Not sure how you can say Materazzi came out looking like the bad guy based on the punishments handed by FIFA. After all Zidane was punished more games than he was.
That's a good question. Unless they want to change the in-game punishment to a straight red card, I don't see how.
That's going down a slippery road: if the player dive outside the box, the play from the set piece can still lead to a goal. To me it shouldn't matter if the player dive in the box or outside the box.
My first thought is good for them. But this can't be just a one off. As has been pointed out, diving is commonplace and this needs to be part of a consistent push to eliminate diving. I'd like this to go alongside a change in the laws to make diving a red card offense (can UEFA do that alone or do they need IFAB to implement it?), backed up with the spectre of video review for all UEFA games. For all but the most blatant dives the referee is in an impossible position, and only video technology can really back this up. Diving is completely unacceptable and needs to be stamped out as quickly as possible. I suspect though that this will be a one off and that the game will continue as before.
I found it interesting how much this decision has affected players. In the EPL on saturday so many players were watching for dives. Including Rooney's penalty against Arsenal, and Torres was accused of diving and given a bollocking by 2 Bolton players. Also Ronaldo had a similar penalty decision that could have been called a dive. I think its caused diving hysteria. However it will soon pass.
Penalty decisions should be reviewable by a video referee, if a challenge is made by the coach of the defending team. We lose a couple of minutes between the call and the penalty kick anyway, so it won't impede the flow of the game too much, if at all. The offending player, if the review indicates a dive, should be red-carded and banned for two games. This should eliminate dives in the penalty area very quickly. I don't understand those who say that "diving is a part of the game". That attitude is a joke, and so are people who say so. Diving is completely antagonistic to the notion of "fair play", and has nothing to do with soccer. I am completely disgusted with Eduardo, used to admire his skills as a player, but now feel that he is nothing but a little diving bitch-boy.
I've heard Ruud Gullit say, in Italy, Spain, and South America, it was seen as good play to win a penalty by diving when he was playing.
Yes he dive s first time and lets crucify him. Ok what now with Drogba, Inzaghi, Rooney, C Ronaldo, Gerrad? Should we make a public torture or something. Those players have dive s many time that should be baned from football. Btw yesterday in Arsenal Man u game u can clearly see that Rooney went down BEFORE golman touched him
Indeed which probably will not get any outrage because the GK ended up touching him anyway, but to me it seemed he planted his foot and went down a second before he got touch. Now the question is: Do you separate a player drawing a foul (initiating the contact) and a player diving from a phantom tackle?
No, why should they be separated? A dive is a dive. It's debatable whether Almunia would've made any contact with Rooney's leg if Rooney didn't drag his shin downwards to begin his dive act. But at the end of the day the referees need to be better. A 2-match ban on Rooney wouldn't have helped Arsenal much. Even from Man Utd's perspective the ban would've been worth stealing 3 points yesterday. So I think the rule should be left as it is. A bigger concern is getting refs to do their absolute best whether the match is played in Burnley or in Old Trafford, not turn a blind-eye/play dumb at the homes of big clubs.
It's ironic that a celtic player was sent off for diving yesterday. I Was getting sick of the hollier then thou celtic mob decrying dirty foreigners as the only divers.
I don't like diving in the sense of somebody not being touched, or being fairly tackled and going down. I don't agree with a player exaggerating a foul in order to get a sterner punishment for the fouling player either. However, there is a reason why diving has always been more accepted on the continent. In England, the game has always been more physical and there used to be a certain pride in shrugging off a challenge and staying on your feet if at all possible. Defensive "hardmen" were also considered part of the game and hard, lunging tackles came with the territory. On the continent things were different: defenders were craftier. I remember reading an interview with an ex-united player (I think it was Lou Macari, but can't be sure) where he mentioned this. He said he was in a game against an Italian team and got past his marker. This was back when they were wearing tighter t-shirts and according to the player, put his hand under his arm and pulled on his armpit hair. Apparently it hurt like hell, he pulled up immediately, but the foul had been completely missed by the ref. Stuff like this and other things like making just enough contact to put a player off his shot or pass without actually taking him out were countered by players diving as a more affective means of getting the call. Of course, it has a more corrupt application as we see week-in, week-out. A two match ban or straight red though? No, a yellow if it's caught in game and maybe a fine and/or one match ban if it's caught afterwards. The fact that you usually get a one match ban for a red (assuming it wasn't violent conduct etc.) I don't think a dive should be deemed worse. The Rooney incident: I'm biased obviously, but I don't see that he clearly was going for the dive. He was strecthing for the ball. Maybe he was on his way down, maybe not, but "clear" would not be the word I'd use. We'll never know because Almunia does clearly catch his shins immediately after Rooney plays the ball. Regardless of where Rooney is going, if an outfield player catches a player during a 50-50 without touching the ball, it's a foul, so the goalkeeper should be no different.
