I agree that Rossi did the *effective* thing for his team and got the outcome he wanted, but I think calling it "right" wouldn't be accurate for most of Webster's definitions. Maybe he was "right" in that he felt "right" at home with his response. Falling over in the box when a defender touches you or steps near your feet is also *effective* at generating goals, just as grabbing your face and rolling around is effective at drawing cards, but I would prefer for players not to do it. Until referees make the right call on the initial infraction without requiring gross simulation to draw their attention to it and/or there is punishment for diving and/or embellishment, I do see it remaining in the game, though. But, I don't think it is right.
Its not the only option, just by far the most effective in dealing officials that choose not to make calls otherwise. Kind of like announcers that were former defenders admiring a guy for playing through a foul in the penalty area, then suggesting doing so cost his team a near certain goal because the referee would have called PK if he went down. You blame guys that get fouled for the problem, while I instead blame the guys that foul and the referees that let them do so with impunity. Now if a player fabricates something that never happened then I'm with you. I'd go further and say its a straight red to pretend to get hit in the face/head when it never happened. With VAR it would cut the crap out in about a week.
I wouldn't limit it to american fans. It is generally fans of teams and cultures that lack skill. No blood, no foul. American's have nothing on the Brits in the dislike of diving.
I have always looked at the Anglo-Saxon aspect of it as an inferiority complex regarding the perceived 'manliness' of rugby (and gridiron).
Seriously? They’re called analogies. And I’m not even the first person who’s ever used one. There are even a few in the quote you have in your own signature for the love of Pete. You might have a point if the video replay didn’t contradict everything you just said. First, Rossi had already passed the ball and it was yards upfield by the time Chara tapped his ear – Chara’s action was an attempt to get under Rossi’s skin, it was in no way physical enough to prevent Rossi from keeping up with the play or participating in the developing scoring chance. Rossi could have easily ignored Chara and remained involved with the run of play. Second, if the referee had stopped the play at the moment Rossi threw himself to the turf (which you seem to be suggesting is what happened), then it would have been ROSSI HIMSELF that would’ve been guilty of causing the stoppage and potentially hurting his team’s offensive opportunity. The referee did exactly the right thing and allowed play to continue until LA had taken a shot on goal and finally lost possession. The only thing Ross’s flop accomplished was to take himself out of the play. And third, Rossi’s stupid high jinks clearly had no influence on the referee’s ultimate decision, which was to issue Chara a second yellow card. Because if the referee was tricked into believing that Chara had made contact that was as violent as what Rossi was trying to sell, then the ref would have dished out a straight red. Also – at no time have I commented on the level of Rossi’s “manliness” and “masculinity” or lack thereof. The words I’ve used to describe the alternative to Rossi’s behavior have been “integrity” and “professionalism.” In fact, the two examples I sited that represent the opposite of prevalent flopping were women’s soccer and youth soccer. Quite the opposite definition of “masculine” and “manly.” And I honestly find it humorous that you probably don't realize you’ve actually paid American soccer fans a huge compliment.
As opposed to fans of countries whose players are known for diving and biting other players? And then diving after they’ve bitten another player? Yeah, I won’t be losing any sleep over that.
I wasn't making a moral judgement; I meant right as in "correct", not "moral; just". The alternatives proposed would've been irrationally foolish by comparison. Beyond that, I don't see why it causes so much hand-wringing. Diving is already penalized. Unless FIFA plans to replace human football officials are with robots or genetically-engineered monstrosities that can spot something like an ear flick among 20 dudes running around a 100 meter space then, I wouldn't expect embellishment to go anywhere soon. Somehow we'll have to enjoy the sport in spite of that as people have for years and years and years. It happens, to some extent, with every sport that has fouling and physical contact, but it causes a lot of embarrassment for soccer fans. Hell, Rossi's embellishing is treated as more unseemly than Chara's infraction, which was an actual violation of the game rules.
As you point out, diving/embellishment happens in other sports as well, but with far less frequency and way fewer dramatics. Probably the biggest difference between those other sports (football, basketball or hockey for example) is the ratio of on-the-field officials to players. So FIFA wouldn't have to build or hire robots and mutants. One/two more (human) refs on the field would probably do the trick. The off-the-ball fouling, and more importantly the flopping/diving, would be far less egregious. Not seeing your point. They are both against the rules.