Henry admits, he dives

[FREESWP]

Just reading through the Henry interview in 442, and when asked about the Puyol incident in the World Cup, he flat out admited that he dived. "Maybe it's not good, but after a while you realise you aren't doing yourself any favours by staying on your feet. For me, it's justified." On one hand, I respect the man for coming out and telling it like it is, but, to just admit that he dived in order to prove a point?

[GutBomb]

Just reading through the Henry interview in 442, and when asked about the Puyol incident in the World Cup, he flat out admited that he dived. "Maybe it's not good, but after a while you realise you aren't doing yourself any favours by staying on your feet. For me, it's justified." On one hand, I respect the man for coming out and telling it like it is, but, to just admit that he dived in order to prove a point?
"diving" is different than "going down when you are fouled."

diving like djouru did in the champions league final was bad, but if there is contact and it you're on the way down anyway, if it is in your favour to fall down, you continue falling down. if you weigh the options between, just going with the fall and earning a penalty or staying up and losing the ball, i say it's ok to go down. and these are the only kinds of "dives" i've seen from henry. i've never seen him go down with no contact. i've only seen "close calls" where he may have been able to fight the fall when he was legitimately fouled, but didn't.

[Silva 5]

The world cup became such a fiasco in terms of diving, that the referee's soon became conditioned to the appearance of a "foul". Henry had to sell when he needed to sell to get the rightful calls.

[ibby]

Just reading through the Henry interview in 442, and when asked about the Puyol incident in the World Cup, he flat out admited that he dived. "Maybe it's not good, but after a while you realise you aren't doing yourself any favours by staying on your feet. For me, it's justified." On one hand, I respect the man for coming out and telling it like it is, but, to just admit that he dived in order to prove a point?

He also said to the ref before that incident when he stayed on his feet and the ref didn't give a foul Henry asked him why and the ref said because you didn't fall down and Henry said next time I will fall

[Stretch Armstrong]

"diving" is different than "going down when you are fouled."

diving like djouru did in the champions league final was bad, but if there is contact and it you're on the way down anyway, if it is in your favour to fall down, you continue falling down. if you weigh the options between, just going with the fall and earning a penalty or staying up and losing the ball, i say it's ok to go down. and these are the only kinds of "dives" i've seen from henry. i've never seen him go down with no contact. i've only seen "close calls" where he may have been able to fight the fall when he was legitimately fouled, but didn't.

It was Eboue who dived in the final

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

"diving" is different than "going down when you are fouled."

diving like djouru did in the champions league final was bad, but if there is contact and it you're on the way down anyway, if it is in your favour to fall down, you continue falling down. if you weigh the options between, just going with the fall and earning a penalty or staying up and losing the ball, i say it's ok to go down. and these are the only kinds of "dives" i've seen from henry. i've never seen him go down with no contact. i've only seen "close calls" where he may have been able to fight the fall when he was legitimately fouled, but didn't.
Totally agree!!! The definition of simulation is the act or process of pretending, getting hit and not falling down isnt diving it's called "selling" the foul.

[Alan_V]

Totally agree!!! The definition of simulation is the act or process of pretending, getting hit and not falling down isnt diving it's called "selling" the foul.

If you talk to any ref, they'll tell you that's simulation. If the actually contact didn't force you to go down, then you're, in effect, lying to the ref by trying to sell him on something that really didn't happen.

[el_urchinio]

Totally agree!!! The definition of simulation is the act or process of pretending, getting hit and not falling down isnt diving it's called "selling" the foul.

That's like saying that if someone rear-ended you, it's not dishonest to put on a neckbrace and demand thousands of dollars in damages because, well, you did hurt your neck a little so what's wrong with claiming that it's worse than it is.

"Selling the foul" is a much worse and much bigger plague on the game of football than diving. Diving is pretty straight forward, there was no contact and the player threw himself on the ground. If the ref can actually spot this, it's a simple decision. What does a ref do to a player "selling the foul?" Has anyone ever seen the ref award a freekick to a team and yet card the player the foul was committed on for making it seem worse?

As Henry correctly points out, what have you got to lose by doing it except your dignity?

[pandillero]

How many fowards wouldn't do what Henry did when the World Cup is at stake.

[Alan_V]

How many fowards wouldn't do what Henry did when the World Cup is at stake.

Doesn't make it right. EVERYBODY exceeds the speed limit here in S. California. Does that mean that they're not breaking the law? No, it means that it's overlooked by law enforcement as long as you're not being terribly dangerous about it. With everybody doing 80 in 65 mph zone, you pick on the worst offenders. Interesting parallel.

