The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

Commentator seemed convinced.
What was the refs decision.?
Maybe a trial period !
Blatant diving in the area to get a pen should be a red that would stop it as yellow hasn’t.

You'd think public perception would have, to some extent, help put a stop to it. After all, type in Neymar into Google, and top of the list are lots of headlines of the media mocking him for his dive, and sharing the ridicule he is getting on social media. That cannot be good for his reputation. It cannot be good for PSG's reputation, so you'd think they'd ask their players to stop being morons. Not good for the French League either, or the Brazilian national team. When such a high profile players does that, it makes anyone or any organisation he is associated with look like idiots. Surely his sponsors don't like it, unless he has signed up for Speedos for Olympic divers.

The issue is, Neymar himself has no shame. It is players like him that many ridicule PSG and don't take them seriously. Style, no substance. It is also why, despite his technical ability, it is likely that most of the best / richest teams in the world wouldn't want him. As a United fan, I wouldn't want him at the club. I guess most other club fans from the top clubs may feel the same.

I do think some sort of ban for absolutely clear dives and feigning injury would be a good idea (would have to be extremely clear though, as sometime innocuous contact can actually be bloody painful, or make a player fall hard just based on upsetting their balance at pace). However, the damage to his legacy is always going to be much worse. Love or hate their clubs, most fans still have the upmost respect for the likes of Gerrard, Keane, Scholes, Henry, Zidane, etc because of their ability as a player. I think many will remember Neymar as a drama queen and a show pony.

 

[Orikoru]

Commentator seemed convinced.
What was the refs decision.?
Maybe a trial period !
Blatant diving in the area to get a pen should be a red that would stop it as yellow hasn’t.

I think it's difficult to prove conclusively. We've seen in the past people booked for diving incorrectly because the ref hasn't seen the contact from the correct angle. Even on this one, he's certainly made a meal of it, but the replay angle doesn't actually show you if there's contact or not. It looks like he may have caught the bottom of Neymar's shin with his toe. Of course not enough to warrant that reaction, but if he has made contact, you're not going to be able to send off the attacker for going down are you? That would be mad. It would only be if the replay shows extremely clearly that there was no contact whatsoever - and to be honest not many people are outright diving with zero contact so it would be very rare.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think it's difficult to prove conclusively. We've seen in the past people booked for diving incorrectly because the ref hasn't seen the contact from the correct angle. Even on this one, he's certainly made a meal of it, but the replay angle doesn't actually show you if there's contact or not. It looks like he may have caught the bottom of Neymar's shin with his toe. Of course not enough to warrant that reaction, but if he has made contact, you're not going to be able to send off the attacker for going down are you? That would be mad. It would only be if the replay shows extremely clearly that there was no contact whatsoever - and to be honest not many people are outright diving with zero contact so it would be very rare.

You are just worried about losing Richarlison and Kane for half the season if it was brought in

 

[Orikoru]

You are just worried about losing Richarlison and Kane for half the season if it was brought in

I've never seen Kane outright dive without any contact - that's really the comment I was making. Football have created this climate where it's ok to go down under minimal contact, so unless the replay clearly shows there was none, I can't see red cards ever being handed out.

Even over and above that, I remember Bale playing for us back in the day, some thug such as Charlie Adam would come flying in and he would jump out of the way and hit the deck. No contact but he's had to leap over him to save his ankles getting broken - and people used to say that was a dive like he's meant to take a six month injury for the sake of one free kick 40 yards out. There doesn't even need to be contact for it to be a foul.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I've never seen Kane outright dive without any contact - that's really the comment I was making. Football have created this climate where it's ok to go down under minimal contact, so unless the replay clearly shows there was none, I can't see red cards ever being handed out.

Even over and above that, I remember Bale playing for us back in the day, some thug such as Charlie Adam would come flying in and he would jump out of the way and hit the deck. No contact but he's had to leap over him to save his ankles getting broken - and people used to say that was a dive like he's meant to take a six month injury for the sake of one free kick 40 yards out. There doesn't even need to be contact for it to be a foul.

