What is worse..diving or fouling?

[Neymar]

But other than a few knobs like Charlie Adams, you almost never see those any more.

You get players trying to hurt others in every premier league game.

What makes it worse is that the media make a bigger issue of diving than Roy keane's admission in the "keane vs vieira" TV show that he went into games deliberately with the aim of hurting opponents.

 

[90291Spur]

There is a difference between a deliberate foul to prevent an attack and a foul intended to deliberately hurt someone. Sometimes the former (no intent to harm) ends up in harm. And if you delve back a couple of decades much more hard tackling went unpunished. Diving is a devious, sneaky kind of cheating and gets more criticism. Just like you will get more stick for spitting at someone than hitting them.

 

[Neymar]

And if you delve back a couple of decades much more hard tackling went unpunished.

hurting players in the past was wrong, just as it is now.

Diving is a devious, sneaky kind of cheating and gets more criticism. Just like you will get more stick for spitting at someone than hitting them.

yeah but is it any more "devious, sneaky" than the 100's of shirt pulls and tugs that occur in every game where the offender attempts to hide his actions from the ref?

 

[stinkfoot]

A more interesting debate would be;

Is it just as bad to cheat by diving to try and benefit the team or cheat by purposefully getting a yellow/red card for money to the detriment of the team?

 

[Neymar]

A more interesting debate would be;

Is it just as bad to cheat by diving to try and benefit the team or cheat by purposefully getting a yellow/red card for money to the detriment of the team?

I assume you mean "professional foul vs. Match fixing"?

In that case, the answer is simple: "match fixing" - because that is a genuine crime and is against the law.
"professional fouls" are only against "football laws", which we all know are not real "laws"

 

[stinkfoot]

I'm talking more morally than legally.

 

[stinkfoot]

It's kind of a moot point actually because yellow cards are given for diving.

It's just 'middle of the night' ruminations.

 

[Neymar]

in all seriousness, it would be down to how each individual viewed the game.

1) some view the football rules as the parameters in which the game must be played
2) whilst others see the rules as only being a part of the game. ie. a proffesional foul would be justified for them because it is accounted for in the rules through a red card.

 

[Pandy]

in all seriousness, it would be down to how each individual viewed the game.

1) some view the football rules as the parameters in which the game must be played
2) whilst others see the rules as only being a part of the game. ie. a proffesional foul would be justified for them because it is accounted for in the rules through a red card.

To be honest I would be over the moon if Dawson rugby tackled a gooner when clean through on goal if it meant he was sent off, we didn't concede and went on to win a cup final. By breaking the rules and accepting his punishment he is surely still playing within the rules...

Fvck 'playing fairly' and 'being a sportsman'. Winners nearly always cheat somewhere along the line... and we have been cheated on countless occasions, so fvck fairness and being a sportsman - that is the nature of life. Our country is run by a pack of cvnt bankers who robbed millions out of the public purse - but hey ho that is the nature of capitalism so we should just all roll over and take their sh!t... Why can it not be the same in football?

I do not give one iota of a sh!t if we cheat, as long as it means I can laugh at the gooners I know. In fact, cheating makes it funnier. Cvnts.

 

[Pandy]

Of course it would be lovely to win every trophy legitimately but unfortunately just as Miss World will never achieve world peace, so we should not hope to win fairly. Win at all costs is the mantra of actual winners I'm afraid... Even Messi dived.

 

[Raziel]

Problem with these types of arguments is that people try to fit it into black and white

- Fouling with intention to hurt/injure is obviously wrong
- As is (but not to the same degree) diving

Where it is a little gray is how very good players "react" to the fact that a lot of the players they play against will

- lean on, nip at heels, try to push the boundaries of what is or isn't a foul to put said player off their game e.g. how Everton under Moyes used to play, constant small fouls, breaking up the play of game.

In that case, if a player "plays for the foul" knowing the opposition is going to try and physically impede him (probably outright foul, but the ref may not give it), it falls into the grey area.

