, but you could still remain on your feet, going down is probably the right thing to do for your team and it's even encouraged by fellow players. Neville confirmed as much a few years ago, he even said that referees would subtly encourage it to make their jobs easier.
  6. Nov 4, 2019
    #6

    sullydnl Ross Kemp's caf ID

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    20,075
    This post prompted the thread but I see it said fairly regularly:

  7. Nov 4, 2019
    #7

    Scroto Baggins Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2017
    Messages:
    1,339
    The problem is the benefits outweigh any sort of repercussions from the refs. Until this changes it will continue to happen, you get contact in the box? Go down and refer it to VAR, they will replay it 50 times and convince themselves it was a penalty.
  8. Nov 4, 2019
    #8

    adexkola Arsenal supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    36,267
    Location:
    The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
    Supports:
    orderly disembarking on planes
    Can't wait until VAR is advanced enough that it can read the force initiated by a contact and then analyze whether it was strong enough to destabilize a player, and also analyse whether a player has been knocked down by his own volition or by another player

    Oh I can't wait
  9. Nov 4, 2019
    #9

    Skills Snitch

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    29,684
    The problem is that it's hard to judge the impact of a 'slight touch'. These guys are playing at incredible speed/intensity, so it doesn't take much to knock someone off balance.

    Secondly, if even a 'slight touch' forces the player off path or to take a different route/decision, is that still a foul? Refs need to start acknowledging more fouls when the player stays on his foot.
  10. Nov 4, 2019
    #10

    DVG7 Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2019
    Messages:
    100
    I think it’s testament to what the game has become that the answers so far aren’t just clear cut “yes, if you exaggerate it then it’s a dive”

    If the contact isn’t enough to make you fall, and you fall over nonetheless, it should be a yellow for simulation every time
  11. Nov 4, 2019
    #11

    Tarrou Full Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    14,376
    Location:
    Canberra
    Yeah
  12. Nov 4, 2019
    #12

    BaneIsPain New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    213
    Location:
    Southeast Asia
    Yes.It is known as playacting
  13. Nov 4, 2019
    #13

    VeevaVee despite the protests, wears Ugg boots Scout

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    33,824
    Location:
    Manchester
    Agreed when they're running full pelt but a lot of these dives are in the box where they're not, sometimes barely moving forward at all.
  14. Nov 4, 2019
    #14

    stepic Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,428
    Location:
    London
    Obviously yes.

    but I primarily blame the referees for missing so many fouls or not giving enough fouls when players don’t exaggerate. If they did that the players wouldn’t feel the need to ‘make sure’ they get the call.
  15. Nov 4, 2019
    #15

    TheThingThatShouldNotBe New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Supports:
    Chelsea
    Absolutely. Look at Deulofeu and Son this weekend for prime examples.

    Unfortunately there are too many who justify this type of cheating.
  16. Nov 4, 2019
    #16

    Green_Red Full Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Messages:
    7,281
    Martial should have had a penalty awarded if thats what youre getting at. feck VAR.
  17. Nov 4, 2019
    #17

    roonster09 Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018 Scout

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    20,274
    Refs won’t blow whistle if players stay on feet, so can’t blame players when they go down when they are fouled.
  18. Nov 4, 2019
    #18

    diarm Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    9,910
    Location:
    Dublin
    For the Deulofeu example this weekend, there isn't enough contact for him to go down, but there is enough contact to prevent him from getting to the ball. That's a foul that stopping a goal scoring opportunity but if he doesn't exaggerate, it never gets given.

    Defenders cheat all day long and get away with it. Obstruction, shirt pulls, stepping on toes - all minor things that aren't deemed strong enough to be penalised but which often prevent opportunities. The margins at the top are so tight that small touches can have a big impact and if we are going to stop attacking players exaggerating, we first have to start properly penalising defenders.
  19. Nov 4, 2019
    #19

    Rifer Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    4,301
    Location:
    Losing to Comeback Winning!
    No contact = Dive = No foul

    Slight contact = Theatretical Fall = Can be a foul
  20. Nov 4, 2019
    #20

    RedRonaldo Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,181
    Regarding no contact and dive, it’s clear dive.

