Retrospective Bans For Diving

[The Crab]

Why would they turn the cameras off because it's a bank holiday? It's one of the busiest times and when crashes frequently occur. I see people flying past speed cameras and I've often thought (and bored my mates too droning on about it) 'don't people understand how cameras work?' It's never occurred to me that people would just take a gamble that they might not be switched on.

They don't understand how cameras work in the same way they don't understand how indicators work when they suddenly decide they want to change lanes, and then flourish it with a V sign as though you have the temerity to be in their way. Wankers.

 

[The Crab]

OK. Well I drive up the M1 quite a lot, not so much to see the Blades or my family but to fly to Jakarta where my fake Viagra importing business is based. I like to fly from Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield Aerodrome as it's cheap and they serve Yorkshire puddings and gravy in flight.

On many occasions I've observed automobiles travelling in excess of the designated speed limits on stretches of carriageway over which there are numerous mounted speed cameras. They're fairly easy to see and one's attention is drawn to them by the accompanying road signs showing pictures of cameras.

Therefore, I find it difficult to comprehend why drivers of said automobiles chose to ignore the cameras. Is it because they can afford the fines and are happy to get points on their licence? Is it because they're so stupid they don't realise that the cameras will take a photograph of them speeding and they will subsequently be punished?

And on a separate note, why do drivers approach a line of traffic at high speed and then hit the brakes at the last minute?

Because they are tossers?

 

[The Crab]

Ah, I believe you sent me an email.


Also, at the risk of hijacking the thread, why, as I'm slowing down at a red light, does the person behind me, who then moves lane to go left or right, find it necessary to "overtake" before then braking hard at the line? What is the point of that?

Because they need to display the fact (in their mind) that their Gentlemans Vegetables are considerably bigger than yours by doing this, and they are totally irresistable to women. Think of it as sort of a Peacock display with added Bellendery.

 

[Damski]

Ah, I believe you sent me an email.


Also, at the risk of hijacking the thread, why, as I'm slowing down at a red light, does the person behind me, who then moves lane to go left or right, find it necessary to "overtake" before then braking hard at the line? What is the point of that?

Because, sir: They are wankers.

 

[JJBlade]

Im all for retrospective bans as we need to rid diving out of english football

But i will say that also referees need to start give a penalties to honest players. Because referees are there own worst enemy as complain about diving but then when players try to stay on their feet they get nothing when goalscoring oppotunity goes. Then everyone comes with the line "well if he had gone to ground" & we wonder why people dive

Yes too right
The amount of times I scream at the telly "why didn't you go down"

An obvious foul isn't a penalty unless a player throws himself on the floor

Something should be done about diving but we've still got the same human error to contend with

Two people in the studio having seen an incident 10 times can disagree with each other

And we all know what happens when there's any doubt

The big clubs get the favourable decisions

 

[JJBlade]

Already in use in Scotland, how is/has that panned out?

Anyone know?

A Ross County player got a two match ban for his ridiculous dive against Celtic a few weeks ago

Mind you the most guilty party was the ref, he should be banned for life for giving it

The Celtic defender wasn't even in the same postcode when the dive was committed

 

[CornwallBlade]

Can't help feeling that things like this, whilst admirable, don't address the real issue of how to impose a sanction that could effect the outcome of the game in play. I'm a big fan of sin bins, look at the evidence of the impact in rugby, teams invariably ship points when players are off the pitch. In hockey, sin bins duration is up to the umpire, anything from 5 mins to the rest of the game. Red cards are just for violent conduct.Obviously it's a different game but with such an easy option some teams, especially those who repeatedly abuse the officials, and/or roll around as if they've had a leg broken could find themselves down to 8 men. It effectively removes the need for yellow cards and so addresses the issue of defenders being booked early doors by refs conned by players like Delle Alli which means they're worried about making another challenge because it could mean a red.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Can't help feeling that things like this, whilst admirable, don't address the real issue of how to impose a sanction that could effect the outcome of the game in play. I'm a big fan of sin bins, look at the evidence of the impact in rugby, teams invariably ship points when players are off the pitch. In hockey, sin bins duration is up to the umpire, anything from 5 mins to the rest of the game. Red cards are just for violent conduct.Obviously it's a different game but with such an easy option some teams, especially those who repeatedly abuse the officials, and/or roll around as if they've had a leg broken could find themselves down to 8 men. It effectively removes the need for yellow cards and so addresses the issue of defenders being booked early doors by refs conned by players like Delle Alli which means they're worried about making another challenge because it could mean a red.

Possibly, and possibly not. A sin bin is just a "red card light". The problem with the red card is that although a cheating git can ruin/swing a match, a poor red card decision by a ref can be worse. A wrong sin bin could also swing the game unfairly. That's why I'm in favour of retrospective punishment, if necessary to a detailed degree. You can't stop these things affecting the match with instant punishments during the match, you have to change attitudes. If a player knows that his actions will be analysed, he's less likely to try it as opposed to the chance of fooling the ref in the action of the moment.

 

[dave the drummer]

I have been calling for this for years, not just for diving but for all forms of cheating. I believe you could also do away with yellow and red cards and have all punishments applied by review after the match, certainly for all professional games, leaving the red card only for denying a goal scoring opportunity.

