Two Questions About Diving

[Kingston]

As a non-ref, I'm looking for a referee's perspective here. I'm thinking primarily of situations involving professional refs doing major matches (like the recent U20 World Cup) rather than house league games. My two questions about diving are:

1. Why is it apparently so hard for refs to see diving for what it is when no one else in the stadium seems to have the same problem? The recent Chile-Argentina and Czech-Argentina games in the U20 World Cup had some classic examples of players tumbling spectacularly at the slightest touch or feigning life-threatening injuries only to miraculously recover on the next play. The ref fell for these obvious dives about 80% of the time.

2. Why are refs so hesitant to hand out cards for diving? I recall one U20 game where, twice in as many minutes, one team had a player tumble terribly (for no reason) in the other team's penalty area. Both were ridiculously blatant dives and in both cases the ref properly waved play on. But why no card? If a player falls terribly in the box he was either a) fouled or b) diving. It seems to me that a spectacular tumble in the box should therefore almost always result in either a penalty kick or a card for diving. Instead, we sometimes see penalty kicks but we very rarely see cards for diving.

[LoewenBoy]

1. Why is it apparently so hard for refs to see diving for what it is when no one else in the stadium seems to have the same problem?
Because what you see from Section 231, Row 12, Seat 32 is much different from what you see on the field. What you see and what the ref sees may be very different at times. He may be playing advantage. He may think it is a trivial dive even though it is, by the book, cautionable. Just because it happens does not = an automatic card.

2. Why are refs so hesitant to hand out cards for diving?
Because professional players are SOOO GOOD at faking these days. Gone are the days of rolling around on the pitch and the magic sponge.
-4nfuvyBToQ

[IASocFan]

... If a player falls terribly in the box he was either a) fouled or b) diving. It seems to me that a spectacular tumble in the box should therefore almost always result in either a penalty kick or a card for diving. Instead, we sometimes see penalty kicks but we very rarely see cards for diving.

With two or more players going for a fast moving or high ball in the area, players do various things to get the best part of their body in the correct position to defend or make a shot. Some of these result in spectacular tumbles which can be caused by:
- awkward or mistimed play by the attacker
- fair challenges by the defender
- trifling pushing, holding, or kicking by either or both players

Just because a player goes down, it does not mean there was a foul or a dive!

Dives are difficult to disguish from embellishment, which it makes it even harder to call a PK or to give a YELLOW.

[NHRef]

simple, angle, blocked from view etc etc etc.

Also, you have to define what a "dive" is, at least in my mind. If a small foul happened and the player went down like he was shot, that is not a dive, there was a foul, he embellished it, but not a dive, though possibly still cardable, but you'd have to call the foul first.

A "dive" to me is no contact so its a blatant attempt at cheating.

[ref2coach]

If a small foul happened and the player went down like he was shot, that is not a dive, there was a foul, he embellished it, but not a dive, though possibly still cardable, but you'd have to call the foul first.


Start here to stamp it out of the games you do. I do call the foul, AND I do caution the embellishment. Why, the embellishment is done to attempt to unfairly deceive the referee's judgment. The player is demonstrating their willingness to cheat. Give them what they have earned.

Last season in a college match, foul in front of the team bench of the player that was fouled and embellished. I called the foul, gave the card, Coach asked why, I told him his player's "acting" was an "unsporting" attempt to impact the game. He was silent but the Captain called out the names of 3 teammates and told them why their teammate had been cautioned and told them to "stay on your feet and play".

It really is that simple. Do what is right early in the game, be clear why you did it and be willing to do it again. I doubt you will have to.

[DWickham]

Dives are not easy to spot. There often has been some contact by the defender and the referee needs to judge whether the contact affected play. Moreover, attempting to trip is a foul. There doesn't need to be contact for there to be a foul.

The professional referee has to: (a) be in the right position to see what happened; and (b) judge whether it is a foul with some embellishment by the attacker (not a dive) or a simulation of a foul (a dive) . In the moment, most fans see a foul when it is against their side and a dive when it is not.

What everyone (except the referee) sees, however, is the slow motion replay from one, two or three camera angles. Sometimes, as shown in the 1998 World Cup, 17 cameras can still miss the foul that was seen by the referee. Sometimes, however, the camera shows that the professional fell to the ground without any foul. This is the sinister form of cheating that all agree needs to be gone from our game. IMO, what is necessary is post-match punishment after video review. If teams lost points in the standing if the disciplinary committee determined that a dive was unpunished by the referee, there would be far less incentive to use this form of cheating.

