Gary Monk on Cheating...

[Jordinho]

Whoever came up with 'he felt a touch, he's entitled to go down' has a lot to answer for.

Someone falling over does not equal a foul.

Ref not giving a foul does not equal a dive.

It's a contact sport and some times people will fall over.

 

[Neymar]

Whoever came up with 'he felt a touch, he's entitled to go down' has a lot to answer for.

i agree with this. technically anyone who exaggerates contact/force should be booked. but some players feel this is the only way to show the ref that theyve been fouled. and as long as referees dont punish players who go down in this manner, players will continue to so.

Someone falling over does not equal a foul.


Ref not giving a foul does not equal a dive.

also agree with this

It's a contact sport and some times people will fall over.

im not sure it is a "contact sport" tbh. like ive said before, the rules dictate that the levels of contact in football should be similar to basketball (although some argue basketball is a contact sport also).

The problem is, the contact on ivanovic tonight should always result in a penalty, but unless ivanovic collapses, referees will never give it. thats why ivanovic has to collapse in the manner that he has.

Its also why a challenge system (a la tennis/nfl) is a long way away from being introduced into football. It will open up a whole can of worms. the way football is currently played today, theres a foul every other second. if a challenge system were to be introduced, the way football is played will change dramatically.

 

[the dza]

Was it Capoue who did Silva on the achilles the other day? To me, that is worse than diving, as he could have injured the player and it would have been totally deliberate. Of course, I'm all for our players cheating and 'leaving a bit' on opponents. Kick 'em, dive, harrass the ref -- especially against Arsenal and Chelsea.

Football is a fundamentally dishonest game, participated in by a great many pr1cks. They don't respect officials, they appeal for everything and constantly try to influence and cheat those same officials whilst, at the same time, moaning that they never get any decisions correct in their favour -- and that's just us fans.

 

[glasgowspur]

No doubt this is a difficult one. Cheating is cheating, I don't see any difference. If someone is a cheat it's in their nature and it will never go away. Extreme example Suarez. If your not by nature a cheat, King, you rise above it as best you can.
I don't care what other teams do as long as we don't do it. As a spurs supporter anything done in the spurs name reflects on me and I will not be called a cheat. I would rather lose honourably than win dishonourably.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[Rorschach]

Its also why a challenge system (a la tennis/nfl) is a long way away from being introduced into football. It will open up a whole can of worms. the way football is currently played today, theres a foul every other second. if a challenge system were to be introduced, the way football is played will change dramatically.

It would if the challenges were numerous, but if it was limited to one or two instances a game it could be workable. Actually I don't like the idea myself but it would be interesting to trial it. Who decides which incidents to challenge would be also be interesting as I don't think the head coach or anyone at the sideline for that matter would be objective enough to make the smart call.

 

[Neymar]

It would if the challenges were numerous, but if it was limited to one or two instances a game it could be workable. Actually I don't like the idea myself but it would be interesting to trial it. Who decides which incidents to challenge would be also be interesting as I don't think the head coach or anyone at the sideline for that matter would be objective enough to make the smart call.

but if the appealing team won the challenge, they would get their challenge back (at least thats how it works in tennis). if a team challenged because an oppositon player gave a slight tug, the officials (maybe the 4th official) would look at video evidence, and would have to award the foul (because the rules state that you cant obstruct someone in this manner, with no mention of degree). currently, a lot of these small niggles are ignored, and the game is played and officiated in this manner.

if challenges are introduced, initially you will get a lot of succesful challenge appeals of this type, until everyone adapts to playing football in a totally different manner to the way we are playing now. i think this is why fifa are so hesitant to bring in video challenges. because they know football isnt played by the rule book, its played by precedent.

examples of what i mean when i say football is officiated and played by precedent:
-a foul often needs to be more severe to be awarded in the penalty box than outside.
-grappling/holding/shoving are not generally allowed, but some leeway is given at corners.
-making slight contact with the attacker (which often offbalances them) as you then proceed to tackle them is allowed
-goalkeepers are allowed far more than 6 seconds holding the ball usually
-it is far harder to pick up the 2nd yellow card than it is the 1st
-swearing and using foul language is usually accepted as being totally fine
-a player never gets booked when he has exaggeratted contact/simulated in a situation where he has clearly been fouled.

the list is basically endless. football isnt officiated solely by the rule book. thats why cheating of all forms is so rife in football.

 

[Rorschach]

but if the appealing team won the challenge, they would get their challenge back (at least thats how it works in tennis). if a team challenged because an oppositon player gave a slight tug, the officials (maybe the 4th official) would look at video evidence, and would have to award the foul (because the rules state that you cant obstruct someone in this manner, with no mention of degree). currently, a lot of these small niggles are ignored, and the game is played and officiated in this manner.

if challenges are introduced, initially you will get a lot of succesful challenge appeals of this type, until everyone adapts to playing football in a totally different manner to the way we are playing now. i think this is why fifa are so hesitant to bring in video challenges. because they know football isnt played by the rule book, its played by precedent.

examples of what i mean when i say football is officiated and played by precedent:
-a foul often needs to be more severe to be awarded in the penalty box than outside.
-grappling/holding/shoving are not generally allowed, but some leeway is given at corners.
-making slight contact with the attacker (which often offbalances them) as you then proceed to tackle them is allowed
-goalkeepers are allowed far more than 6 seconds holding the ball usually
-it is far harder to pick up the 2nd yellow card than it is the 1st
-swearing and using foul language is usually accepted as being totally fine
-a player never gets booked when he has exaggeratted contact/simulated in a situation where he has clearly been fouled.

the list is basically endless. football isnt officiated solely by the rule book. thats why cheating of all forms is so rife in football.