But after the initial shock of the incident wore-off, most of the finger-pointing seemed to be directed at Materazzi even though he did absolutely nothing! Though Zidane did claim Materazzi said something that hurt his feelings and I'm sure Zidane wouldn't lie or use hyperbole is such a situation.... but that's going O/T.
Yup. And seeing as it was Zidane's last ever game, you'd think a guy with his experience would be able to see an attempt by an opponent to wind him up and deal with it appropriately.
If Eduardo is the scape goat then that is harsh on him, but somebody needed to be the poster boy for child play. Diving has no place in football , but has been tolerated for years. Referees fall for cheats, then don't want to admit their mistakes as the press creates an uproar. The authorities often defend the refs as they can't admit to hiring a useless bunch who make so many wrong decisions. The problem is, the refs can't really be blamed as players are very good at getting away with it. So yes, divers should be carded and banned. And most importantly, TV replays must be introduced. Refs should be made to feel comfortable with admitting that they are unsure about something, and want to look at a tape (or have the 4 th official do it for them) for confirmation. Alternatively, maybe eachb team could have 3 appeals over the 90 minutes - where they can ask for a video replay ref to look again at a decision straight after it's been made. Let's see some progress here - video replays need to come in now.
And who's going to pay for the cameras to accurately show these replays in the Scottish Third Division or the Danish Second Divisions?
Are those games currently being filmed? I'm sure they are, hence you use that footage. Obviously matches in non professional leagues (in England as abroad) might have to be excluded for those obvious financial reasons. There are many differences between professional and amateur football - maybe in time this will be one of them. Look at Rugby - international rugby uses video replays whereas National League 1 doesn't. It can't afford it, so it doesn't use it. International rugby already has the money and resources, so there's no problem going ahead with it. But a good point, I'm glad we're thinking about these things.
Even most non-televised Championship games in England have one or two cameras maximum. It would be almost impossible to make decisions on anything but the most obvious infringement and result in pointless delays So if you don't have the cash then you just have to live with the problems? A two tier solution does nobody any favours as it just further increases the divide between the haves and the have-nots.. Such as? They play by exactly the same rules under the same governing bodies. The beauty of football is that the game is identical wherever you see it. A game in the Polish lower divisions is no different to the Milan derby. Even if you have video review, it's still incredibly difficult to determine whether a player definitely dived or not.
I never suggested TV replays are the perfect solution, the be-all and end-all to the problem. But they would help, and any help should be welcomed. TV replays would never solve every issue - they do not in rugby or cricket either. But that lack of 100% accuracy is no reason not to introduce it. Even if they help make 10% more correct decisions than before (and I reckon it would be more like 90%) that beats the status quo of human error ruining a contest. Rugby has not become a two tier sport as a result of TV replays in some games and not in others, it is just accepted that in the second division there are no replays, yet there are in the 6 nations. A game of football is sadly not the same wherever you see it. A game between Inter and AC Milan is played by wealthy clubs, features some of the most talented players in the world, in front of 80,000 fans and millions on the tele. A non league fixture between Blyth and Dunstable is played by clubs who barely get by, include 22 part timers, in front of 300 people at best, and there is no tv audience. I do like the fact you are making me think about my own suggestion, but surely you must agree that football is already 2 tier, and TV replays would be introduced accordingly.
We don't need instant replays in-game. I don't know what all this hysteria is about. Players get fines and suspensions post-game for violent conduct and I don't want to sacrifice one of the most enjoyable elements of the game (the pace and flow) for starting and stopping to check a replay every time there's a 50-50 tackle in the box. If a dive is blatant, completely obvious and can be 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, verified by a post-match replay, then the player should receive a punishment. But there can't be any doubt whatsoever.
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=881429.html 2 match ban. What a Joke. Looks like UEFA are in for a tough season after that decision.
What I don't get is, if the ref spots a dive it's a yellow card, so you could say 4 simulations are the equivelant of missing 2 matches. If the ref misses the dive, it automatically becomes 4 times worse than any normal dive, and you get a two match ban. I'm astonished by the ineptness of the people in charge at UEFA.
The big issue now for UEFA is whether or not they apply the same rules to all other dives. They cannot simply pick to punish some divers and ignore others; if they are to treat Eduardo's dive against Celtic as ''the first'' then surely they all need to punished from now. Can anyone see that happening? It would be nice - if only to repair the game's image, though it may force some cheaters to start acting like men.
What a joke. Everything there is to hate about British football comes to life in this one instant. I look forward to UEFA reviewing the last MU game, to determine a reasonable ban for Wayne Rooney....