I agree with your last point and I think refs are getting better at that. The 'reckless' tackle is gradually being eliminated.

In terms Kane not doing an outright dive . Mmmmm. As with a number of rules, things can change if they want to. I remember the outrage from old school attackers who stated you couldn't jump without swinging your arms, often elbowing someone in the face. They managed after a few red cards, well apart from Andy Carroll . They would soon get the message after a few reds, it might reduce the 'I felt a touch', 'they are entitled to go down' as well.

 

[Orikoru]

I agree with your last point and I think refs are getting better at that. The 'reckless' tackle is gradually being eliminated.

In terms Kane not doing an outright dive . Mmmmm. As with a number of rules, things can change if they want to. I remember the outrage from old school attackers who stated you couldn't jump without swinging your arms, often elbowing someone in the face. They managed after a few red cards, well apart from Andy Carroll . They would soon get the message after a few reds, it might reduce the 'I felt a touch', 'they are entitled to go down' as well.

It depends what you call diving, I don't call it diving if there's contact, but if you don't agree with that statement then yes you'll say he's dived lots of times. I'm still not wholly against it, if you can do a bit of skill and the defender has a little kick at you, winning a penalty is as good as an assist at the end of the day. I see it as clever. Totally different to just throwing yourself without contact, there's no skill in that.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It depends what you call diving, I don't call it diving if there's contact, but if you don't agree with that statement then yes you'll say he's dived lots of times. I'm still not wholly against it, if you can do a bit of skill and the defender has a little kick at you, winning a penalty is as good as an assist at the end of the day. I see it as clever. Totally different to just throwing yourself without contact, there's no skill in that.

We definitely do not agree there. Degrees of cheating or just cheating? I can see why you wouldn't want a red card rule brought in then.

 

[Orikoru]

We definitely do not agree there. Degrees of cheating or just cheating? I can see why you wouldn't want a red card rule brought in then.

If you go past a defender and he kicks your shin, that's a foul, no? Or is it dependant on how hard he kicks you?

 

[Bunkermagnet]

We definitely do not agree there. Degrees of cheating or just cheating? I can see why you wouldn't want a red card rule brought in then.

You’re barking up the wrong tree. Kane is immune from criticism for his diving from all Spurs fans and some because he’s Englands captain.
Anyone who thinks there as contact on Neymar and he was justified in his blatant dive, needs to think again on their thinking of tackles and the game

 

[ColchesterFC]

If you go past a defender and he kicks your shin, that's a foul, no? Or is it dependant on how hard he kicks you?

It can be a foul and a dive. If the defender kicks the attacker it's a foul. If the contact isn't enough to take the player down but he throws himself to the floor anyway then it's a dive. The ref should book the defender for the foul and award a penalty and then book the attacker for the dive.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If you go past a defender and he kicks your shin, that's a foul, no? Or is it dependant on how hard he kicks you?

Is football a contact sport?

We are not talking about kicking a shin here, we are talking about brushing against someone. Is the contact enough to interfere with you or is it just contact? You play don't you, surely you know the difference.

 

[Swango1980]

It depends what you call diving, I don't call it diving if there's contact, but if you don't agree with that statement then yes you'll say he's dived lots of times. I'm still not wholly against it, if you can do a bit of skill and the defender has a little kick at you, winning a penalty is as good as an assist at the end of the day. I see it as clever. Totally different to just throwing yourself without contact, there's no skill in that.

That is one of the issues.

Football is still, essentially, a contact sport.

So, there can be contact and it being absolutely no foul. Whether that be a slight brushing of bodies as one player tries to get tight to another, or a player tries to roll his opponent, etc. There will be countless scenarios where there is contact, but nobody having any doubt there is no foul. Therefore, if a player is to fall down dramatically, it is a dive. A common one is a defender trying to shield a ball out of play deep in their own half. They are clearly waiting for contact, and as soon as there is the lightest of light touches, they flip themselves over. It is pretty clear the touch has not caused them to fall (unless the attacker has gone in too hard), and therefore they've intentionally thrown themselves to the ground, which will fit the definition of a dive for most. Sadly, the referees have allowed this for years, and nearly always give a free kick to the defender.

