• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

FIFA World Cup 2014

#2,162
I'm one of those people who finds the "diving" in soccer/football almost incomprehensible: Given how much the game is about "machismo," you'd think that players would be trying to show everyone that they can stay on their feet and keep playing despite being fouled! And, do you really want to win a match based on your ability to fool (i.e., lie to) a referee about a phantom foul? How do you sleep at night?

That said, I find it difficult to blame the referees, who cannot reasonably be expected to be able to reliably distinguish real fouls from flops in real time. I kinda like what the NBA has done recently, which is to acknowledge this limitation and enable the league to impose penalties (fines and suspensions) for flops based on post-game replay footage.
 
#2,164
Lobster11 said:
I'm one of those people who finds the "diving" in soccer/football almost incomprehensible: Given how much the game is about "machismo," you'd think that players would be trying to show everyone that they can stay on their feet and keep playing despite being fouled! And, do you really want to win a match based on your ability to fool (i.e., lie to) a referee about a phantom foul? How do you sleep at night?

That said, I find it difficult to blame the referees, who cannot reasonably be expected to be able to reliably distinguish real fouls from flops in real time. I kinda like what the NBA has done recently, which is to acknowledge this limitation and enable the league to impose penalties (fines and suspensions) for flops based on post-game replay footage.
Click to expand...

Who said it was about machismo?

When a referee calls a foul on a defender it is based, or should be based, on the actions of the defender, not on the reaction of the player being fouled. That's a simple distinction to make. As a ref you simply call what you actually see the defender do and not what you think may have happened. It's that simple. That is what NFL referees do and they are the best referees in any sport. When you do things this way there will still be mistakes, but those mistakes will be missed fouls rather than 'phantom fouls' which is what you get when you allow the referees to make calls based on assumptions.
 
#2,165
matante said:
When a referee calls a foul on a defender it is based, or should be based, on the actions of the defender, not on the reaction of the player being fouled. That's a simple distinction to make. As a ref you simply call what you actually see the defender do and not what you think may have happened. It's that simple. That is what NFL referees do and they are the best referees in any sport. When you do things this way there will still be mistakes, but those mistakes will be missed fouls rather than 'phantom fouls' which is what you get when you allow the referees to make calls based on assumptions.
Click to expand...

Agreed, in principle. But in the NFL, you have an entire battalion of judges, umpires, and referees on the field, each of whom has the responsibility of watching a very small part of the action (and who somehow still can't seem to reliably distinguish holding from good blocking or pass interference from good pass defense). In soccer/football you have one referee, aided only by a couple of assistants whose primary responsibility is watching for offsides violations. It just isn't reasonable to expect one referee to be able to see and accurately judge the cause of every collision between players and determine whether is was a foul or a dive. It seems to me that what is needed is either more officials on the field, or a way of penalizing diving after the fact based on video replay.
 
#2,166
Spider-nest.gif
 
#2,169
Lobster11 said:
Agreed, in principle. But in the NFL, you have an entire battalion of judges, umpires, and referees on the field, each of whom has the responsibility of watching a very small part of the action (and who somehow still can't seem to reliably distinguish holding from good blocking or pass interference from good pass defense). In soccer/football you have one referee, aided only by a couple of assistants whose primary responsibility is watching for offsides violations. It just isn't reasonable to expect one referee to be able to see and accurately judge the cause of every collision between players and determine whether is was a foul or a dive. It seems to me that what is needed is either more officials on the field, or a way of penalizing diving after the fact based on video replay.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you why some players dive, and I'm not in any way defending diving, but there's a rationale behind diving and not feeling like a cheater. In many cases, defenders will foul an attacking player in such a way that causes him to lose the ball or in some way 'kills' the play, yet the referee will not call a foul because the attacking player did not fall to the ground. This is an injustice and it happens a lot. Even fans will say, "he fouled him but it wan't enough for him to go to the ground!" The issue should be, did the illegal contact cause the player to lose the ball or otherwise kill the play, not whether he went to the ground or not.

In the Mexico/Holland match there were several instances of Mexican players losing the ball because they were shoved in the back by a defender, yet, because they stayed on their feet and didn't flop, no foul was called. In the Costa Rica/Uruguay match, Uruguay was awarded a penalty because their man was being held in the area and he flopped to the ground. Was that a dive? Yes, but it was also a penalty. Minutes later, when Costa Rica had a corner kick, every Uruguayan defender had his arms wrapped around a Costa Rican in the box. The ref had his pick of 6 or 7 penalties to call on that play but he did not call a single one. None of the Costa Ricans flopped to the ground like the Uruguayan had done earlier.

What I'm saying is that a lot f diving occurs on plays that actually are fouls. It's not a question of whether it is a foul or a dive. It could be both. The referee's job is to see what the defender did and whether it was legal or not. How the opponent reacts is immaterial.
 
#2,174
Lobster11 said:
Agreed, in principle. But in the NFL, you have an entire battalion of judges, umpires, and referees on the field, each of whom has the responsibility of watching a very small part of the action (and who somehow still can't seem to reliably distinguish holding from good blocking or pass interference from good pass defense). In soccer/football you have one referee, aided only by a couple of assistants whose primary responsibility is watching for offsides violations. It just isn't reasonable to expect one referee to be able to see and accurately judge the cause of every collision between players and determine whether is was a foul or a dive. It seems to me that what is needed is either more officials on the field, or a way of penalizing diving after the fact based on video replay.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about this too... A good solution might to implement a "challenge" system like in the NFL and now MLB. Coaches are allowed a certain amount of challenges per game and can only challenge certain plays, fouls within the 18 yard box, and perhaps the ability rescind yellow/red cards like how in the NBA referees are allowed to downgrade a flagrant one to a common foul, but not the other way around.

It wouldn't be a perfect system, but people need to time to adjust and a challenge system seems like a good way to slowly incorporate fairness as well the ability to sell advertising space over TV...
 
#2,175
I'm with Bill. An old timer who's been watching the game - and not just on TV - since the 70s.

What the heck would we argue about in the pub after the game if everything was resolved in the 90 mins?

Anyway...due to an unexpected absence I've missed a few rounds, so I have to live with the eternal shame of finishing below the Canadian simpleton on our league table.

But I can wait. I'll derail the shizzle out of one of his ice skating threads.
 
#2,179
Tituscrow said:
I'm with Bill. An old timer who's been watching the game - and not just on TV - since the 70s.

What the heck would we argue about in the pub after the game if everything was resolved in the 90 mins?

Anyway...due to an unexpected absence I've missed a few rounds, so I have to live with the eternal shame of finishing below the Canadian simpleton on our league table.

But I can wait. I'll derail the shizzle out of one of his ice skating threads.
Click to expand...

Yeah all the TV has really wasted all that - you could keep a good going argument about an offside or a penalty going for hours afterwards because there was never any conclusive proof to be found one way or another!

Ah you can still fire in scores for the rest of the competition if you feel like it, you now have the perfect excuse :)

For Everyone - the list for the Quarters should be up tonight after the last game - get 'em in lads!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back