Why Players Dive

[JohnR]

Ran into an a revealing item in British Football Weekly -

Said Stan Lazardis, Birmingham winger, "I did get clipped and I thought about going down but you try and be honest and you want to stay on your feet. I had a chat with the referee Matt Messias afterwards and he said to me, 'I really wanted you to score because if you had gone down, I would have sent the player off."

No doubt Messias broke some kind of referees' code by openly voicing his thoughts but that's how the system works, doesn't it?

I really don't like rules that encourage cheating, but PKs as currently interpreted do just that.

[csc7]

Part of the problem with diving is illustrated in this example. The referee saw something that was worthy of sending the defender off, but didn't even call a foul because the guy didn't fall down? Was he calling advantage? Almost no run of play event is as likely as a PK to score a goal.

Part (and only part) of the problem of diving is that referees stick their whistles in their pockets when the ball's in the box. You have to make it look like you've been killed to get a call, even when you've been fouled.

[Jeff from Michigan]

Part of the problem with diving is illustrated in this example. The referee saw something that was worthy of sending the defender off, but didn't even call a foul because the guy didn't fall down? Was he calling advantage? Almost no run of play event is as likely as a PK to score a goal.

Part (and only part) of the problem of diving is that referees stick their whistles in their pockets when the ball's in the box. You have to make it look like you've been killed to get a call, even when you've been fouled.

Well...I see precisely the opposite problem from this example:

I think far too many referees award PKs for superficial contact inside the box...because the same attackers who are perfectly willing (and able) to play through contact in mid-field suddenly go down as if hit by a truck when they're in or near the PA.

Just look at the incentives: an attacker who is fouled...or, more to the point, who can make the referee perceive a foul...is rewarded with a goal (well, a PK...which will usually result in a goal). And if there is contact, however minimal, the referee is unlikely to issue a caution for diving, because there was, after all contact...and the attacker could always have stumbled.

Generally, if I see an attacker making a show of going down in the box, it increases his odds of a card...and correspondingly decreases the odds of a call in his favor. I'm looking for "honest-looking" fouls...and won't regard anything that looks like 50-50 contact as anything other than a routine play for the ball. But anything that looks showy, orchestrated, or chorreographed is unlikely to get anything more than a reminder that the game is better played on the feet.

The problem, it seems to me, is not that referee's "stick their whistles in their pockets" when the play is in the PA. Most good officials are simply being careful not to reward diving, or giving away cheap PKs for superficial contact. Rather, I think the problem is that too many attackers have fooled too many officials for too long...and, once they've sized up their referee for the day, may simply realize that the odds are stacked in their favor.

As far as the quoted incident is concerned, I'd take things with a grain of salt: I've discretely told the DEFENDER under these circumstances what the result might have been...but I'd never say as much to the ATTACKER --- unless, perhaps, I wanted him to realize that the consequence of a successful dive would have been a red card for his innocent opponent...and not simply a PK.

[csc7]

Well...I see precisely the opposite problem from this example:

I think far too many referees award PKs for superficial contact inside the box...because the same attackers who are perfectly willing (and able) to play through contact in mid-field suddenly go down as if hit by a truck when they're in or near the PA.

Just look at the incentives: an attacker who is fouled...or, more to the point, who can make the referee perceive a foul...is rewarded with a goal (well, a PK...which will usually result in a goal). And if there is contact, however minimal, the referee is unlikely to issue a caution for diving, because there was, after all contact...and the attacker could always have stumbled.

Generally, if I see an attacker making a show of going down in the box, it increases his odds of a card...and correspondingly decreases the odds of a call in his favor. I'm looking for "honest-looking" fouls...and won't regard anything that looks like 50-50 contact as anything other than a routine play for the ball. But anything that looks showy, orchestrated, or chorreographed is unlikely to get anything more than a reminder that the game is better played on the feet.

The problem, it seems to me, is not that referee's "stick their whistles in their pockets" when the play is in the PA. Most good officials are simply being careful not to reward diving, or giving away cheap PKs for superficial contact. Rather, I think the problem is that too many attackers have fooled too many officials for too long...and, once they've sized up their referee for the day, may simply realize that the odds are stacked in their favor.

