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

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
27,547
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
Slight contact, no.

The question is rather, if there is contact that is actually a foul, that inhibits the action you were taking with the ball, but you aren't necessarily knocked over, should you go down in such a case, given that referees generally don't blow fouls when players stay on their feet?

I'd say yes to that. It's not ideal, but the onus here is on the refs to referee these incidents properly.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,440
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
Yes, very much so. If you act at all, you should get a yellow. People going down screaming after being grazed by a pinky deserve a red even. It's so fecking pathetic.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
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...
This is a great point and we should see more of it.
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,746
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
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...
Yes, the refs definitely play their part too. They need to start calling fouls when a player doesn't go down...
 

Pow

New Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
3,516
Location
Somewhere
Supports
Chelsea
Im obviously on one side here. But oppo fans do you really think the delefeou one was a pen ?
For what its worth i dont think the son one was either.
 

Sarni

nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
57,439
Location
Krakow
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.
Remember a game against Liverpool some 13-14 years ago, back in Ruud days. He was fouled in the box, I think it was by Hyypia, but refused to go down. He lost the ball and did not get a foul. If he goes down in that situation, we would have 100% got a penalty but they are almost never given unless you are on the floor. I think I can't remember a single penalty that was given despite player staying on their feet, even if the foul clearly obstructed their ability to score.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
33,225
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
Of course. I think obvious dives should be harshly punished so that players might think twice about going down because they were slighlty touched. Football would be better to watch if it weren't for all these situations where players make up the contact in order to dive.

Feels like the majority of penalties this season have not been penalties really but the video showed that there was slight contact and therefor not a clear an obvious error etc.
 

Pow

New Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
3,516
Location
Somewhere
Supports
Chelsea
Remember a game against Liverpool some 13-14 years ago, back in Ruud days. He was fouled in the box, I think it was by Hyypia, but refused to go down. He lost the ball and did not get a foul. If he goes down in that situation, we would have 100% got a penalty but they are almost never given unless you are on the floor. I think I can't remember a single penalty that was given despite player staying on their feet, even if the foul clearly obstructed their ability to score.
Gerrard got one like that vs charlton years back. Only one i can remember.
 

Swarlos

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
157
Location
Oslo, Norway.
Supports
Lyn FK, Liverpool
I think there are a couple of aspects to this.

The refs have pretty much set a precedence of never giving a pen unless a player goes to ground. This results in a lot of incidents where penalties should have been awarded, but the ref misses it. This leads to a mentality where players go down easier in the box. Why would a player fight to stay on his feet when you receive feck all for it most of the time?

The thing that complicates this is that it's pretty hard to determine how much of an impact any contact has. Armchair judges view the replays in slow motion and determine they barely made contact and call it diving, but even the slightest contact can get you off balance in tight situations. People will always be biased towards the team they follow, making it hard to judge fairly. VAR have probably made it easier if applied correctly, and this needs to be taken advantage of. I don't think it will stop before players can actually get pens without going down.
 

jeff gurr

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
1,179
Location
Canada
Supports
Leicester City
Going down easily is a tetchy topic, some are in favour while other prefer it to come gradually as the play progresses. It does seem that those that don't go down at all are not popular but going down often is frowned upon also. The FA needs to issue a protocol for going down so young players know when the moment is right.
 

Reducation

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Messages
1,521
Location
Northern England
When this thread was active the football authorities had long decided that diving should be part of the game. Last night at Anfield the results of this policy became even more stark, embarrassing and literally ridiculous.
 

JogaBonitoRooney

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 11, 2023
Messages
351
Contact doesn't mean foul. If there's slight contact and it naturally makes you stumble but you try stay up and play on, then refs should award the penalty if the advantage doesn't lead to a goal.

If there's minuscule contact the player feels but it doesn't impede their run but the player uses the opportunity anyway to exaggerate and dive, the player should get carded. Refs and VAR need to do better.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
27,547
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
Contact doesn't mean foul. If there's slight contact and it naturally makes you stumble but you try stay up and play on, then refs should award the penalty if the advantage doesn't lead to a goal.
They never do
 

AndySmith1990

Full Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
Messages
5,892
If you're able to stay on your feet but choose to go down, then it's a dive. Simple as

I'd like to see diving erased from the game entirely. But unfortunately officiating in football is a shambles so that's never going to happen
 

GazTheLegend

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
3,595
When this thread was active the football authorities had long decided that diving should be part of the game. Last night at Anfield the results of this policy became even more stark, embarrassing and literally ridiculous.
Yeah. In all seriousness anybody that follows any other sport looks down their nose at football essentially because cheating is not only acceptable but considered to be "part of the game" now, even though with all the various tools at their disposal they could get rid of it tomorrow. If Jota gets a red card for diving instead of being given a penalty yesterday, the game overall would be better for it.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
27,547
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
Rewatched it a few times, don't think that's a dive. he's not overrun the ball and will clearly be able to run it into an open net if he doesn't fall.

