Wanted: Suarez - video proof of diving

[Anny Road]

Have to agree with Monty.

 

 

Fuck

[lebron]

I'll state this again for those who don't seem to have a handle on it: having slight contact from someone and falling over through your own choice is a dive' date=' it is not a foul. Football is a contact sport and just because someone makes contact with you does not mean it's a foul. If you are not intending to take another step and have thrown yourself to the floor then you have dived. A rare exception is when you are getting out of the way of a bad tackle, a very rare exception.

[/quote']

Firstly, I'd like to say that there's (at least) two different interpretations of the word «diver», something you have trouble grasping.

 

Secondly, how are the 80'a treating you? The game is not going to magically revert back to what you would like it to be...

 

All we want is that Luis is treated the same as other players with the same inclinations to make the most out of a contact...which isn't happening atm...

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Suarez invites the challenge, he is expecting contact. When a player clatters through him it's for a reason, the defender is looking to gain an advantage. Defender's are not vilified in the same way. For example Barnett's reaction after he fouled Suarez. He rushes to the referee claiming Suarez has dived, asking him to be booked. There's little made of this compared to the focus on Suarez's perceived antics.

 

How does an attacking player counter this especially if you're talking about a foreign player quicker of mind and technically superior to the average English defender? The easy fix is to encourage the attacker to make the most of any contact. I certainly think in this country there should be more done to protect players like Suarez.

 

That is true what you say, but the point most people are making is the fact he can sometimes go down with the slightest touch on him, and he makes it look like he has been nuked.

 

A perfect comparison of this is Dogbreath.

 

How many times have we all said about the way he went down with the faintest of touches and him making out as if he had just been kneecapped.

 

The merest breath on his shoulder and down he went with a oscar winning performance of somebody being shot.

 

That is exactly how Luis was at first and my guess he has been told by team mates to cut it out.

 

He is nothing like that now and only now and then he does it.

 

The problem is he is seen in the same light as Dogbreath because of how he was doing it at first.

 

Ginsoak cemented it with his dive comments and it sticks.

 

Now as we have seen this season he isnt been awarded penalties or free kicks for genuine fouls.

 

Refs have obviously been told to watch out for players trying to get penos for no fouls at all.

 

It seems that Luis has been highlighted as a player to keep a eye out for.

 

So anytime he goes down under a bad tackle and he adds in some dramatics then refs arnt giving the penalities,because they see it as him over doing his reacting to a foul and think he is diving.

 

The problem now is because of the type of player he is with his close play to defenders he is going to find it hard to be awarded any fouls, unless it is a blatent foul.

 

Another thing with him ha someone has already mentioned is his constant mouthing off at refs and linesmen.

 

Imo that instantly puts a opinion of him into a refs mind as him being a pain in the arse.

 

So that does not help him in the slightest over 50/50 claims for fouls.

 

After all refs are only human and if we were getting abuse off somebody in work,we would instantly be against that person.

[Torvald Utne]

So are you saying Suarez never dives then?

 

I am.

 

He flings himself in the air doing a triple salchow whilst screaming his tits off but the point being made here is that he doesn't go down when there has been no contact.

 

A dive is when you go down after ZERO contact

 

(maybe he's used to not getting anything so feels he has to highlight that he's been caught)

Edited October 2, 2012 by fungus

[MLB]

Agree with Stu Monty, "making the most of contact" is still diving. And I don't buy the whole "minimal contact can bring down a player moving at pace" thing because you see players staying up in those situations all the time.

 

I think Suarez is definitely doing it less, and clearly he has been very hard done by recently, but acting like it's a complete myth is embarrassing.

[Torvald Utne]

Agree with Stu Monty, "making the most of contact" is still diving. And I don't buy the whole "minimal contact can bring down a player moving at pace" thing because you see players staying up in those situations all the time.

 

I think Suarez is definitely doing it less, and clearly he has been very hard done by recently, but acting like it's a complete myth is embarrassing.