I totally agree mate but why can't we have instant video replays as in rugby union? A retrospective ban is a good, long-overdue idea but the damage may have already been done by the innocent team conceding a goal from a wrongly-given penalty. In fact Huddersfield were very nearly cheated out of a play-off final place by a Reading player diving to get a penalty from which they scored! Surely we can wait 10 seconds to see a video replay and if it is deemed to be a dive the offender is sent off immediately, not retrospectively.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I totally agree mate but why can't we have instant video replays as in rugby union? A retrospective ban is a good, long-overdue idea but the damage may have already been done by the innocent team conceding a goal from a wrongly-given penalty. In fact Huddersfield were very nearly cheated out of a play-off final place by a Reading player diving to get a penalty from which they scored! Surely we can wait 10 seconds to see a video replay and if it is deemed to be a dive the offender is sent off immediately, not retrospectively.

I know there are a lot of people calling for this sort of thing, personally I think it would ruin football. Unlike rugby or cricket or NFL, football flows. It's ok to say you can look at a video for 10 seconds, which would probably be 30 by the time everything's sorted and the game restarted, but that only takes into consideration an incident where the ref has already stopped play. If someone goes down but the ref doesn't think it's a penalty, should he blow anyway to check whether he was right? If he waits for the next natural break in play, it could be 3 minutes or more away, does the game stop then and check the last 2 or 3 incidents to see whether play should be taken back?
Because if you don't apply video replays equally to all situations, then you aren't going to make things fairer at all.

 

[CornwallBlade]

Possibly, and possibly not. A sin bin is just a "red card light". The problem with the red card is that although a cheating git can ruin/swing a match, a poor red card decision by a ref can be worse. A wrong sin bin could also swing the game unfairly. That's why I'm in favour of retrospective punishment, if necessary to a detailed degree. You can't stop these things affecting the match with instant punishments during the match, you have to change attitudes. If a player knows that his actions will be analysed, he's less likely to try it as opposed to the chance of fooling the ref in the action of the moment.

Totally agree mate, and I fully support robust and meaningful retrospective action. But, in a perfect world, I'm all for dealing with issues on live play though. Can you imagine a world where match results were debated in court - sadly, that is where it would all end up. We go to a game and want to see the ebb and flow with a result at the end. It's never going to be 100% correct but the more the cheats get called out, bad behaviour punished and hopefully, the best team winning the better. There's another element to stamping out the behaviour of the feigning injury, going down at the slightest touch, effing and jeffing in a refs face etc and that is that we wouldn't see the influence every weekend in kids matches but that is a whole new thread

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Totally agree mate, and I fully support robust and meaningful retrospective action. But, in a perfect world, I'm all for dealing with issues on live play though. Can you imagine a world where match results were debated in court - sadly, that is where it would all end up. We go to a game and want to see the ebb and flow with a result at the end. It's never going to be 100% correct but the more the cheats get called out, bad behaviour punished and hopefully, the best team winning the better. There's another element to stamping out the behaviour of the feigning injury, going down at the slightest touch, effing and jeffing in a refs face etc and that is that we wouldn't see the influence every weekend in kids matches but that is a whole new thread

The problem is that the authorities have let it get so bad and so common place that no one measure will stamp it out. If they were serious about stopping it, we would probably have to endure two or three seasons of over-the-top draconian action against players, managers and clubs. I could see teams entering the last phases of the season with so many players banned they couldn't put a team out.
The current proposal is a step in the right direction but in truth it's a drop in the ocean. The FA don't have the guts to take the clubs on over this. There needs to be a strongly felt disatisfaction from fans (and TV viewing public) at the state of the game before they even consider getting tough with it. I reckon we are still a long way off.

 

[Fanny magnet]

It's worked really well in Scotland ,has cut down on the amount of diving a fair bit since its inception

All depends on who you get on the panel ,far too many ex pros think of cheating as part of the game now

 

[Damski]

It's worked really well in Scotland ,has cut down on the amount of diving a fair bit since its inception

All depends on who you get on the panel ,far too many ex pros think of cheating as part of the game now

That's one thing that really irks me. When you see one of those 50/50 penalty decisions and you get people like Gary Neville saying "He's got to go down there" - Literally advocating cheating. It's telling that people like him think that's OK, and even more telling that they are so OK with players cheating that they will advocate it on live television. That's the level it's at in the game.

 

[Fanny magnet]

I remember Neville saying that all through his career coming up through the ranks ,they were dead against diving but after a few seasons of getting their pants pulled down in European games they decided that if you can't beat em join em

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Gary Neville's one of the worst. "He took one for the team" and "He had to stop him going through" are two of his other favourites.

 

[Blade56]

Don't know if this has been asked but, if a player dives, wins a pen, scores the pen and wins the match 1-0 does the result stand?

 

[dave the drummer]

I know there are a lot of people calling for this sort of thing, personally I think it would ruin football. Unlike rugby or cricket or NFL, football flows. It's ok to say you can look at a video for 10 seconds, which would probably be 30 by the time everything's sorted and the game restarted, but that only takes into consideration an incident where the ref has already stopped play. If someone goes down but the ref doesn't think it's a penalty, should he blow anyway to check whether he was right? If he waits for the next natural break in play, it could be 3 minutes or more away, does the game stop then and check the last 2 or 3 incidents to see whether play should be taken back?
Because if you don't apply video replays equally to all situations, then you aren't going to make things fairer at all.

Fair enough. Maybe if footballers were honest sportsmen this sort of thing wouldn't happen - I love snooker because the players tell the ref when they have committed a foul - why cant all sportsmen be like that?