 

[Gutter Boy]

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).

But it's a contact sport - you are allowed to touch your opponent. Shoulder charging for example has always been perfectly legitimate.

Defending is an art too, which is also great to watch. Verts is a great example of a clever cynical defender who uses all the tools available to him. By making the game non-contact you would just be turning defenders into those wooden walls teams use to practice free kicks.

 

[braineclipse]

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).

Out of curiosity, what are the letters in the law you're referring to here?

 

[braineclipse]

yeah but is it any more "devious, sneaky" than the 100's of shirt pulls and tugs that occur in every game where the offender attempts to hide his actions from the ref?

For shirt pulling there is a continuum. On the lowest level of the scale there's contact that's either allowed by the letter or the law or by the current interpretations of the law. No player or fan realistically expects a free kick or a penalty for a small shirt tug. You might disagree that this shouldn't be the interpretations of the law, but this is the reality and obviously defenders will try to take advantage.

On the other end of the scale there's the blatant foul. Cynical, but to me not cheating. As a sidenote I didn't think the Suarez infamous handball was particularly bad either. It's cynical, obvious, punishable by the referees.

In between there is the cheating, but there are shades of grey.

For diving there's no real continuum. There's no cynical, but not trying to cheat kind of dive. There's no "diving just a little, within the regulations".

In addition to that for a shirt pull I think "at worst" you deny an opponent a clear goalscoring opportunity, of course that's bad, but compared to diving it's not as unfair. A diver might, in addition to gaining a clear goalscoring opportunity with a penalty, get an opponent sent off or booked. An added injustice on top of the penalty/goalscoring chance. I think that makes both players and fans understandably upset.

So yes, I do think it's more devious and sneaky, although I accept that to some extent it's a cultural thing.

 

[Baleforce]

there is no rule against devious and sneaky

 

[onlyme]

There is a difference between a deliberate foul to prevent an attack and a foul intended to deliberately hurt someone. Sometimes the former (no intent to harm) ends up in harm. And if you delve back a couple of decades much more hard tackling went unpunished. Diving is a devious, sneaky kind of cheating and gets more criticism. Just like you will get more stick for spitting at someone than hitting them.

Good point.

There was more bleating in the press after a couple of spitting incidents a few years ago than there ever is/was of Adam deliberately trying to injure an opponent in almost every game or Keane ruining the career of the City guy.

More games are ruined by defenders ending thrilling moves by tugging the shirts of players just about to score than any diving.

And it's completely accepted. Owen is just one of nearly all the pundits who say.."Yeah, he took that yellow for the team. GOOD PLAY by the defender there"

 

[scaramanga]

Another interesting question;

Is it more OK to try and injure a player who has just dived? I'm finding it hard to explain why, but it feels less bad to me.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Another interesting question;

Is it more OK to try and injure a player who has just dived? I'm finding it hard to explain why, but it feels less bad to me.

You mean if they are already going to get a foul, the defender at least make it worth while? Like when parents tell their screaming kids to shut up or they'll really give them something to cry about? Go back and kick the player who has just daisy flopped. A bit of '99 call' mentality from the defenders' union.

 

[Neymar]

Out of curiosity, what are the letters in the law you're referring to here?

LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

 

[Neymar]

But it's a contact sport - you are allowed to touch your opponent. Shoulder charging for example has always been perfectly legitimate.

Defending is an art too, which is also great to watch. Verts is a great example of a clever cynical defender who uses all the tools available to him. By making the game non-contact you would just be turning defenders into those wooden walls teams use to practice free kicks.

shoulder charging is legitimate depending on the possession of the ball. ie. you cannot just charge at any opponent. that is a foul.

you highlight vertonghen as a defender who is "clever cynical defender who uses all the tools available to him". the same can be said of ashley young and suarez. so to criticize the likes of suarez when praising vertonghen is massively hypocritical.

"football is a contact sport" - whether that is true or not is irrelevant. The fact is, you cannot keep giving opponents little pushes/kicks/niggles.