Are penalties ruining football ?

[Sidney1st]

Yeah when players stick a leg out and make sure there's contact on the way down its a dive too IMO. The one i'm disputing is when there's contact, it's a foul but the player makes a meal of it, I don't think that's a dive but others think it is.

It can be a dive though.
We've seen some players keep going so they can score, whilst someone else will go done when given an almost identical tackle.

You can usually spot them, they're rolling around on the floor screaming like their leg has fallen off and jump up quickly if they don't get the decision or they want to carry on with the game.

[KRBFC]

It can be a dive though.
We've seen some players keep going so they can score, whilst someone else will go done when given an almost identical tackle.

You can usually spot them, they're rolling around on the floor screaming like their leg has fallen off and jump up quickly if they don't get the decision or they want to carry on with the game.

But it's still a foul, the honesty of the player shouldn't go against him because it promotes players to go down and take the penalty for the foul.

[bob-the-scutter]

Clearly you think it matters how the fouled player goes down, I don't consider it important. The important factor in all of this is the question ''is the contact made worthy of a foul?'' Making the most of a foul doesn't make it not a foul which is the part people struggle with. If Defour did a triple backflip after the red card tackle on him by Marvin Zeegelar, does it change anything? would that make it no foul? No it wouldn't.

So I'll ask again. If the defender happens to touch the attacker in the penalty area and the attacker throws himself writhing on the floor as both Hazard and Ramsey clearly did. In your mind it's a nailed on pen?

[KRBFC]

So I'll ask again. If the defender happens to touch the attacker in the penalty area and the attacker throws himself writhing on the floor as both Hazard and Ramsey clearly did. In your mind it's a nailed on pen?

It depends if the contact is deemed a foul, I have no problem with players going down when they're fouled like Hazard did.

[Sidney1st]

But it's still a foul, the honesty of the player shouldn't go against him because it promotes players to go down and take the penalty for the foul.

It isn't always a foul though, if a player exaggerates the contact to con the ref then it isn't fair.

Darren Huckerby was asked once about something that happened between him and a defender.
The defender appeared to go down easily and Huckerby was asked about it.

He basically implied that the defender dived because he's 5.6ft and the Defender was over 6ft so there was no way he barged him over.
That was never disputed either by the defender.

[Woodleyclaret]

We have certainly suffered with several very dodgy decisions .How on earth Wenger can winge is beyond.
Arsenal have stolen points off us in the last three meetings with bias refereeing .

[bob-the-scutter]

It depends if the contact is deemed a foul, I have no problem with players going down when they're fouled like Hazard did.

Then your definitely in the wrong forum!

[elwaclaret]

It used to be an event seeing a penalty... now its an event if there isn't one. Knowing that the chances are a goal lead is just one cheat away... and you know who are going to get them given tells you it has gone beyond annoying into bringing the gameinto disrepute. IT IS CHEATING. Penalties need to go back to being awarded by referees not "he won a penalty".... the very term should lead to a ban for the cheat.

[bob-the-scutter]

It used to be an event seeing a penalty... now its an event if there isn't one. Knowing that the chances are a goal lead is just one cheat away... and you know who are going to get them given tells you it has gone beyond annoying into bringing the gameinto disrepute. IT IS CHEATING. Penalties need to go back to being awarded by referees not "he won a penalty".... the very term should lead to a ban for the cheat.

Yes, rocket science it`s not! And it is ruining the game. It`s appalling when all the teammates pat him on the back congratulating him for "Winning" the penalty.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Francis Lee, was renowned during his time as a player for 'winning' penalties.

Franny Lee's height and stature meant that he was difficult to deal with when he ran straight at defenders.

Not too sure that his "winning" of penalties was down to simulation and diving.

[TeesClaret]

Re Francis Lee - I was in the Bee Hole End and watched him run into our penalty area and throw himself up in the air and onto the ground with no player anywhere near him. I was shocked because I didn't know players did that sort of thing.
That was a rarity in those days (late 60s) but now it has reached ridiculous levels. Scrap penalties (apart from handball stopping the ball going in the net) as mentioned above is a great idea.

[Stalbansclaret]

It definitely is damaging football..."winning" a penalty is becoming the easiest way to score (although we are clearly not very good at it). The pathetic "there was contact" justification is being used all the time now when in reality it's pretty much impossible to defend without contact (or attack for that matter). The relevant question, which refs should be judging imo, is simply "was there an illegal contact (i.e. not, for instance, a shoulder to shoulder contact within playing distance of the ball) which was sufficient to cause the attacking player to go down or be prevented from reaching the ball". At the same time the refs need to crack down hard on anyone obviously simulating or exaggerating a foul. It's an absolute blight on the game and getting worse.
Maybe scrap penalties unless a clear goal-scoring opportunity too to prevent out-of-proportion punishment such as for Ramsey's nowhere-near-the-ball superman impression at Turf Moor.

