Hypocrisy on diving is English football downfall

[Karl]

Flopping in the penalty area when no contact is made IS A FOUL!!!!!

What foul?
Who has been touched or impeded? Who was spat on, kicked, cursed at? The only thing that has occured is a player threw self on the turf...further winding self...and if the ball remained in play leaving team with one less support player.

The point is as far as the game is concerned...the silly rule has a ref who saw no foul...stopping play!

[Karl]

Flopping in the penalty area when no contact is made IS A FOUL!!!!!

I hope you are watching the Man City vs Sunderland game. It is the ref's obsession with diving that had him give a penalty to City. The Penalty resulted in City's 2nd goal.

I supposed the silly ref thought that he either had to award a penalty or a caution to Bellamy for going over.

Bellamy raced down the left and cut the ball back on a dime inside on the defender. The defender who was perfectly placed "inside" (nearer to his goal as he should be) on Bellamy stopped on a dime and pivoted over the ball. He never put his arm out...Bellamy merely lost his balance on coming into contact with a more balanced opponent.

The silly ref?
PENALTY!

[Mosiah]

I agree that play should not be stopped, but the diver should be yellow-carded at the next legitimate interruption.

[Karl]

Ref give foul against GUNNERS in the penalty area.

PENALTY that never was. ...but for whatever reason the ref sees penalty and not dive. No, I am not saying there was a dive. A player lost his balance and went down.

Ref had a simple task - He either saw a foul or I did not. There was no dive.

So what if he did not see a foul?
Would he then have assumed the the man who merely fell overhad dived (never have feel comfortable using that American 'dove' ) ...and given the fellow a card for diving?

[Bricktop]

What foul?
Who has been touched or impeded? Who was spat on, kicked, cursed at? The only thing that has occured is a player threw self on the turf...further winding self...and if the ball remained in play leaving team with one less support player.

The point is as far as the game is concerned...the silly rule has a ref who saw no foul...stopping play!

Karl, the foul is trying to deceive the ref and bring the game in to disrepute. If the ref had his vision impeded and only saw di man flop to di ground he may have called a penalty turning the game into a farce!!!

[Karl]

Karl, the foul is trying to deceive the ref and bring the game in to disrepute. If the ref had his vision impeded and only saw di man flop to di ground he may have called a penalty turning the game into a farce!!!

Ooooh? That is what you are thinking?
Refs do not call on a guess! He calls on what is seen!

Repeat - They call what they see!
It is either seen as a foul or there was no foul seen!

Refs do not run around blowing for no fouls...expecting in this silly case!

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZY! Absolutely silly!