Double standards by media on diving

comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 39 minutes ago
If he stayed on his feet, he should score so the only explanation for him going down like he did was because he must have lost balance
=====
Why would he suddenly lose balance?

If he lost balance its because his foot got kicked

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to lose balance AND stay on your feet incredibly. If you stumble over something do you always fall over, no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a foul in the box and thus a penalty. Staying on your feet or not is not a consideration the ref makes. The rules are clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if Sterling stays on his feet you think he gives a penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's a foul in the box then nothing else should matter or hinder the ref from awarding a penalty. That's not to say I approve of all this but the rules should be invoked first and then the rest comes later.

comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 minutes ago
Well yeah, I agree, you don't get penalties if you don't go down. Is there enough contact to go down though? Doesn't look it in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't get decisions if you don't go down and you get more decisions than you should if you keep going down even if not fouled. The refs are like that so they actually encourage it IMO.

No, which is why he didn't. Why should the defender gain an advantage by fouling?
=====
Exactly.

Where do you draw the line. The refs don't give it if you don't go down which would allows defenders to keep sniping at attackers and fouling just enough to put the attacker off his game while keeping within the threshold for a foul to be given.

It explains all the shirt pulling and holding at set pieces because the refs don't give it unless its very blatant which means its gonna keep happening and why not? A chance to put off the attacker illegally which the ref wont call for a foul. You give them a yard they take a mile.

comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 27 minutes ago
Well yeah, I agree, you don't get penalties if you don't go down. Is there enough contact to go down though? Doesn't look it in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No there isn't. There's enough contact for it to be a foul though. The ref wouldn't give the foul if he didn't go down.

comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 hours, 10 minutes ago
comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Blue_mooning (U12093)
posted 50 minutes ago
Sterling was turning then got clipped anyone would fall. Dont think mane needs to fall.. you cant give a player a yellow for diving and a pen. Makes no sence its one or the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute nonsense. Both players could have easily avoided falling but dived. Both were fouled and therefore a penalty. To attempt to say that Sterling couldn't have stayed on his feet but Mane threw himself down is downright bias. You're being ridiculous.

Both players dived and both were poor doves but it the grand scheme of things, the correct decision was reached.

But yeah kind of agree that it would be strange to give a player a yellow after he is fouled for a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What would happen if an attacker was fouled in the box, so a pen was to be given, but in retaliation the attacker kicks out or stamped on the defender?

I think the penalty would be given but the attacker would be carded / sent off.

I therefore dont see why a pen couldnt be given but the attacker booked for simulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes of course the penalty would be given and the attacker red carded in that situation. The card would come from a completely different offence that isn't dependant on the first incident. It isn't comparable.

The offence of simulation is with the intent to deceive the referee. If there has been a foul that should result in a penalty then you cannot be guilty of attempting to deceive the referee because you aren't deceiving him. You start to get into a horrible grey area of telling players how much pain they should feel etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is contact, but not to the extent that either attacker HAS to go down and certainly not to the extent they did.

The yellow would also come from a separate offence. Simulation after the foul by the defender.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, because you have ignored a very key part of my post. Simulation is with the intent to deceive the ref. If the ref gives a penalty, then it is not possible for him to legitimately say the player was attempting to deceive him. It is a logical fallacy.

"I gave the penalty because the player was fouled. I booked the fouled player for attempting to deceive me into giving the penalty".

The question of whether an attacker had to go down or chooses to is secondary to the question of if the attacker was fouled. If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the former question is irrelevant.

Both attackers exaggerated the result of the contact to influence the refs decision.

There is no reason why the ref cant give the foul / pen but also book the attacker for exaggerating their fall.

If an attacker doesnt go down after a foul in the box but doesn't go on to score from the advantage then VAR should give it.

comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 17 minutes ago
If an attacker doesnt go down after a foul in the box but doesn't go on to score from the advantage then VAR should give it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR would never give it as it wouldn't be a clear and obvious error.

comment by Big McTominay (U22257)
posted 22 minutes ago
Both attackers exaggerated the result of the contact to influence the refs decision.

There is no reason why the ref cant give the foul / pen but also book the attacker for exaggerating their fall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a reason and it has been explained.

The reason the was controversy or outrage for Mane and not Sterling is that we won the game, the penalty was decisive.

With Sterling and England the penalty was a footnote in England losing their first qualifier in a decade.

Focus is always give to decisions which impact the result of a game. The relative merits of the pens don’t really influence that.