But at least it wasn't deceitful. It was what it was: an ear flick and an attempt to get a reaction from Rossi. Similar tactics occur in games all the time. Players try to provoke or get under the skin of other players, whether with flicks to the ear or elbows to the ribs or mama jokes. And those tactics are not without risks - - rules and mechanisms are already in place to deal with such behavior. If Rossi was so inclined he could have simply confronted Chara forcing the referee to stop play and sort out the situation. Instead, Rossi is trying to pull one over on the ref (and everybody else) by purposely making an incident seem worse than it was. I mean is Rossi really too much of a child that he couldn't just endure a quick minor irritation and then inform the referee? Even a high school coach would tell his players to do that. I'm in no way condoning Chara's action, but to sympathize or defend Rossi's gutless antics just helps to diminish the integrity of the game.
How is an off the ball foul not deceitful? The very basis for Chara's actions were the same as Rossi's, to try and illicit a response that would have resulted in Rossi getting a card.
Does anyone think that if Rossi had stopped and touched Chara lightly, that Chara wouldn't have gone down as if shot? I say well done to Rossi for bringing attention to Chara's antics. Diving when not fouled is odious. Diving when actually fouled is forgivable.
There was no embellishment. Chara wasn't pretending that something happened that never actually occurred. Sneaky? Yes. Dirty? Sure. Outright fabrication? Nothing of the sort. The sad fact is maybe Chara would have indeed done the same thing. That's my biggest gripe about this entire subject matter - - diving is becoming part of the culture of soccer and in my opinion it's the single biggest black eye to the sport. And this is exactly a part of the problem^. Condoning and even encouraging the flopping and the flailing instead of condemning it. It's one thing for a player to allow himself to fall when pushed or tripped in order to ensure a foul. It's different when a player is tapped on the ear but outright pretends he was punched full in the face. With VAR in use it's my hope that the next generation of players will realize how much harder it is to get away with those kinds of theatrics on the field. And with the spread of social media they'll know how ridiculous they look when they do get away with it (we got a little taste of that this past summer with Neymar).
For the record, both parties involved in this are idiots. This isn’t an either/or argument. They’re both dumb.
Fouling when you think no will see is logically the same as pretending to be fouled when you think everyone will see. Both are trying to get away with foul play by deception. Based on your complete distaste for deception, you should be outraged at Chara not Rossi. The problem with your point of view towards Rossi is that something did occur. Chara fouled Rossi in a sanctionable manner. If that were not true, VAR would have changed the call. Rossi amplified his reaction to draw attention behavior from Chara that is indefensible. This is very different than if Chara never touched him. In that were the case I'd agree with you.
But true that Chara fouled Rossi, thereby provoking an amplified reaction to draw attention to it, right?
...What? If we're following that line of logic (that they are the same) then I should be clearly outraged at BOTH of them... But you're arguing that Rossi had no other option than acting like a clown and throwing himself to the turf, and that's not true. As I stated before, when such an incident occurs, and the fouled player believes he needs to call attention to the foul, he can easily stop running and confront the player at fault. Such a reaction will just as effectively get the attention of the officials and the matter can be sorted out. Plus the offended player gets to keep his dignity. Again, you're defending Rossi's buffoonery as if that was his ONLY available course of action. If the foul he suffered was deserving of a red card, then it's reviewable by VAR. If it wasn't that severe and the foul deserves only a yellow card, then clearly the referee DID SEE what had occurred, because that's exactly what he issued. There was absolutely no need for Rossi to make it seem like it was a punch to the face. That's the behavior of a pre-schooler who's trying to get his older sibling in trouble. Certainly a professional athlete should be capable of better.
Rossi cannot know what the referee saw or interpreted at the time he embellishes. There was a purpose served by what Rossi did and it is not clear to me that he had a better option. Retaliating is forbidden. Pleading with the official at the next stoppage is futile. Expecting VAR to handle every transgression ignores its limited role. Chara's behavior, and similar such behavior, needs to be eradicated from the game. It's not okay to tweak an ear, bite, spit or engage in other forms of uncivil and unsportsmanlike behavior to throw an opponent off their game. We're having this discussion precisely because Rossi has called attention to it with his flagrantly dramatic response. Rossi has performed a valuable service in that regard.
One player confronting another player who has fouled him is not retaliation. It's confrontation. Big difference. And calling attention of such behavior to the referee doesn't have to be futile. I've seen it work many times. Now I hope you're just kidding. But whatever - - if you genuinely believe that players behaving like babies is somehow a benefit to the sport then go ahead and enjoy the hell out of it. The fact is that many other current fans (and what could be potential future fans) are completely turned off by that aspect of the game. Soccer can (and does) exist in some places where it's not as common (like women's soccer for example) or almost completely absent (youth soccer).
"Confronting"? What does that mean? Pretending he might retaliate? ("Do that again and I won't be responsible for how I react, mister!" or "Cross that red line I've just drawn and all options are on the table.") How is that any more an authentic act than pretending he was shot by rifle -- i.e., diving? And, more importantly, how is it any more effective than diving to draw the card?
One doesn't have to threaten violence (or even make that bluff) when confronting someone. I've confronted a waiter before when my food was undercooked. But I didn't have to make him think I was going to smash my plate over his head to get across my point. And the level of effectiveness (compared to diving) at getting the attention of the ref is equal (I don't believe I ever said it was better one way or the other) but it has the added benefit of the fouled player looking like a professional and not further soiling the game with a spineless circus act.
Confronting a bully is different than confronting a waiter. Undercooking your food is not the same thing as committing a battery to your person.
Any self defense instructor will tell you the best way to handle a bully is to stand your ground and then tell a teacher or parent what happened. They will never advise you to fall to the ground and pretend you were already beaten up. But I'm sure if Rossi was served an undercooked pork chop he would feel compelled to roll around on the floor pretending to have Salmonella, because hey, how else could he possibly make sure the restaurant manager is aware of the situation?
I'm curious why you think playing in a soccer match is the same as ordering food in a restaurant or taking a self-defense class. Under the circumstances, Rossi absolutely did the right thing, got the outcome he wanted and benefited his team. Chara was unable to stop Rossi from moving into position to finish a promising chance that was developing, so he fouled the player to prevent the chance from coming to fruition. Rossi might have appeared more manly and dignified to you if he stopped in the middle of the play to stare Chara down and puff his chest out but 1) I'm betting he is more concerned, generally, with his team winning than any stranger's perception of his masculinity and 2) that would've given Chara exactly what he wanted -- disrupting the goal-scoring chance. Rossi's actions gave his team an advantage by both replacing the chance (via FK) that was disrupted by Chara's cheating and removing the cheating player from the field to the disadvantage of his team. I get there's significant self-consciousness and enmity among American soccer fans about any kind of embellishment (which I find somewhat parochial, honestly) but this is exactly what I'd want a player to do in the circumstances.