Diving in the world cup.

Refs have had to stop the game 302 times, 293 times the players were play acting. Not one serious injury that I can recall.

Theres a 97% chance the players are cheating with just 9 real injuries and I bet most of them could have walked off.

132 minutes of time were wasted.

Teams who were winning were twice as likely to fake, Brazil were the worst, bosnia the best.

Yet some people believe this not a problem.

All info from the bbc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28100892

 

Some people have said that the standard of refereeing has been good. Not in many of the matches I have seen.

... and "Simulation" still goes unpunished.

 

Those figures are about 80% incorrect as I would expect from a Flyer post

 

Far be it from me to suggest that Flyer's statistics are wrong..... I just think that the definition of 'diving' or 'simulation' being employed is a very extreme one - it seems that if a player isn't killed, then they are clearly cheating, and that's obviously not the case.

 

From the games I have seen I thought the Referees were generally good, but then I saw the Ref in Hollands game not give Robben a Yellow even when he saw that Robben very clearly dived, and Robben then dove again to win the pen and the match. Robben admited to diving when many on here were saying he should have had a pen first half. So while the Ref screwed up, I think as usual they have a really hard job with Diving. But for me Diving in the Penalty area when very clear to the Ref should be dealt with by a Red card - Robbens first dive 2nd half was very clear, and a red card would have stopped at least him doing it again and giving Holland a win they cheated themselves to.

 

What's the difference between 'diving', 'going down easily', and 'making sure the ref sees I've been fouled' - maybe Robben aside.

It's not a binary solution, despite some people feeling that it is.

 

There is no difference, it's all cheating.

Also the title probably should have been called play acting as that's what the stats are about. It doesn't even take into account dives where the player doesn't roll around.

 

Far be it for me to create another situation where I get reported, but you're wrong. Again.

 

But it is also cheating to deliberately foul a player. As it is against the laws of the game, every time a player stops an opponent it is cheating. They are trying to gain an unfair advantage for their team, which effectively is no different to trying to "win" an adventage for your side.

Where is the difference in a referee not seeing a foul & allowing play to continue than in a referee giving a foul when no offence has occured?

The sporting ethos of the Corinithians (who insisted their goalkeeper stand aside for a penalty) disappeared before the start of the 1900's.

Football is no different now than when I first really started to watch it in the early 60's.

 

Are you telling me the Mexican deliberately fouled robben in injury time? He thought giving away a penalty was a good idea or he placed his foot near robben and robben did a dying swan impression?

Its not cheating to foul, its cheating when you deceive the ref.

 

Of course it's cheating. Any act outside of the laws or the spirit of the game can be classed as cheating - if there's no middle ground.

However, the simple fact is that there's a gulf of potential situations between a leg-breaker and a dive. If a player gets his legs kicked from underneath him, but he wants to make sure the ref has seen it, so throws his arms out a little theatrically, does that mean it wasn't a foul? Of course not. Is it cheating? No, because he was fouled, but it may be that the ref has missed a few fouls because he didn't see or wasn't up with play.

In the case of Robben and the penalty that was actually given, I'd have to question why on earth Marques stuck his leg out at all. All he's done there is give an opportunity and made the referee make a decision. The 'penalty' that should have been given in the first half, when two defenders both fouled Robben, wasn't given because of his tendency to overreact. But when you look at it, it was still a foul, and should have been given.

 

But that is the one Robben admitted falling to the ground on. He claims he did it it because he thought he was going to be tackled but wasn't - no connection he said himself.

 

I have the belief that play acting could have been stopped or at least largely reduced if governing bodies were serious about stopping it. Obviously they're not and they don't mind it existing. Maybe it keeps certain teams in their positions.

 

I think there was another incident, he was caught twice in that one.

 

Its been a problem for decades but they only made it worse with every crackdown. Its just made it more beneficial to cheat.

I saw a player sliding in to win the ball cleanly, the other player saw him coming and stuck his leg in the way on purpose and he got the other player booked.

I could name half a dozen ways to stop it but nothing will be done.

 

Definitely fouled by both defenders. One caught the back of his calf and knocked him off balance, then the other took his shins.

Robben has a reputation though, so defenders always have to be careful, just like he will get fouled and not get the kick.

 

I don't understand why Robben should say what he did then if the above really was as you describe?! I didn't see any other incident in the 1st half that he could have been talking about.

I don't reckon photographic evidence in matches is the answer either because so often different camera angles give differerent impresssions. The impression that is most likely to be correct is the Referees first one. I'm ok with goal line and side line technology though.

 

I'm sure there was another dive were forgetting about Oslo and robben is talking about that.

67mins Robben again causing problems down the right and two defenders now are on him to send him down the flank - a bit of a slip from the Mexican defender almost lets Robben in but then he also slips and thinks that he is taken out and appeals for a penalty.... Not given - would have been soft.

He claims he dived in the first half but I think he got mixed up.

 

The one he refers to may well not have been for a penalty. Not that there's a difference if he admits diving to try win a free kick. Personally, for the penalty that was given, Marques didn't need to stick his leg out. Same as Aquino didn't need to go walkabout and leave Shneijder unmarked for the equaliser. Two lapses after a great performance has cost them their place in the quarter finals.

 

It's not cheating to foul? Are you sure about this? Most fouls are committed in the hope that they will deceive the ref & nothing will be given. By definition, to break the laws/rules is trying to gain an unfair advantage. Thus it is cheating.

By your logic it would not be cheating to dive if the referee ignores you but it is if he buys the dive.

How many times do you see players deliberately stop opponents by holding them or blocking them? Every time this is cheating, regardless of whether the referee penalises them or not.

I am not trying to moralise on this issue. I was personally guilty many a time of deliberately stopping the opposition & I can't remember ever "diving" myself, but I fail to see the difference between doing so & punching somebody in the kidneys etc. It always happened & is likely to for the forseeable future.

I also "cheated" by influencing the referee to give me decisions. On the first disputed decision given against my side, I made a point of telling my team mates that the referee was correct. I knew full well that I would get every 50-50 decision from him after that!

In every walk of life it is common practice to try to gain an advantage for yourself. Football is no different.