 

It might offend your moral sensibilities but it's not diving and it's not against the rules, infact it is rewarded by the referees, refs only give freekicks when the player goes down.

[Jack the Sipper]

I notice that people here have their own interpretation of what a 'dive' is. Personally, I consider a dive to be when someone falls in a fashion which isn't a fair reaction to the conctact, if any, in order to gain a foul. Of that Suarez (and countless others) is definitely guilty.

 

Perhaps the OP should've used the term 'simulation' (what refs book players for) instead of 'dive', then there wouldn't be any room for arsing around with definitions.

[dirk grout]

It might offend your moral sensibilities but it's not diving and it's not against the rules, infact it is rewarded by the referees, refs only give freekicks when the player goes down.

 

This is the key issue. The refs are clueless. We often see a player being fouled battling to stay on his feet, the ref plays 'advantage', the player gets a shot in which goes wide and the ref then gives a goal kick. How the fuck is that an advantage? Players MUST dive to get the decision. Its ridiculous.

[MLB]

It might offend your moral sensibilities but it's not diving and it's not against the rules, infact it is rewarded by the referees, refs only give freekicks when the player goes down.

 

 

You are confusing two issues. It is diving because the player is falling over when they don't need to. The fact that it is rewarded by referees when it shouldn't be doesn't mean it's not diving.

 

I agree with your general point though, and I think it's the referees that are the problem because, as you say, a player will only get a decision if he falls over. Ridiculous.

[Stu Monty]

It might offend your moral sensibilities but it's not diving and it's not against the rules, infact it is rewarded by the referees, refs only give freekicks when the player goes down.

 

They are called laws and it is against them. It's called simulation and it's also called unsporting behaviour.

 

Football is a contact sport. Contact is not a foul. Throwing yourself on the floor, of your own choice, and pretending to be fouled, when not fouled is simulation. The laws actually state if it is minimal contact consider booking the player.

 

CONTACT IS NOT A FOUL.

 

You don't get to define what diving is.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Stu Monty

[Major Tom]

I agree with your general point though, and I think it's the referees that are the problem because, as you say, a player will only get a decision if he falls over. Ridiculous.

 

So, you think players should be penalised for any contact? It must be very difficult to decide what is an infringement or not if a player doesn't go to ground. You are basically taking contact out of the game. The referees are in an impossible situation.

[Whelan]

They are called laws and it is against them. It's called simulation and it's also called unsporting behaviour.

 

Football is a contact sport. Contact is not a foul. Throwing yourself on the floor, or your own choice, and pretending to be fouled, when not fouled is simulation. The laws actually state if it is minimal contact consider booking the player.

 

CONTACT IS NOT A FOUL.

 

You don't get to define what diving is.

 

I think you (and Scouse Tapas) are right that you can't say he doesn't dive, he does and has quite rightly been vilified for it, my point was the argument that he has a reputation and therefore incidents like on Saturday are his fault is not only wrong, but quite dangerous, for the reasons a lot of others are saying - others dive without getting a reputation for a multitude of reasons, but dismissing blatant penalties and more worringly nasty tackles because of his reputation is wrong. A foul is a foul is a foul. Sunderland was not a penalty because he went down to quickly, but he didn't get the penalty so everything worked out the way that it should, but Valencia did, so what people seem to be saying is that so long as you don't have a reputation for cheating then you can get away with cheating! It is nonsense. And for a manager like Ferguson to plant this in peoples minds is cheating as well.

 

And Scouse Tapas, my point about the 8 months was regarding the orginal statements from Ferguson which were in September 11, and have been accepted as fact since then. Sorry, should have made that clear.

[Stu Monty]

So, you think players should be penalised for any contact? It must be very difficult to decide what is an infringement or not if a player doesn't go to ground. You are basically taking contact out of the game. The referees are in an impossible situation.

 

Maybe but that's what a referee is for. He decides when a clash of legs is a kick or a trip, or when a bump of bodies is a foul.

 

It is difficult because the players are all cheating by dropping at slight contact and manipulating contact as they throw themselves over. On the other side the refs need to have some balls and be backed by their association.