As far as the quoted incident is concerned, I'd take things with a grain of salt: I've discretely told the DEFENDER under these circumstances what the result might have been...but I'd never say as much to the ATTACKER --- unless, perhaps, I wanted him to realize that the consequence of a successful dive would have been a red card for his innocent opponent...and not simply a PK.

I agree that many players go down in the box too easily. But this is clearly a case of bad refereeing. If the contact was worthy of a red card if the guy fell down, it's worthy of a red card if the attacker keeps trying to play through the contact.

When I reffed, I was more willing to call a foul if the attacker tried to play through contact than if he fell at the slightest touch. This applied as much in the box as it did outside the box.

And I don't know the benefits of telling an attacker such a thing. Now that I play simply for fun, I wouldn't want an opponent red carded (unless he's done something significantly bad). But back in my competitive days, I was very interested in getting opponents to commit a red card foul; telling a competitive player that such action would result in a red card for a defender won't make them feel guilty, it will let them know how to get the guy out of the game.

[Jeff from Michigan]

I agree that many players go down in the box too easily. But this is clearly a case of bad refereeing. If the contact was worthy of a red card if the guy fell down, it's worthy of a red card if the attacker keeps trying to play through the contact.

When I reffed, I was more willing to call a foul if the attacker tried to play through contact than if he fell at the slightest touch. This applied as much in the box as it did outside the box.

And I don't know the benefits of telling an attacker such a thing. Now that I play simply for fun, I wouldn't want an opponent red carded (unless he's done something significantly bad). But back in my competitive days, I was very interested in getting opponents to commit a red card foul; telling a competitive player that such action would result in a red card for a defender won't make them feel guilty, it will let them know how to get the guy out of the game.

Well...at least it sounds like the two OF US would likely view things very similarly on the field.

Without seeing the incident, or hearing the exchange between referee and player, I'm hesitant to read much into it, though: I won't make any assumptions on the level of contact from a newspaper account...and we're really hearing only one side to a conversation recount the substance of the talk, not the context. (Eg, if the player approached and asked: "What would have happened if I'd gone down, Ref?" the official could have replied: "Well...if it's a foul in the box, it's a PK...and I'd have had to send off your opponent." "So...he's lucky I scored, then, right?" "Well yes...I guess you could say that..." This could easily lead to the same news account...but the context is quite different).

As far as the red card is concerned, though...if the player still scores despite the foul, then the foul did not result in denying a goal-scoring opportunity, so a red card would be inappropriate...unless the contact itself would qualify as serious foul play. And if it would otherwise be merely a routine trip, then even a caution might be unwarranted. But...without seeing the incident, I won't venture an opinion.

[PVancouver]

Part (and only part) of the problem of diving is that referees stick their whistles in their pockets when the ball's in the box. You have to make it look like you've been killed to get a call, even when you've been fouled.

Just look at the incentives: an attacker who is fouled...or, more to the point, who can make the referee perceive a foul...is rewarded with a goal (well, a PK...which will usually result in a goal).

I agree that many players go down in the box too easily.

These are some of the reasons why I think we should bring DFKs back to the penalty area. If the penalty for a failed dive (a yellow card plus whatever opportunity there is to score) is more nearly equal to the benefit of a successful dive (a DFK instead of a PK), there would be far fewer dives.

[JohnR]

Useful discussion.

It seems to me that this quote involves two issues -

1) PK is a very extreme penalty since it = 85% of a goal
2) The advantage rule in a shooting or near-shooting situation

I like the discussion on item #1 but item #2 also bears consideration. Assume that a player is absolutely whacked in the box -- a clear foul -- but he's strong and brave with excellent balance. So the attacker stumbles forward a few feet as the defender sprawls on the ground, rights himself, and shoots on the keeper in a 50/50 situation .... and the shot is saved. What is the result?

Well, you tell me, but as far as I know - a) It's play on because the attacker maintains possession, and b) no goal. Thus, the player has a 50% chance of scoring by playing on, and an 85% chance of scoring by falling. So if the attacker is strong, agile, and honest -- all supposedly good things -- his team is worse off than if he is weak, clumsy, or scheming.