He falls over the first moment his clipped foot makes contact with the ground and you can see from the behind shot, that his foot lands very awkwardly. He was clearly thrown off balance
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,202
Look at who the referee was...

It's not really a surprise that Liverpool diving is no longer commented upon after so many years of Suarez and Stevie Starfish.

Referees should be reminded to consider if the contact warrants the reaction. Neither would be penalties if they did.
 

Vargo Hoat

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
37
Location
Oslo
Supports
Union Berlin
Anyone who says Jota yesterday is a blatant dive and no penalty either argues in bad faith or does not understand how hard it is to stay on your feet after a nudge in high speed. That being said, it looks silly and I think there should be an opening in the rules to award the penalty for the foul but also a yellow card for the attacker for exaggerating after the contact.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,329
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
Rewatched it a few times, don't think that's a dive. he's not overrun the ball and will clearly be able to run it into an open net if he doesn't fall.

He falls over the first moment his clipped foot makes contact with the ground and you can see from the behind shot, that his foot lands very awkwardly. He was clearly thrown off balance
Shocked a Liverpool supporter came out with this nonsense :wenger:
 

Jig1234

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
1,351
Location
England, UK
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 you can simply tap in to a open net and you have no reason to dive or claim a pen. Yes, it should be a considered a dive. Jota could have scored and got himself a goal, but thought let me dive, win a pen instead for someone else to score. It just looks bad, and unnecessary when the goal is open and you can't miss. More likely to miss or have a penalty saved anyway. So, why not just tap it in?
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,672
Location
W.Yorks
In a perfect world you shouldn't have to dive to get a penalty - if the refs did their jobs properly, and judge fouls based on contact/offence, not on the result, then diving would stop.

There was that Brentford one earlier this season wher ethe goalkeeper wiped out a guy, but because he got straight back up he didn't get a pen - it's stuff like that that makes players then want to dive.

Obviously not all contact constitutes a pen though - For Liverpools yesterday, I think the first one the challenge/contact just about warrants a pen (even though Diaz took a dive) but the second one the contact is nowhere near sufficient to be a pen.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
Rewatched it a few times, don't think that's a dive. he's not overrun the ball and will clearly be able to run it into an open net if he doesn't fall.

He falls over the first moment his clipped foot makes contact with the ground and you can see from the behind shot, that his foot lands very awkwardly. He was clearly thrown off balance
Agreed. One of those where it helps to have been knocked over in that situation to understand that it doesn’t take much contact to lose your balance. Easier to ride a meaty hit higher up the body than it is a clip around your foot or ankle.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,329
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
If you can simply tap in to a open net and you have no reason to dive or claim a pen. Yes, it should be a considered a dive. Jota could have scored and got himself a goal, but thought let me dive, win a pen instead for someone else to score. It just looks bad, and unnecessary when the goal is open and you can't miss. More likely to miss or have a penalty saved anyway. So, why not just tap it in?
I don't think it was a tap in. The ball looks like it had run wide of the far post and a little too far ahead of him when he went down. I think he decides it's a risky one to catch and pull back and as he's felt the contact he goes down.
 

Statue of Limitations

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,046
Case by case basis for me as it's not black and white.
By the same token, players who are fouled but stay on their feet should still be able to be given the decision and not 'punished' for not falling down.
 

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
10,462
Regarding the Jota incident yesterday, it looked like he could just tap it in, so I don't fully understand the logic of going down. Perhaps he instinctively thought he could also make sure Newcastle got a player sent off, but that isn't even the case with current rules. And a penalty is less of a certain chance than what he had. Kind of a dumb decision, because he also ran the risk of the ref giving him a yellow instead. Would have been great if the referee had the balls to give him a yellow - instead this will just encourage other players to do similar stuff.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,348
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Regarding the Jota incident yesterday, it looked like he could just tap it in, so I don't fully understand the logic of going down. Perhaps he instinctively thought he could also make sure Newcastle got a player sent off, but that isn't even the case with current rules. And a penalty is less of a certain chance than what he had. Kind of a dumb decision, because he also ran the risk of the ref giving him a yellow instead. Would have been great if the referee had the balls to give him a yellow - instead this will just encourage other players to do similar stuff.
Isn’t Jota right footed? His touch past the keeper was quite heavy and heading wide, away from the goal. Could be he didn’t trust himself to score while sprinting away from the goal on his weaker foot? The sodden pitch was probably on his mind too.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
9,888
That last night from Jota was quite frankly embarrassing, he takes two steps before throwing himself to the ground.