[DWickham]

Start here to stamp it out of the games you do. I do call the foul, AND I do caution the embellishment. Why, the embellishment is done to attempt to unfairly deceive the referee's judgment.

When the referee judges that the attacker has cheated, I agree that a caution is in order.

But, at higher levels, players know that unless they go down, some referees will not call what is clearly and unquestionably a foul. Indeed, the great referees give the players every chance to work through the foul. In many cases, the "embelleshment" is simply the player giving us permission to call the foul now. They are adjusting to what we do.

A high percentage of goals are scored from free kicks in the attacking third. At the higher levels, some players WANT the foul called and the opportunity to use a set play. I think we need to be able to differentiate between those that cheat (e.g., embellish the severity of a foul to try to get the opponent cautioned or sent off) and the embelleshment to get the real foul called.

[Kingston]

Because professional players are SOOO GOOD at faking these days. Gone are the days of rolling around on the pitch and the magic sponge.


Can a ref hand out a card for unsportsmanlike conduct well after the fact? I'm thinking here of the player who drops like he was shot, rolls around clutching his leg/foot/arm/ear like it has been partially severed, gets stretchered off, and is instantly asking to be let back on the pitch again once play resumes. Clearly this player has been embellishing in an unsportsmanlike fashion. (Especially as this type of "injury" seems to occur way more often to players who are on a team with a one goal lead in the last ten minutes of play.)

[J1MB0]

Once play has resumed with the restart you have lost the opportunity to punish with a card. You can only include the incident in the game report.

[intechpc]

Can a ref hand out a card for unsportsmanlike conduct well after the fact?

Well pointy-ball referees don't carry cards so my answer is gonna be no. Sorry, I'm being a smartass here but Unsportsmanlike Conduct is an American football term. In soccer we caution and show a card for Unsporting Behavior. OK now that I'm off my soap box, back to the original question.

No, a referee cannot do this. First of all from a technical perspective as was pointed out before, a referee can only caution for misconduct up to the point of the next restart. Once that restart has taken place, there is no going back. More importantly though is that this would still be a very tough call to sell and could hurt the referee's credibility. There are plenty of legitimate injuries where a player is carried off only to come back to the pitch moments later. I don't think you can use this as your judge of whether or not the player took a dive.

Unfortunately, the determination of a player diving is quite a difficult one to make. As referees we try very hard to be fair. The last thing any of us wants to do is caution a player for getting injured because we thought it was a dive. So cautioning for simulation is tough and can only be done if the referee is absolutely sure it was a dive.

[lmorin]

Dives are not easy to spot. .....I strongly disagree with this. I have played soccer at a pretty decent level, reffed, coached and watched a lot of games. One thing that is absolutely certain about pro players is that they are outstanding athletes that do not make it to the upper echelons without having outstanding balance. If they do not wish to go down, 95+% of the time, they will not. Furthermore, when they dive, 95+% of the time it is detectable by the fact that both feet are in the air simultaneously and in parallel. This is a simple indicator. It is not foolproof, but nearly so, because in normal play, the two feet practically never move forward together simultaneously. If they do, then the player has elected not to properly plant one foot. The exception is if the foot that should next be planted is blocked and cannot move forward. This will sometimes cause both feet to move in concert. Even then, however, there is usually a height or weighting indicator of a difference. And, yes, this is totally obvious in an eyeblink, if the person knows what to look for.

Originally posted by Ref2Coach
Start here to stamp it out of the games you do. I do call the foul, AND I do caution the embellishment. Why, the embellishment is done to attempt to unfairly deceive the referee's judgment. The player is demonstrating their willingness to cheat. Give them what they have earned.
Excellent! Agree completely. The embellishment is just another version of cheating.

[LoewenBoy]

I strongly disagree with this.
I disagree with your disagreement. I was a striker in college and on an amateur team in Germany. I was AWESOME at taking dives in the area to get PKs. Now this was the early 80s when guys would go down in pain during the match introductions trying to get a foul, card or PK...so judge me not too harshly. Anyway, I could drop right in front of the ref and still draw a foul. These were good refs, I was just better.:D

Granted, generally dives are a bit easier to spot than simple embellishments. However, especially at the pro level, some of these EPL guys are awesome at diving "undetected".