[whistleblowerusa]

Useful discussion.

It seems to me that this quote involves two issues -

1) PK is a very extreme penalty since it = 85% of a goal
2) The advantage rule in a shooting or near-shooting situation

I like the discussion on item #1 but item #2 also bears consideration. Assume that a player is absolutely whacked in the box -- a clear foul -- but he's strong and brave with excellent balance. So the attacker stumbles forward a few feet as the defender sprawls on the ground, rights himself, and shoots on the keeper in a 50/50 situation .... and the shot is saved. What is the result?

Well, you tell me, but as far as I know - a) It's play on because the attacker maintains possession, and b) no goal. Thus, the player has a 50% chance of scoring by playing on, and an 85% chance of scoring by falling. So if the attacker is strong, agile, and honest -- all supposedly good things -- his team is worse off than if he is weak, clumsy, or scheming.
This is excatly why you don't give advantage in the penalty area. Make the call and give the PK.

[JohnR]

This is excatly why you don't give advantage in the penalty area. Make the call and give the PK.

Makes sense to me. Is that really how it works? If so, I'm pleased. Just doesn't seem to match what I have seen in practice ...

[galperin]

I'll tell you why players dive...

because they get away with it. Refs often fall for it. By the way, only pusses dive.

[whistleblowerusa]

Makes sense to me. Is that really how it works? If so, I'm pleased. Just doesn't seem to match what I have seen in practice ...
A higher level Ref will do this. Never give advantage in the penalty area. Most other Refs seem to feel that you should give advantage there. there is no advantage for a player. Give them a PK and you can't get yourself into trouble.

[whipple]

I must confess that I have mixed feelings about what some would call diving, simulation or selling a foul. Though it is often misconduct, there are other times when it is not only excusable, but an important message to the referee that they are missing something out there and they better deal with it before the situation gets out of hand.

In other words, players (particularly at the more skilled or competitive levels) don't always dive to attempt to deceive the referee into awarding an undeserved restart or scoring opportunity. Sometimes they go down, even when they could have retained possession, because they do deserve a tactically advantageous restart, not just for the current foul, but for that last three hacks they have already taken, and the referee has ignored, either in the name of "advantage" or because when it comes right down to it, the referee does not have the guts to to call a decisive foul or deal with misconduct in the penalty area.

I know that I have been guilty of this on more than one occassion. Not that long ago in a men's game between a Latin American team and an Irish team, early in the match I had twice signalled advantage, play on after the Latin attacker had prevailed from fouls by the defenders, and had awarded free kicks when he lost possession. Then, towards the end of the half, the same player went down with an obvious dive and recieved a caution.

It was not he, but I who deserved to be cautioned. While I had dealt with the fouls by the defenders, I had not recognized or dealt with their persistent infringment of this player. The defenders should have recieved cautions and I would likely have never needed to further compound the unfairness by cautioning the attacker. Further, had it not been such an obvious dive, I feel that the game would have been better served by giving the attackers the PK.

So, I don't see diving as a black and white issue. Sometimes it is a wake-up call to the referee that he is not doing his job.

Sherman

[Caesar]

There are a few differences of opinion on this one whenever it comes up. There will always be the odd occasion where there is more of an advantage to playing on in the box than awarding a PK - for example, standing in the 6-yard box with the ball and an open goal. However, I'm in agreeance with everyone that 99% of the time a player would be better off with a PK than advantage. Personally, I've ever had a case yet where a PK wasn't the better option.

With the original incident, I guess the referee made the judgement call that this fitted into that last 1% (that is, assuming that the foul was inside the PA - that isn't clear from the original post). If so, the referee quite well may not have done anything wrong by law, as Jeff's post points out.

Again it's hard to tell (and impossible to offer an opinion) without seeing it.

[saabrian]

Part (and only part) of the problem of diving is that referees stick their whistles in their pockets when the ball's in the box. You have to make it look like you've been killed to get a call, even when you've been fouled.

Amen!!!

When I watch the Champions League or other high level soccer, there's so much shirt grabbing on corners, it's a miracle anyone ever scores. A defender can rip the attackers shirt off his body with no call, but if the attacker sneezes, it's a free kick the other way.