However, there can be no contact and it would be a foul, as you've already discussed. I mentioned before, in his 1st tenure at Utd Ronaldo was clean through on goal. He knocked it past the keeper and tried to get past him as he flew out at him. Kepper missed the ball as it went past, and Ronaldo had to jump about 4 foot in the air just to avoid a heavy contact. On landing he fell over, whereas if he had been able to stay on his feet he'd have a tap in. Goalkeepers are an over-protected species anyway, so no penalty was given. However, Ronaldo was given a yellow for diving. Inexplicably, some pundits (guys who have played the game, so they know best, right?) tried to justify this by the whole "no contact" cliche. I can imagine one of these ex referee pundits would probably try to do the same. However, a player can easily lose their balance when successfully avoiding contact from another player. No intention to fall over, and therefore shouldn't be classed a dive.

 

[Orikoru]

It can be a foul and a dive. If the defender kicks the attacker it's a foul. If the contact isn't enough to take the player down but he throws himself to the floor anyway then it's a dive. The ref should book the defender for the foul and award a penalty and then book the attacker for the dive.

That's interesting and I wouldn't be against that at all.

Is football a contact sport?

We are not talking about kicking a shin here, we are talking about brushing against someone. Is the contact enough to interfere with you or is it just contact? You play don't you, surely you know the difference.

I'm not claiming someone should go down from a shoulder barge, they are not fouls. I'm talking about going past them and getting clipped. In that scenario it doesn't take much to trip someone if they're running at speed.

 

[Orikoru]

That is one of the issues.

Football is still, essentially, a contact sport.

So, there can be contact and it being absolutely no foul. Whether that be a slight brushing of bodies as one player tries to get tight to another, or a player tries to roll his opponent, etc. There will be countless scenarios where there is contact, but nobody having any doubt there is no foul. Therefore, if a player is to fall down dramatically, it is a dive. A common one is a defender trying to shield a ball out of play deep in their own half. They are clearly waiting for contact, and as soon as there is the lightest of light touches, they flip themselves over. It is pretty clear the touch has not caused them to fall (unless the attacker has gone in too hard), and therefore they've intentionally thrown themselves to the ground, which will fit the definition of a dive for most. Sadly, the referees have allowed this for years, and nearly always give a free kick to the defender.

However, there can be no contact and it would be a foul, as you've already discussed. I mentioned before, in his 1st tenure at Utd Ronaldo was clean through on goal. He knocked it past the keeper and tried to get past him as he flew out at him. Kepper missed the ball as it went past, and Ronaldo had to jump about 4 foot in the air just to avoid a heavy contact. On landing he fell over, whereas if he had been able to stay on his feet he'd have a tap in. Goalkeepers are an over-protected species anyway, so no penalty was given. However, Ronaldo was given a yellow for diving. Inexplicably, some pundits (guys who have played the game, so they know best, right?) tried to justify this by the whole "no contact" cliche. I can imagine one of these ex referee pundits would probably try to do the same. However, a player can easily lose their balance when successfully avoiding contact from another player. No intention to fall over, and therefore shouldn't be classed a dive.

Sorry for not being clear, but when I talk about going down under contact I'm on about attempts at a tackle that clip the shin/ankle/foot etc. Not just going to shoulder to shoulder which shouldn't be a foul unless there's full use of the arm. But if you stick a foot in or go to ground, contact the player and get nothing on the ball, more often than not that's a foul.

Agree with the second point, just as I said about Bale. It is contextual.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I'm not claiming someone should go down from a shoulder barge, they are not fouls. I'm talking about going past them and getting clipped. In that scenario it doesn't take much to trip someone if they're running at speed.

That's a different beastie altogether. I agree with that. If you are clipped then you will fall, that's a foul. The faster you are running the less contact you need to knock you over. I'm talking about feeling contact and going down. Add in the player that leaves their leg out to catch a defender when by running normally they would be past them. None of it is rocket science.

