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.