I don't think that bit would work. Gotta keep it to 1 or 2 a match.

 

[jts1882]

The defence of diving and excuses for not taking action to clamp it out seems to mirror the arguments against technology. Technology won't be able to correct all mistakes. Diving is not the only form of cheating. But you can't solve all the problems at once. Start with what is fixable now and least disruptive to the game. Goal line technology. Post-match penalties for diving. The latter can easily be extended to other forms of cheating (e.g. holding).

Holding is so much part of the game now, perhaps we should look at Basketball and calling fouls (any foul or holding offence, not just those deemed enough for a yellow card). The problem with that is basketball defenders feel obligated to pick up the allowed number of fouls during a game and footballers would do the same. However, in practice they already do, where the first bad tackle usually gets a warning, especially if early in the game. Players will inevitably make fouls during a game - a defender can miss tackles legitimately, just as a striker misses shots - but how many does he need? If he can't tackle well enough that he can't tackle without fouling then perhaps he shouldn't be playing top level football. Five fouls and out, either as red or compulsory substitution? And they could count team fouls so that above a certain number (10? 15?) all further fouls by the team get a yellow card.

 

[Jurgen the German]

when you ask someone why they dont liked diving/ divers, their usual response is because it is cheating.

when they are then questioned on why they dont like all other cheats and forms of cheating, they then change their tune somewhat.

i.e in the case of this thread, they dont like diving because it is "cheating twice". thus, insinuating that "cheating once" is now ok. (i know, im exaggerating a bit here)

but basically what it shows is that people dont really know why they dont like diving. they just dont like it because. and when they are asked why they dont like diving, they try to find all sorts of reasons to differentiate it from other forms of cheating so that they can continue to single out diving/divers.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are defending diving or trying to diminish it. We should be all for trying to improve the game and cut out all forms of cheating, diving is one example that we could at least attempt to try and lessen in the game. You will never eradicate all forms of rule bending, but any way we can try to limit it should be welcomed.

 

[Neymar]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are defending diving or trying to diminish it. We should be all for trying to improve the game and cut out all forms of cheating, diving is one example that we could at least attempt to try and lessen in the game. You will never eradicate all forms of rule bending, but any way we can try to limit it should be welcomed.

i just dont agree with singling out of divers when it is no worse than any other form of cheating. the moral questioning of divers is just disguting imo (ie. Monk on Moses), when Monk and his team do things that are morally on par with diving. thus making him a massive hypocrite. and yes i am trying to dimish the act of diving, because the act does not deserve the level of criticism it often receives.

like ive said before, we should either try to eradicate all forms of cheating (which is basically impossible now imo, its become part of the way we play the game), or we set the line at assault/ serious foul play (which is what i think we should be trying more heavily to do).

 

[Neymar]

Start with what is fixable now and least disruptive to the game. Goal line technology. Post-match penalties for diving. The latter can easily be extended to other forms of cheating (e.g. holding).

This would be ideal. But i just dont think its practical now. So many forms of cheating are just accepted part of the game now. from exaggerating contact, to bodychecking runners etc. these are all considered good tactical play by managers, ex-players and pundits alike.

if we were to look at basketball and start calling all these fouls (like we should), i dont think people would enjoy the game. The challenge system would force us to start calling all these fouls however, and i think that is ultimately why it is not being introduced.

 

[the dza]

They dive in basketball too -- they call it "flopping."

 

[Jurgen the German]

i just dont agree with singling out of divers when it is no worse than any other form of cheating. the moral questioning of divers is just disguting imo (ie. Monk on Moses), when Monk and his team do things that are morally on par with diving. thus making him a massive hypocrite. and yes i am trying to dimish the act of diving, because the act does not deserve the level of criticism it often receives.

like ive said before, we should either try to eradicate all forms of cheating (which is basically impossible now imo, its become part of the way we play the game), or we set the line at assault/ serious foul play (which is what i think we should be trying more heavily to do).

I'm curious as to why you think diving doesn't deserve the criticism it gets. And why you think trying to win a free kick or penalty AND trying to get someone booked or sent off in the process is no worse than shirt pulling. I don't agree that all forms of breaking the rules are the same, stamping on someone is worse than shirt pulling for example. There are different levels of cheating.

 

[Neymar]

I'm curious as to why you think diving doesn't deserve the criticism it gets. And why you think trying to win a free kick or penalty AND trying to get someone booked or sent off in the process is no worse than shirt pulling. I don't agree that all forms of breaking the rules are the same, stamping on someone is worse than shirt pulling for example. There are different levels of cheating.

i agree that stamping on someone is worse than shirt pulling. thats why ive said lets draw the line at assault.

i think diving is the same as shirt pulling because it is cheating within the confines of football. ie. it is not a crime that should be dealt with outside of the game (as serious foul play ie. stamping on someone should be imo).

is trying to win a freekick and then getting someone sent off much different to stopping someone from scoring and thus denying him a chance to play in the premier league and earn top money (if it is a championship playoff game)? players are very happy to take yellow and red cards for proffessional fouls. thus i dont think getting someone a yellow or red card is much of an issue