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

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20,188
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?
 

711

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
19,653
Location
Don't Sign Old Players
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?
Who? Name names, or you've made it up.
 

macheda14

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
1,350
Location
Manchester
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?
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.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20,188
Who? Name names, or you've made it up.
This post prompted the thread but I see it said fairly regularly:

If you actually watch the video he clearly gets stamped on his right foot. You can argue that he makes a meal out of it, but it’s clearly not a dive. Any amount of laughing smileys won’t change that.
 

Scroto Baggins

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
1,383
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.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
36,427
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
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
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.
 

DVG7

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2019
Messages
115
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
 

VeevaVee

despite the protests, wears Ugg boots
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
34,309
Location
Manchester
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.
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.
 

stepic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
6,495
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.
 

TheThingThatShouldNotBe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 2, 2018
Messages
78
Supports
Chelsea
Absolutely. Look at Deulofeu and Son this weekend for prime examples.

Unfortunately there are too many who justify this type of cheating.
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
7,321
Martial should have had a penalty awarded if thats what youre getting at. feck VAR.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
20,833
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.
Refs won’t blow whistle if players stay on feet, so can’t blame players when they go down when they are fouled.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
9,930
Location
Dublin
Absolutely. Look at Deulofeu and Son this weekend for prime examples.

Unfortunately there are too many who justify this type of cheating.
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.
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
10,241
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)
 

SadlerMUFC

Full Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
2,225
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...
 

FutbolFan

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 10, 2018
Messages
136
Supports
Chelsea
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.
Seconds before there is a big whack on Kovacic foot that VAR finds acceptable. System encourages players to go down and is ridiculous.
 

RK

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
15,785
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.
 

Dargonk

Ninja Scout
Scout
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
17,212
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.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
14,409
Location
Canberra
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.
If they dive then part of the punishment should be the free-kick is reversed, IMO.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
24,647
Location
Where fans' expectations are too high
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
Get Elon Musk involved. I’m sure he’s already 85% of the way into finalizing that formula :drool:
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
34,966
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.
 

_00_deathscar

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
119
Supports
Liverpool
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...
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...
 

_00_deathscar

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
119
Supports
Liverpool
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.
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.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
34,966
Location
Chelsea fan.
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.
The ref decides.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
23,107
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
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.
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.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
34,966
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!
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,019
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
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.
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.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
25,690
Location
xG Zombie Nation
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.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
2,556
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.
 

Peyroteo

Professional Ronaldo PR Guy
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
9,436
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.