 

[Orikoru]

That's a different beastie altogether. I agree with that. If you are clipped then you will fall, that's a foul. The faster you are running the less contact you need to knock you over. I'm talking about feeling contact and going down. Add in the player that leaves their leg out to catch a defender when by running normally they would be past them. None of it is rocket science.

Yeah, there are subtle nuances between all though, and VAR was supposed to help us identify, but it hasn't really. In many ways watching a slowed down replay actually make it harder to tell as it can look more like a dive without the original speed taken into account. The only thing it should be able to tell you, if you have enough camera angles, is when there's no contact at all and no valid reason for the player to go down.

I'm not defending the Neymar one too much - one thing I don't like is the additional acting of lying on the ground pretending it hurt a lot more than it did. I'd have slightly more respect if he just got up having achieved the outcome he wanted. But I would like to see it from more angles, as I suspect there was very slight contact from the defender on the bottom of his shin that you can't really see from the video that was posted. As soon as he slid to ground while Neymar had full control of the ball he was asking for trouble, it's an awful decision to do that when you know who you're up against. Yes Neymar is a complete see you next Tuesday, but the ref still has to give a pen if you slid in and catch him in the box - so don't do it?

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I've never seen Kane outright dive without any contact - that's really the comment I was making. Football have created this climate where it's ok to go down under minimal contact, so unless the replay clearly shows there was none, I can't see red cards ever being handed out.

Even over and above that, I remember Bale playing for us back in the day, some thug such as Charlie Adam would come flying in and he would jump out of the way and hit the deck. No contact but he's had to leap over him to save his ankles getting broken - and people used to say that was a dive like he's meant to take a six month injury for the sake of one free kick 40 yards out. There doesn't even need to be contact for it to be a foul.

I've got a voucher you can have for a free eyetest at your nearest specsavers opticians?

And this is where football has failed for me. Pundits,analysts, ex players, managers etc have all pedalled this narrative of " there was contact and xxxxx player had every right to go down" rubbish.

That has to stop in world football.

 

[Orikoru]

I've got a voucher you can have for a free eyetest at your nearest specsavers opticians?

And this is where football has failed for me. Pundits,analysts, ex players, managers etc have all pedalled this narrative of " there was contact and xxxxx player had every right to go down" rubbish.

That has to stop in world football.

I liked @ColchesterFC 's suggestion and I think that's the only way to do it. If you simply starting throwing out cards for 'dives' then we go back to a world where defenders are putting in awful tackles and getting away with it. You need to still punish the bad tackle but also punish the forward if their reaction was way over the top.

To clarify again, Kane goes down and wins penalties for sure, but there is always some level of contact from the defender. If there wasn't he wouldn't get the decision.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I liked @ColchesterFC 's suggestion and I think that's the only way to do it. If you simply starting throwing out cards for 'dives' then we go back to a world where defenders are putting in awful tackles and getting away with it. You need to still punish the bad tackle but also punish the forward if their reaction was way over the top.

To clarify again, Kane goes down and wins penalties for sure, but there is always some level of contact from the defender. If there wasn't he wouldn't get the decision.

You didnt have to clarify, i was only winding you up hance the wink.

Do you really believe the last line???

Infact dont answer it because it'll only end up tit for tat.

 

[Fade and Die]

Gutted that our curse with injuries has struck again.

30 million new defender Aguerd injured in the game against rangers.. never just a knock these days .. straight down for an op on his ankle..

Ogbonna still missing last season (against liverpool where he did his ACL, he slowly working back.. playing for under 23s atm to get fitness)

Dawson is injured for a few weeks

so going into the season we have

Zouma and Diop.

Diop also wanted out because he knows once everyone fit he will be 5th choice lol

the joys

but on the bright side new striker Gianluca Scamacca should be signed today or tomorrow

still need a LB at least and now prob another CB to replace Diop if the fulham rumours are true

I would brace yourself for a back 5 of coufal, Johnson, Zouma, Cresswell & Masuaku (maybe Kostic) vs Citeh.!

Prediction 0-5