-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
What is worse..diving or fouling?
- Thread starter onlyme
- Start date
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Wow lol. Broad question but have to say breaking an opponent's leg because it can lead to the end of the player's career. But diving is also a cynical, nasty side of the game. Think about it, you're not just trying to buy a free kick, you are attempting to con the ref into booking the other player, if he's on a booking already then there's a good chance he'll get sent off and possibly miss 3 games. If someone dived and tried to get me booked on a Sunday I wouldn't be happy, don't care if it's "part of the game". What's worse is when people try and defend it by saying "he wasn't in the box and trying to win penalty so it's not as bad" no **** that, all diving is bad no matter where it occurs on the pitch.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Intentionally trying to injure another player is obviously worse but an accidental foul is less serious than diving because diving is intentionally setting out to deceive the referee and cheat the opposition.
I think that we have a problem with the rules that at the what constitutes a foul in the box for an attacking team is different to what is a foul on the rest of the pitch. This seem ludicrous to me and I just do not buy the "there was contact so he was entitled to go down" argument.
I think that we have a problem with the rules that at the what constitutes a foul in the box for an attacking team is different to what is a foul on the rest of the pitch. This seem ludicrous to me and I just do not buy the "there was contact so he was entitled to go down" argument.
So what is the worst?
I am asking if diving is worse than fouling.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Diving is worse as its always cheating.
Re fouling - it's a contact sport and as long as you accept the consequences, fouling can still be honourable. But it should always be clumsey or cynical, rather than malicious.
Re fouling - it's a contact sport and as long as you accept the consequences, fouling can still be honourable. But it should always be clumsey or cynical, rather than malicious.
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Yeah that arguement is a load of crap. There is no rule that states contact equals a foul. The only reason you should go to ground is if you have no choice but to i.e. you lose your balance or physically can't stay on your feet. The "avoiding injury" excuse is a load of ******** also.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
It really really isn't mate, in certain situations that's exactly what you need to do to avoid an injury, but that was done for about 50 pages in the Gareth Bale thread last year, i've no interest in explaining it all again, just as i'm sure you've no interest in hearing it.:lol:
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
intentional fouls designed to hurt another player are worse, pretty much any other foul isn't.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Agree. Far more injuries come from the fall then ever come from the contact, so theatrics probably increase the chance of injury.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
But other than a few knobs like Charlie Adams, you almost never see those any more.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I would definitely like to see retrospective action for diving.
Something like this they do in cricket would quickly put an end to it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/22846305
Something like this they do in cricket would quickly put an end to it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/22846305
The thing is, 99% of the time, when a defender touches an attacker, it puts him off (however minutely it may be) as it creates a barrier, push, trip etc causing the attacker to lose a bit of balance. And therefore, when the defender hasn't played the ball, but has yet touched an attacker, it should be a foul if we are following the letter of the law.
What really should be happening is everytime a defender puts an attacker off (however minutely), the referee should award a foul if it is advantageous to the attacking team. But since, they do not do this, players exaggerated the impact/fall (dive).
absolutely agree.
I hate the "what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch" attitude.
Assault is assault, wherever it occurs.