[boatshed bill]

It's all down to the refs.
The simple answer is it's a penalty if the contact would be enough to bring the player down anywhere else on the pitch.
If not, no penalty.

[tim_noone]

I propose the Death penalty.........all diving will cease immediately IMO.

[FactualFrank]

It depends if the contact is deemed a foul, I have no problem with players going down when they're fouled like Hazard did.

I've seen the replay of Hazard's 'foul' and it seemed to show no contact made on Hazard.

[UpTheBeehole]

I've seen the replay of Hazard's 'foul' and it seemed to show no contact made on Hazard.

There was definite contact, he is clearly kicked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqJQHccA348

[Shappie]

No. Television is.

And the cost of tickets (not to mention Twix)

[Commy]

I have seen one this week almost identical to Tarks against Arsenal. TV commentator verdict was that there was not enough contact.

[Sproggy]

It's a foul if it impedes the player. Feeling contact and throwing yourself to the floor isn't a foul, it's cheating. Ramsey cheated, Murray cheated, Hazard cheated. As someone mentioned above, the referees are as responsible for this as the players by not making decisions unless a player falls dramatically to the floor, even if there is a foul. The problem we have now is that the players are so good at it that it is almost impossible to referee
(see Ashley Barnes - sometimes he has a defender all over him but has to fall to get a decision, sometimes he feels the defender behind him and makes the same exaggerated fall).

[Colburn_Claret]

But it's still a foul, the honesty of the player shouldn't go against him because it promotes players to go down and take the penalty for the foul.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't any rule in the laws of football, that state contact is a foul. Bringing someone down is against the rules.
Long made contact with Alli, bur never ever brought him down. You're arguing that a penalty was correct, even though the majority, and even the laws of the game are against you.

[Colburn_Claret]

The ability to resolve this is in the hands of the FA, unfortunately they don't have the ********.

[KRBFC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't any rule in the laws of football, that state contact is a foul. Bringing someone down is against the rules.
Long made contact with Alli, bur never ever brought him down. You're arguing that a penalty was correct, even though the majority, and even the laws of the game are against you.

But where did I say all contact is a foul? I didn't, you either missed my point or purposely wanted to bicker. I said further up, ''the only thing that matters is whether or not the contact is deemed a foul not the reaction of the fouled player''. The Long tackle on Alli was a penalty for me, he went to tackle and missed the ball, made contact with Alli, it was a stupid tackle to try and make and he didn't get the ball but got the man.

[KRBFC]

It's all down to the refs.
The simple answer is it's a penalty if the contact would be enough to bring the player down anywhere else on the pitch.
If not, no penalty.

Why does it have to be enough contact to bring a player down? sounds a bit stupid really. The force of a challenge doesn't determine if it's a foul or not or are you saying if there is enough force to bring a player down it doesn't matter if the ball is played or not. The be all and end all, the big question is ''DID HE PLAY THE BALL''. If a defender wins the ball cleanly, I don't care what force is used it should never be a foul in a million years.

[houseboy]

But what is a dive?

I deem a dive to be when there is no contact and the player falls over to try and con the referee. Many on here deem it to be when the player makes the most of the contact to win a penalty....

Like the Ramsey one, there's clear contact in the back, Ramsey goes over and makes the most of it, but is that a dive? is that cheating?

Would Ramsey have got the decision had he stayed on his feet? probably not, so you can't really blame the players for going down when they feel the contact because the contact makes it a foul and not the reaction of the fouled player afterwards. All the ''making the most of the contact'' does is makes it easier for referee's to spot the initial foul. The Hazard one last night is another good one to look at, Bellerin clearly fouls him, Hazard makes a meal of it but it doesn't change the fact it's still a foul by Bellerin.

A player isn't fouled just because there is contact. If he dives after minimal contact that is cheating, pure and simple. It is an act carried out purely and simply to fool the referee into awarding a penalty. Any act that is carried out in order to make a referee make a wrong decision is cheating. This idea of 'contact' comes up a lot on MOTD ('yes but there was contact'), if a player gets a penalty because another player strokes his leg (cue all the dodgy puns) he has committed an act of cheating to gain an advantage. If a player goes down unnecessarily, regardless of contact, then he should be banned and fined. If there is proved to be no contact at all then the ban should be doubled.

[Roosterbooster]

It’s incredible that this discussion has now come down the question “what is a foul?”

[Pstotto]

I disagree with point 2 because one never knows how something 'interferes with play,' regardless of whether the foul is on the ball or off it, going way from goal etc.

