What is a dive?

[Karl]

Going down when there is no contact?

Going down when there is little contact?

Going down when contact was forceful but the player could have still stayed on feet?

...or just going down?


-----------

btw - Is going down when contact was *minimal but disturbed balance made a fall inavoidable worthy of direct free-kick?

*Slight hit on trailing leg (particular deliberate hit) such that it brings opponent to the ground. ...or slight push on player already in the air (opponent who had already jumped to head a ball)...some of those "he fell over his own leg" or "he went down too easily" commentators' calls...

...or should it be a direct free-kick only if the opponent is injuried as a result of the slight hit/slight contact? ...or regardless of injury to opponent there should be no direct free-kick?

[Paul Marin]

Going down when there is no contact?

Going down when there is little contact?

Going down when contact was forceful but the player could have still stayed on feet?

...or just going down?


-----------

btw - Is going down when contact was *minimal but disturbed balance made a fall inavoidable worthy of direct free-kick?

*Slight hit on trailing leg (particular deliberate hit) such that it brings opponent to the ground. ...or slight push on player already in the air (opponent who had already jumped to head a ball)...some of those "he fell over his own leg" or "he went down too easily" commentators' calls...

...or should it be a direct free-kick only if the opponent is injuried as a result of the slight hit/slight contact? ...or regardless of injury to opponent there should be no direct free-kick?

Diving is quite simple, it is the act of going down unnecessarily in an attempt to *decieve the referee* into believing a foul has been committed. Some try to do so with spectacular antics and hyper animated body movement. Here's an example:

j

and another...



and here is Valencia (or maybe it's Suarez) practicing his technique...

[Peter R]

The last one might be Thierry Henry too? looks like NYC below...

[Mosiah]

Sheesh!

Can you imagine Karl writing the FIFA rules on diving? That would certainly expedite the use of technology in the game to assist officials trying to wade through pages of stuff to see which one applies!

[Karl]

If you are correct Saurez, regardless of his comments, never dived in that match vs Stoke as there was definitely contact which the ref opined was a foul!

[Karl]

It is the silly re-writing of the rules by FIFA which has created the current chaos. Previously it was a simple calling by the ref on foul as (naturally) determined by the ref.

That crap about issuing a caution when a player goes down when the ref determines no foul was committed is bull$%^&*&^! If there was no foul (no foul determined by the ref) why the hell has FIFA determined the ref must interupt the flow of the game.

As it now stands too many players (and thus teams) are being unfairly penalised when the player falls from slips or fouls (determined slight contact with ref's guessing that the player should have been able to 'ride'). The sooner FIFA returns to refs calling what they see as fouls and cut the guessing game on whether a player fell as a result of the contact or no, the better it shall be for the game. A foul is not determined by whether or not a player falls but by the legality or no of an act by one player on another.

[Paul Marin]

If you are correct Saurez, regardless of his comments, never dived in that match vs Stoke as there was definitely contact which the ref opined was a foul!

Actually, whether there is contact or not doesn't matter, what matters is if you go down unnecessarily, contact or no contact, trying to *deceive* the ref. Even a blind man could see Suarez was trying to deceive the ref. But him is still my yout...

[Peter R]

You sure Karl isn't a lawyer?? Gamma?

[Karl]

Actually, whether there is contact or not doesn't matter, what matters is if you go down unnecessarily, contact or no contact, trying to *deceive* the ref. Even a blind man could see Suarez was trying to deceive the ref. But him is still my yout...

No that is not the point!
Matters not if the player is trying to deceive...it is all about whether or not the ref sees a foul.

Additionally, how would a ref know if a player is trying to deceive? For example, can he differentiate between a player 'skipping' a challenge to prevent injury to self as opposed to attempt to deceive? etc., etc?

[Peter R]

No that is not the point!
Matters not if the player is trying to deceive...it is all about whether or not the ref sees a foul.

Additionally, how would a ref know if a player is trying to deceive? For example, can he differentiate between a player 'skipping' a challenge to prevent injury to self as opposed to attempt to deceive? etc., etc?