 

Just remember, you cannot trip a man who has no intention of taking another step. And it has to be a trip or a kick of sufficient force to be a foul (note that I can kick you on the foot whilst going for the ball and if it's not of much force a ref can deem that it isn't a foul...because it's a contact sport).

[Whelan]

You can't have free kicks given for 'contact'! It has to hinder the player.

[Major Tom]

 

It is difficult because the players are all cheating by dropping at slight contact and manipulating contact as they throw themselves over. On the other side the refs need to have some balls and be backed by their association.

 

Agree with this. The FA, PL or whoever the hell it is are spineless. The officials get no backing or protection at all. Pardew shoved one of them and got a 2 game ban. Any other sport, you'd get a HUGE ban for that sort of behaviour. Life in some cases.

 

But, yeah, it's definitely up to the ref to decide on the impact of any contact. And, as you say, he is not helped by players flinging themselves about. But, fuck that, with those sorts of decisions and the dog's abuse you get from everyone, whatever decision you make, I wouldn't go near refereeing.

[Whelan]

Don't forget, for all the talk about players getting retribution for the cheats - the worlds stupidest intellectual Clarke Carlisle defended Ashley Young's dive against QPR!

 

And the worst dive was Andy Caroll's, which to this day I can't explain.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

 

 

[Coro]

Yes, it's a contact sport but how far is contact allowed to go?

 

Defenders do all sorts of things that go against the spirit of the game but the fixation remains with diving.

[Redder Lurtz]

See, some of us are allowed our little opinions and we're told we're allowed to have them by those who tell us their opinion is the right one.

 

That's why I love some of the people on here so much.

[JohnnyH]

I am.

 

He flings himself in the air doing a triple salchow whilst screaming his tits off but the point being made here is that he doesn't go down when there has been no contact.

 

A dive is when you go down after ZERO contact

 

(maybe he's used to not getting anything so feels he has to highlight that he's been caught)

 

Oh for gods sake. A dive is also when you come in contact with someone but decide to throw yourself to the ground as if polaxed when the contact has been fair and 50/50. That's the vast majority of dives - minimal contact made the most of.

[Redder Lurtz]

This forum would have a row with itself if it was locked in a phonebox on the fucking moon.

[Torvald Utne]

Oh for gods sake. A dive is also when you come in contact with someone but decide to throw yourself to the ground as if polaxed when the contact has been fair and 50/50. That's the vast majority of dives - minimal contact made the most of.

 

They are called laws and it is against them. It's called simulation and it's also called unsporting behaviour.

 

Football is a contact sport. Contact is not a foul. Throwing yourself on the floor, of your own choice, and pretending to be fouled, when not fouled is simulation. The laws actually state if it is minimal contact consider booking the player.

 

CONTACT IS NOT A FOUL.

 

You don't get to define what diving is.

 

Quite right but the folks who make dictionaries do and they define it as the act of a player pretending to have been tripped.

 

They don't define it as pretending they were tripped worse than they actually were.

[TheHowieLama]

 

And the worst dive was Andy Caroll's, which to this day I can't explain.

 

He got his flipper caught underneath him.

 

Those are the real twats - the fellas who could stay on their feet and do more damage if they continued.

[Whelan]

Middlesborough is also a dive!

 

Not relevant, but can't really be stated too many times.

[Stu Monty]

Quite right but the folks who make dictionaries do and they define it as the act of a player pretending to have been tripped.

 

They don't define it as pretending they were tripped worse than they actually were.

 

Contact isn't a foul. I'm not sure how many more time I'd have to say this before you'd think about it.

 

Simulation is pretending to be fouled. So...pretending to be tripped when you've had slight contact. If you can't see that most of the tackles in these clips have not knocked Suarez off balance at all, and that he could have carried on running with no problem at all (ergo, he wasn't tripped, merely brushed), then no amount of words from me will make you see it.

 

I love Lurtz telling my my opinion is a "crock of shit" then playing the victim when challenged on his opinion being wrong. Great stuff.