    For diving after slight contact, it’s a tricky one. For example, it’s very hard to draw the line when players are running at full speed, any slight contact can makes the players fall theatricality and appears to be diving. However, sometimes it could be playacting (Neymar), or both (clear foul but exaggerate the fall)
  21. Nov 4, 2019
    #21

    SadlerMUFC Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,143
    Location:
    Niagara Falls, Canada
    I think the biggest problem in the game is that the refs either call the foul or the dive. They don't call both and I think they should. For example, in hockey (yes I'm Canadain) if a guy hooks another player but it's not enough to trip him but the player takes a dive anyways, the ref gives one penalty to the guy who hooked him and he gives a penalty to the guy who dives. So why not do the same thing in football? There are times when a player takes a dive but there was also a foul. So give the free kick for the foul but also give a yellow card for diving...
  22. Nov 4, 2019
    #22

    FutbolFan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    135
    Supports:
    Chelsea
    Seconds before there is a big whack on Kovacic foot that VAR finds acceptable. System encourages players to go down and is ridiculous.
  23. Nov 4, 2019
    #23

    MackRobinson Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    Terminal D
    Supports:
    Football
    If player is touched ,it's not a dive. Hate seeing cards for it.
  24. Nov 4, 2019
    #24

    RK Full Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    15,768
    Location:
    Attacking Midfield
    There's massive bias in opinion in these situations against attacking players. People focus on the wrong thing - the attacker going to ground softly. What they should be looking at is the often poor defending - the defender making an attempt to play the ball, not getting it, and making some contact with the attacker that usually impedes their natural movement.

    If there defender doesn't win the ball and makes contact with the man, it's up to the referee to judge whether that contact was enough to be a foul. In my opinion most of the time it should be a foul; defenders get away with way too much. They know they can take the risk of destabilising their opponent because they'll be penalised a disproportionately low number of times. A good example is a fullback using their outstretched arms to shepherd (impede) a winger that's taken them on at speed. It's against the rules but if the winger doesn't obviously appeal for the foul or go down it's usually not given.

    Even if it's accidental contact, sometimes even if there's no contact, an attacker going to ground is usually a result of them winning some battle against the defender and they should be rewarded for that, either with the opportunity they've created or with a dead ball if the defender impeded their future progress.

    Another problem is that people literally can't use their eyes properly. They will be myopic to video evidence or simply not be able to see critical moments of contact, or understand it in the context of actually playing football.
  25. Nov 4, 2019
    #25

    Dargonk Ninja Scout Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    17,189
    Location:
    Australia
    It's a dive in my mind, and they should be booked for it. Whether or not it is still a foul is a different question.
  26. Nov 4, 2019
    #26

    Tarrou Full Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    14,376
    Location:
    Canberra
    If they dive then part of the punishment should be the free-kick is reversed, IMO.
  27. Nov 4, 2019
    #27

    Ish Lights on for Luke

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    24,565
    Location:
    Where fans' expectations are too high
    Get Elon Musk involved. I’m sure he’s already 85% of the way into finalizing that formula :drool:
  28. Nov 4, 2019
    #28

    duffer Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's Scout

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    34,854
    Location:
    Chelsea fan.
    If you can stay up but choose to go down, it's a dive and you should be booked for simulation.

    Refs are awful at giving fouls when players stay up so I totally get why they do it.
  29. Nov 4, 2019
    #29

    _00_deathscar New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2016
    Messages:
    116
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    Not sure how it works in hockey, but the problem with this in football is that hypothetically (and it has happened, quite a bit...), the original penalty for the tackle/foul would never be given if the player doesn't go down (often theatrically to draw attention).

    VAR should ideally rectify this - i.e. if a player is fouled, even if he doesn't go down (and tries to stay on his feet), a foul/penalty should be called. The problem is then phases of play...
  30. Nov 4, 2019
    #30

    _00_deathscar New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2016
    Messages:
    116
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    Again, the problem is who deems "choose to go down?" Often times, the player has gone down because the contact, however minimal, has impeded his ability to otherwise get to the ball and get a shot/pass off or dribble into space, as he is often off balance (however slightly) by that point.
  31. Nov 4, 2019
    #31

    duffer Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's Scout

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    34,854
    Location:
    Chelsea fan.
    The ref decides.
  32. Nov 4, 2019
    #32

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    22,846
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    Would you fall if you don't dive? If the answer is Nope and you fall down theatrically then you dive, simple as.
  33. Nov 4, 2019
    #33

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    22,846
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    It won't be that straightforward when the attackers are actively trying to make that contact to make a meal out of it.