[Antonio81]

I brought this up during the world cup, but the real cheaters are the ones doing the fouling. If a foward gets pushed just enough to loose the ball but not enough for the ref to see it, the defender literally gets away with cheating to prevent a goal. Maybe video replays really are the best way...

[ibby]

I brought this up during the world cup, but the real cheaters are the ones doing the fouling. If a foward gets pushed just enough to loose the ball but not enough for the ref to see it, the defender literally gets away with cheating to prevent a goal. Maybe video replays really are the best way...

You lost me

[Chopper-Harris]

And in breaking news...every player in football cheats.

[GutBomb]

again, i was saying "if a player is fouled, but the ref doesn't blow the whistle, and you're on the way down anyway, you weigh the options between fighting the fall and losing the ball, or going with the fall and earning the free kick/penalty, try for the free kick/penalty." the player should not have fouled him in the first place, and the ref missed it. this just points out to the ref what he earlier missed and should have seen.

i am NOT saying it's ok to go down when not fouled.

this is what i interpreted in henry's words.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

That's like saying that if someone rear-ended you, it's not dishonest to put on a neckbrace and demand thousands of dollars in damages because, well, you did hurt your neck a little so what's wrong with claiming that it's worse than it is.

"Selling the foul" is a much worse and much bigger plague on the game of football than diving. Diving is pretty straight forward, there was no contact and the player threw himself on the ground. If the ref can actually spot this, it's a simple decision. What does a ref do to a player "selling the foul?" Has anyone ever seen the ref award a freekick to a team and yet card the player the foul was committed on for making it seem worse?

As Henry correctly points out, what have you got to lose by doing it except your dignity?
sorry "selling" was a bad word to use. So your saying, though, that it's better for a player to continue fouling and to continue using cheap tactics such as pulling shirts, elbowing, and blocking off?

If a player is hit from behind, is he supposed to stay up and fight the foul, even though it may be a yellow card offense? I'm sorry but getting hit and falling over isn't a worse crime than completely diving and feigning injury.

To say that "selling the foul" is a much worse and much bigger plague on the game than diving is wrong, considering that diving is one of the, if not the biggest plague on the game today.

[el_urchinio]

If a player is hit from behind, is he supposed to stay up and fight the foul, even though it may be a yellow card offense? I'm sorry but getting hit and falling over isn't a worse crime than completely diving and feigning injury.

Yes, the player should always try their hardest to continue playing. Let me draw you a parallel. I play basketball competitively, and in basketball, the concept of advantage does not exist. If you are fouled and manage to score, the basket counts AND you get a foul shot. So when you get hit, you are likely to do your utmost to finish the play, as it gives you a chance to get 3 points out of it instead of only two if you just fall to the ground in alleged agony.

Now, of course, players stay on their feet not because they're honest, but because in basketball, there's an actual benefit. If the ref calls the foul, you get free throws and a basket. If he doesn't, you get the basket.

So what is the point? The point is that I myself have seen players play through unbelievable stuff, stuff that didn't look physically possible. During a game last month, I went up for a layup and a wanker on the other team punched me in the throat as I was about to jump. Not only did I not pull a Rivaldo and throw myself on the ground as if I had been shot, I managed to, somehow, switch the basketball from my right to my left hand, all while in the air, and lay it in. Thankfully, the ref called a foul as well. If he didn't, I still would've gotten 2 points.

Now, there's no such incentive in football, but there are many times when it is so easy to stay on one's feet, and yet the player goes down. You know, such as in any dead ball situation when two players jump in the air, and usually the attacking player throws himself to the ground trying to get a penalty, though the push was so slight as to make one wonder how it could've brought down a grown man.

To say that "selling the foul" is a much worse and much bigger plague on the game than diving is wrong, considering that diving is one of the, if not the biggest plague on the game today.

The plague of diving can easily be eliminated. Easily. Video evidence like in hockey. I'm not saying it should be done, I'm just saying it could. And if you did it, it would be a simple matter of saying there was contact or there was no contact. "Selling fouls," on the other hand, is not nearly as black and white. You could watch the reply, and all it would tell you would be that there was some contact, but how do you figure if it was enough to bring a man down despite his best efforts to stay on his feet? Who would determine how much effort to stay on your feet is warranted before you're allowed to fall?

[pandillero]

its gonna happen anyways. Zidane got caugt against Italy because of the camera, even if the refs still wont admit it.