Maybe we are talking semantics here... a player goes down, the ref sees no foul but gives a card to the player who went down... what did he see? an attempt to deceive? or not?

[Paul Marin]

No that is not the point!
Matters not if the player is trying to deceive...it is all about whether or not the ref sees a foul.

Additionally, how would a ref know if a player is trying to deceive? For example, can he differentiate between a player 'skipping' a challenge to prevent injury to self as opposed to attempt to deceive? etc., etc?

Well, Law 12 includes simulation, stating: "A player who attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled is guilty of simulation."

So to me, that's when a dive is a dive - when the ref thinks the player attempted to deceive him by "pretending to have been fouled [by diving]". So according to the law - deception matters.

Now - how is a ref supposed to tell the difference between deceptio and reality? To me, I think it is senseless. If the player blatantly dives and starts rolling around like he got hurt, why not just play on? It would be far better to do so and have retrospective action take place with fines and bans for blatant attempts to deceive. This would be easily done if the ref simply enters the alleged infraction into his report and done. Better yet, require any player who is injured to a degree where play has to stop to be substituted. You'd see how fast that crap stops.

[GazX]

A dive has with it an element of choice; ie a player choosing the option of going to ground when he/she knowingly can stay on his feet if they tried.

[Karl]

Maybe we are talking semantics here... a player goes down, the ref sees no foul but gives a card to the player who went down... what did he see? an attempt to deceive? or not?

He saw no foul!
He stopped the game...and issued a caution for what he thought was an attempt to deceive. Do you not find it strange that the refs only think they see an attempt to deceive on or around the penalty-area...and only by attacking players?

All I am saying is, FIFA has screwed around with the 'refs' head' once too often. It only causes a disruption of the flow of the game.

Rooney on attack went down in the recent BoyU v Tottenham match...the ref, as per his instructions, ruled 'no dive'...and yet he also ruled 'no foul'...and allowed the game to 'flow'. How's dat?

FIFA cannot have it both ways! Right?

[Peter R]

Maybe the ref in the Rooney case which I didn't see, thinks the player fell inadvertently, no foul, no dive, but just through clumsiness or some such thing. Isn't that possible? can't a player go down without a dive or foul being committed?

As far as where and by whom dives are committed, I am not surprised... a defender is not going to dive simply because if the ref thinks IT IS a dive then either a penalty or a play on could result both of which could lead to a goal against the defender's team, so it makes sense that a defender wouldn't dive in his defensive zone... too risky.

Similarly diving in midfield has no pay-off if the player gets away with it, especially if he is in possession of the ball which most divers tend to be.

The biggest payoff is for the attacking player who gets away with a dive, i.e. fools the ref, in the 18 yd box...

[Karl]

Maybe the ref in the Rooney case which I didn't see, thinks the player fell inadvertently, no foul, no dive, but just through clumsiness or some such thing. Isn't that possible? can't a player go down without a dive or foul being committed?

...you know that is right there in my point.
Just think on it - A ref is making a determination on foul or no!

...now the FIFA has the ref going further and issuing a caution if he saw no foul but believes the player fell because he wanted to fall

As far as where and by whom dives are committed, I am not surprised... a defender is not going to dive simply because if the ref thinks IT IS a dive then either a penalty or a play on could result both of which could lead to a goal against the defender's team, so it makes sense that a defender wouldn't dive in his defensive zone... too risky.

Why do you leave out the defender rationalizing that "I cannot prevent the forward or his teammate getting in on goal therefore the 'only' chance I have of preventing a goal is to 'fool the ref' into thinking I was fouled?

Is that not the reverse of his forward thinking my chance to score is not there...the rational thing to do to create that goalscoring chance is to 'fool the ref' into thinking I was fouled?

Just saying...

Similarly diving in midfield has no pay-off if the player gets away with it, especially if he is in possession of the ball which most divers tend to be.

The biggest payoff is for the attacking player who gets away with a dive, i.e. fools the ref, in the 18 yd box...

No thought on - Preventing a goal is a pay-off equivalent to getting a goal? Just saying...