If I hack someone, it should be whistled whether he goes down or not. The reality is that if he manages to stay on his feet, he's far less likely to get the call. This reality punishes honest play and encourages diving.

In many leagues, forwards get the crap hacked out of them but rarely get calls because the ref doesn't want to "interfere" with the game. Hacking is ok but diving is "cheating."

[david58]

A higher level Ref will do this. Never give advantage in the penalty area. Most other Refs seem to feel that you should give advantage there. there is no advantage for a player. Give them a PK and you can't get yourself into trouble.


I guess I'm not a high enough level ref - last year I applied advantage twice in the PA, both times led to goal. I was prepared to bring it back and award the PK if no score. Clearly a foul, but by delaying my whistle the attacker got the score - 100% is better than 94% or whatever. It was only the difference between a quick whistle and a slight hesitation, and I was convinced the shot was coming. However, in both cases I was aware of the risk, and that I would have to be a good salesman if I pulled back and gave the pk.
Did feel good to get to "score" in both cases, though.

[Jeff from Michigan]

A higher level Ref will do this. Never give advantage in the penalty area. Most other Refs seem to feel that you should give advantage there. there is no advantage for a player. Give them a PK and you can't get yourself into trouble.


Au contraire, mon ami...

A couple years ago, I was watching a Bundesliga match. The official made what, to my eyes, seemed like an incredibly bad handling call: a defender was bumped during a scrum near the goal....and as he fell on the ground the ball --- which had been poked toward the goal from about two yards away --- struck his hand...and rebounded to the same player, whose second shot found the back of the net. The entire sequence took less than a second.

The referee called the handling foul, disallowed the goal, sent off the hapless defender...and, predictably, the ensuing PK missed. This changed the result of the match...with either title or relegation consequences.

I don't think you lose anything by waiting to see the consequence of an action. On the other hand...I'd NEVER signal "advantage" in the PA (except, perhaps, in the unlikely event that the kick would be coming out...and a quick clearance has suddenly given the defense a quick counterattack before I could blow my whistle)....and I'd never "apply" advantage (however silently) unless the ball was already in the net by the time I made up my mind.

[whistleblowerusa]

Au contraire, mon ami...

A couple years ago, I was watching a Bundesliga match. The official made what, to my eyes, seemed like an incredibly bad handling call: a defender was bumped during a scrum near the goal....and as he fell on the ground the ball --- which had been poked toward the goal from about two yards away --- struck his hand...and rebounded to the same player, whose second shot found the back of the net. The entire sequence took less than a second.

The referee called the handling foul, disallowed the goal, sent off the hapless defender...and, predictably, the ensuing PK missed. This changed the result of the match...with either title or relegation consequences.

I don't think you lose anything by waiting to see the consequence of an action. On the other hand...I'd NEVER signal "advantage" in the PA (except, perhaps, in the unlikely event that the kick would be coming out...and a quick clearance has suddenly given the defense a quick counterattack before I could blow my whistle)....and I'd never "apply" advantage (however silently) unless the ball was already in the net by the time I made up my mind.
Like you said a couple of years ago.
Yes, higher level officials will not give an advantage within the penalty area.

[whipple]

Like you said a couple of years ago.
Yes, higher level officials will not give an advantage within the penalty area.

I think this goes along with the recent instruction to slow the signals, not just the whistle, but the "Play-on" signal as well, to take a little more time to observe the outcome.

Sherman

[Caesar]

I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned, but its probably worth noting at this point that I won't play advantage in the PA for DOGSO. This is because, if a goal is scored from the advantage you cannot send off the player.

Most often a PK and a sendoff is worth more to the team than advantage.

[But Referee]

Ran into an a revealing item in British Football Weekly -

Said Stan Lazardis, Birmingham winger, "I did get clipped and I thought about going down but you try and be honest and you want to stay on your feet. I had a chat with the referee Matt Messias afterwards and he said to me, 'I really wanted you to score because if you had gone down, I would have sent the player off."

No doubt Messias broke some kind of referees' code by openly voicing his thoughts but that's how the system works, doesn't it?



For all we know the referee was telling the player exactly what he wanted to hear, not reading from the manual to the secret fraternity handshake.