[ref2coach]

I disagree with your disagreement. :eek:

IGranted, generally dives are a bit easier to spot than simple embellishments. However, especially at the pro level, some of these EPL guys are awesome at diving "undetected".

The simulations & embellishments are not "undetected" they are "unpunished".

In any league if before the season they told the players, coaches, referees; "We have instructed the referees to caution every suspected simulation or embellishment" and we will refuse any appeal regarding simulation or embellishment", the cheating would stop in that league in about 3 to 4 weeks.

It works, just look at when FIFA asked all the FA's to get on board about cautioning or ejecting players for using their elbows in aerial challenges. The leagues informed players, coaches, referees and media. 1st few ejections, media was "what was that", then someone remembered "Oh remember they told us the referees were going to tighten up, on use of elbows". Some grousing 1st two or three weeks but then you would hear "that player was stupid to "lead with his elbow". Referees being evaluated, knows they had better not miss the "elbow strike" or they will hear about it from the observer/assessor.

Everybody knew what was expected and got what they expected. Now 2 years on people accept that player will be punished for improper use of elbows in aerial challenges.

It would work the same for simulation and embellishment "IF" FIFA and the FA's really wanted it removed from the game.

[LoewenBoy]

The simulations & embellishments are not "undetected" they are "unpunished".
I think you can have both undetected and unpunished. I don't think the are mutually exclusive.

[bluedevils]

In any league if before the season they told the players, coaches, referees; "We have instructed the referees to caution every suspected simulation or embellishment" and we will refuse any appeal regarding simulation or embellishment", the cheating would stop in that league in about 3 to 4 weeks.

It works...

Everybody knew what was expected and got what they expected. Now 2 years on people accept that player will be punished for improper use of elbows in aerial challenges.

It would work the same for simulation and embellishment "IF" FIFA and the FA's really wanted it removed from the game.

Good post, but...the problem with elbows did NOT go away. People still do it, and they are still punished for it. Has the rate of occurrence decreased? Probably. Has the expectation been more widely accepted that it is a no-no, among players/coaches/fans? I think so. But it still happens. I think the same could be said for simulation or any other 'hot button' misbehavior that FIFA may choose to shine its spotlight on.

[Shackleton]

1. Why is it apparently so hard for refs to see diving for what it is when no one else in the stadium seems to have the same problem?

I think your premise is wrong. Just look at the arguments back and forth and slow motion, video reply post mortems on lots of disputed PKs. Was it a dive in the Australia-Italy game at the WC? Did Ching dive in the USA-Mexico game? I'm willing to bet if you post video of the examples you cite in your original post that there would be plenty of disagreement about whether or not it was a dive. Fans of different teams, even with the benefit of slow motion replays from multiple angles, cannot agree. Even when there has been absolutely no contact at all, players who dive are extremely good about making it look real.

[LoewenBoy]

Was it a dive in the Australia-Italy game at the WC? Did Ching dive in the USA-Mexico game?
Yes and yes.:D But your were being rhetorical.:cool:

[bluedevils]

It is hard enough just to answer a simple yes/no 'was it a dive' question. But in reality, there are different degrees of diving or embellishment, so the ref often must weigh the amount of embellishment vs. the amount of real contact that occurred, consider the situation, yada yada yada, and make a decision in a split second.

[ref2coach]

But in reality, there are different degrees of diving or embellishment,

But it is still Simulation or Embellishment.

How many of us have given any thought to what the player is "saying" to the referee with the Simulation or Embellishment?

With their actions they are saying one of two things.
1) This referee is so inattentive that I can cheat and get by with it to help my team.
2) This referee is so inept and clueless as to what is a foul, I will cheat to help him call the correct fouls.

Many referees say "it is to hard to be sure" the player simulated or embellished. What gives? A caution is not a "death penalty" we do not need proof beyond all reasonable doubt. :confused:
It is just a caution, all we need is a preponderance of evidence. :cool:

We are charged with ensuring that the game is Fair, Safe and Sporting, I do not need a cheater to "help" me call the game correctly. :rolleyes:

[DadOf6]

1. Why is it apparently so hard for refs to see diving for what it is when no one else in the stadium seems to have the same problem?

People is the stadium will see what is best for their team.

Sometimes the lightest touch will topple a player.