    Players that has the intention to dive will have their own bag of tricks to make the defender seems guilty. Although on the flip side the defender would also has their own bag of tricks to make a sinister foul of their own.
  34. Nov 4, 2019
    #34

    duffer Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's Scout

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    34,854
    Location:
    Chelsea fan.
    I hate that some seem to think "contact = a foul".

    "There was definitely contact" is something you hear all the time. So what? It's a contact sport!
  35. Nov 4, 2019
    #35

    Withnail Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Messages:
    833
    Location:
    The Arena of the Unwell
    The old it's a foul anywhere else on the pitch but not in the box nonsense.

    As you say the defender has fouled the player enough to knock him off balance so that the shot goes wide, for example, but not enough to knock him over so nothing is given.

    A foul is a foul and the criteria shouldn't be more strict because the result is a penalty.

    The reason the punishment is more severe in the box is because you're likely preventing a goal scoring opportunity.

    The logic used by the refs is totally flawed here and diving etc is a direct consequence of that.
  36. Nov 4, 2019
    #36

    Classical Mechanic Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2014
    Messages:
    25,358
    It made me smile in the United game when Martial didn't gt the pen but straight after Bournemouth were given really soft free kicks for those pathetic defensive dives refs are too happy to blow for.
  37. Nov 4, 2019
    #37

    el3mel Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    28,623
    Location:
    Egypt
    Definitely it should.
  38. Nov 4, 2019
    #38

    Grande Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    The Land of Do-What-You-Will
    A dive is a dive and a foul is a foul regardless. The problem is that as a referee, even with VAR, it’s most times impossible to tell wether a player is feigning, protecting himself from impact or losing balance.

    Like with Lerma and Martial on Saturday: Lerma goes into Martial’s hip/leg without touching the ball. The question of it being a foul is per definition not wether Martial falls or not, but wether the contact poses a hindrance to Martial. Most refs ad in a ‘poses enough of a hindrance’ there and the bar for ‘enough’ is higher in the penalty area, and the bar is generally higher in England than in most other countries. To me, even with repetitions, I cant really tell from TV repetitions even how hard the impact is, and how it reasonably affects Martials ability to run with the ball. Sometimes a little touch (say on the back of a sprinting ancle) is enough, and it’s still a foul.

    Now, Martial apparently lets his left leg slip the moment of or even before the impact of Lerma. Is his balance so delicate that it’s just what happens? Is he bracing himself for the blow? Or for an inevitable fall? Or is he aiming to make the ref think it’s a pen? To know this, we’d have to be inside Martial’s head. And it is most likely be a combination, for a player who senses the impact coming, who reflexively knows he’ll probably not get off a good shot with the impact affecting him, and who has learnt by experience he’ll not get a correct decision from the ref unless he is taking a visible tumble.

    Many times thus, it will be a foul and a dive at the same time, and ideally to me, if it’s blatant enough, a ref will award a penalty and give a yellow for a dive in the same situation. I think it’s wise for a ref though to let slip in many of these situations, as it’s so hard to tell and the consequences are big. So I think the ref did the right thing with Martial/Lerma.
  39. Nov 4, 2019
    #39

    Grande Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    The Land of Do-What-You-Will
    So if I pat you on the back with two fingers while you stand waiting for a corner, and you throw yourself up in the air, rolling around on the grass screaming, it’s not a dive? You’re oversimplifying.
  40. Nov 4, 2019
    #40

    Peyroteo Professional Ronaldo PR Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Messages:
    9,402
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    Supports:
    Sporting CP
    Sometimes a small bit of contact is enough to go down or unbalance a player but it doesn’t seem that way when you’re watching a random angle in slow motion.

    Refs won’t call a foul unless the players go down so they’re justified in doing it a lot of the time. Not always though, obviously.