[Roosterbooster]

Which is why I wouldnt give a foul if a player exaggerates the contact. If it’s natural, the referee can (more) fairly assess it. If it’s exagerrated, tough. Get up. Play on. Stop acting like a fairy

[lucs86]

So Aguero goes down a bit easy in the box and you're wanting Man City to be made to give Jeremy Hunt £160M?

Do not understand Jeremy Hunt ( unless you are trying to bring politics into it ) but you have the right idea that £160 million direct to NHS would only need to be a threat and player would leap up telling the ref it was only accidental as there club would soon be stopping players diving.
Its just a thought to stop diving before next week if brought in today.

Just don't get your hopes up. It's a lunatic idea and won't happen.

[KRBFC]

A player isn't fouled just because there is contact. If he dives after minimal contact that is cheating, pure and simple. It is an act carried out purely and simply to fool the referee into awarding a penalty. Any act that is carried out in order to make a referee make a wrong decision is cheating. This idea of 'contact' comes up a lot on MOTD ('yes but there was contact'), if a player gets a penalty because another player strokes his leg (cue all the dodgy puns) he has committed an act of cheating to gain an advantage. If a player goes down unnecessarily, regardless of contact, then he should be banned and fined. If there is proved to be no contact at all then the ban should be doubled.

''A player isn't fouled just because there is contact''
Correct, but there has to be contact for it to be a foul.

'' If he dives after minimal contact that is cheating, pure and simple''
Says who though? there doesn't appear to be a rule regarding what is/isn't a dive which is why it's debated daily throughout the football world.

''if a player gets a penalty because another player strokes his leg (cue all the dodgy puns) he has committed an act of cheating to gain an advantage''
The problem is, stroking a players leg is a foul if you don't get the ball, If the attacker is fouled, how can he be deemed to be cheating?

''If there is proved to be no contact at all then the ban should be doubled.''
Agreed because that's blatant cheating and what I consider a dive.

[UpTheBeehole]

There doesn't need to be contact for there to be a foul...

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
spits at an opponent

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct

[Sidney1st]

What about for a dive?

[houseboy]

''A player isn't fouled just because there is contact''
Correct, but there has to be contact for it to be a foul.

'' If he dives after minimal contact that is cheating, pure and simple''
Says who though? there doesn't appear to be a rule regarding what is/isn't a dive which is why it's debated daily throughout the football world.

''if a player gets a penalty because another player strokes his leg (cue all the dodgy puns) he has committed an act of cheating to gain an advantage''
The problem is, stroking a players leg is a foul if you don't get the ball, If the attacker is fouled, how can he be deemed to be cheating?

''If there is proved to be no contact at all then the ban should be doubled.''
Agreed because that's blatant cheating and what I consider a dive.

I take your points mate and they are valid but my point is whether a player COULD stay on his feet or goes down because he is touched. It is a grey area to be sure but in some cases it is obvious that the contact has not brought the player down and he has taken a fall to con the ref - that is cheating. To start the process of trying to halt this we could make sure that obvious dives (no contact) are punished severely, then we could start looking at the 'contacts' and at least punish the obvious ones. The main object would be to let the players know they are being heavily scrutinised and that would make them at least think about what they are doing.
Something has to be done because to the best of my knowledge no other sport allows this level of obvious cheating. Yes cheating goes on in other sports but it is not as obvious and when discovered is usually dealt with seriously. No-one in football seems to have the balls or the will to tackle this problem and as a result football is slowly becoming something of a laughing stock.

[KRBFC]

I take your points mate and they are valid but my point is whether a player COULD stay on his feet or goes down because he is touched. It is a grey area to be sure but in some cases it is obvious that the contact has not brought the player down and he has taken a fall to con the ref - that is cheating. To start the process of trying to halt this we could make sure that obvious dives (no contact) are punished severely, then we could start looking at the 'contacts' and at least punish the obvious ones. The main object would be to let the players know they are being heavily scrutinised and that would make them at least think about what they are doing.
Something has to be done because to the best of my knowledge no other sport allows this level of obvious cheating. Yes cheating goes on in other sports but it is not as obvious and when discovered is usually dealt with seriously. No-one in football seems to have the balls or the will to tackle this problem and as a result football is slowly becoming something of a laughing stock.

What about if a player jumps out the way of a leg breaking tackle though? the player would jump out the way but would avoid contact..... cheating?

I think the fact we're all here debating it shows exactly how stupid the rules clearly are, there shouldn't need to be debate, it should be clear in the rules of the game.

[Dyched]

Contact is a tough one to call. How we do I don't know. A player could use all his strength to push over say Joe Allen and he could go down with the force. The same player could use the same strength to push Akinfenwa who doesn't go down with the force put throws himself down. Are they both fouls? Or has Akinfenwa dived? Speeds that players are running at, and strength of the players make a huge difference