Two fecking steps, he had control of his body, he had balance, but realized he'd over ran the ball slightly and the defenders were moving towards the line.

It's a dive and should have been a yellow card.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
27,547
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
That last night from Jota was quite frankly embarrassing, he takes two steps before throwing himself to the ground.

Two fecking steps, he had control of his body, he had balance, but realized he'd over ran the ball slightly and the defenders were moving towards the line.

It's a dive and should have been a yellow card.
Not actually two steps. he falls as soon as his clipped foot makes contact with the ground.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
9,888
Not actually two steps. he falls as soon as his clipped foot makes contact with the ground.
He doesn't, he plants his clipped foot, takes another step,
Realized he'd overran the ball and it wasn't quite an easy chance and threw himself to the ground.

Embarrassing, absolutely embarrassing.
 

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
10,462
Isn’t Jota right footed? His touch past the keeper was quite heavy and heading wide, away from the goal. Could be he didn’t trust himself to score while sprinting away from the goal on his weaker foot? The sodden pitch was probably on his mind too.
He's right-footed, sure, but I'd trust the most one-footed PL footballer to put that chance away on his weaker foot. And I actually think Jota tends to be decent with either. It could be that he thought the ball was running away from him, but watching it live, it just looked like a certainty once he had rounded Dubravka.
 

Big Andy

Bloke
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
34,582
I thought ref's were clamping down on minimal contact fouls this year?
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
I wrote this in the VAR thread already. At the heart of the issue is a false antithesis. Because it's usually true to say that something is either a dive or a foul, a rare area of overlap where an instance contains both a foul and a dive is overlooked or dismissed as an impossibility. It's very much possible though, that a player can be fouled in such a way that impedes them and essentially prevents them from scoring, but that it's a foul that lacks enough force to also knock them off their feet. It's absolutely bizarre that an occurrence this rare has happened twice in the Liverpool game but I think it did. The Jota one was somehow even worse, because it's hard to argue that he was prevented from doing anything when he could have just behaved like human being with a modicum of integrity and scored anyhow, but he chose to dive.

Now, I despise diving more than probably anyone I know. I think it's a blight that plagues the sport and should be discouraged by all means necessary even if it can't be eradicated. I also despise the casuistry that often accompanies any discussion of it, including the resignation to it as 'inevitable'; 'part of the modern(sic) game'; or trickery no different than dribbling (remember that professor from Uruguay?); or some variant of everyone does it; or worst of them all 'he is entitled to go down'. It's dishonesty and deceit, and it disgraceful that it's so prevalent and tolerated to the degree it is. It's also something not as ubiquitous in other sports. And how sad it is that in a sport in which most participants still pride themselves (mostly for wrong reasons) of being masculine, this should be one of the things that distinguishes it from other competitions, that you are exaggerating the extent of being hurt and play-act to gain an advantage. It's very disheartening and it seems like it's steadily getting worse.

I firmly believe there is a solution to it though. VAR is the perfect opportunity to enforce something that would otherwise be very hard to do. I believe you would need just two simple measures. A- start awarding penalties for fouls in the box even when the said foul isn't forceful enough to topple someone. B - Start giving yellow cards for dives consistently and uncompromisingly, including in such rare cases as the one we are discussing, where someone was fouled and a penalty was awarded, yet the player felt the need to deceive and sell what happened with theatrics and cynicism. With these two measures applied, there would be enough deterrence for diving, and you wouldn't be forced to make a moral choice that requires extraordinary heroics of choosing to hurt your own team for the sake of honesty. I think red cards (someone mentioned) would be too draconic, and I don't think you would need to go that far. Yellow would be fine if it meant referees giving high priority to it, including second yellow even when you got a penalty.

The main problem to this solution is that it would (at least in the short term) lead to more VAR, and more penalties. And this is the last thing your average angry grandpa wants to hear, having already convinced themselves that the 'game's gone', and that VAR had ruined their childhood. The average English football fan is a proper reactionary on this issue and they resist change of any kind with every fibre of their being, cause everything was good in the good ol' days, when men were men, and you had vinyls, and you could get into a fistfight with someone but then still go for a drink in the pub afterwards, and the youth respected their elders. We don't need change. Life (fotball) was good just the way it was. For this particular solution to work, given such an attitude, it would take remarkably strong will from the decision makers, to implement something against the grain of popular opinion, and I don't see things developing in that direction at all.
 

Andy_Cole

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
7,855
Location
Manchester
No. Many times you don’t go down with a clear foul and don’t get anything referees are too shit to see this.
 

RedBanker

I love you Ole
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
2,636
If there is slight contact but you massively exaggerate it, should it count as a date?