A genuine question. It's becoming easier to win a penalty these days than it is to score a goal. So many matches decided by penalties and a lot of them are bogus. Too much diving, too many poor decisions, does the punishment outweigh the crime.

A player gets touched running away from goal on the corner of the penalty area with no chance of scoring, makes a meal of it and is rewarded with a penalty (almost a certain goal). IMO the punishment outweighs the crime.

I know instant replays will help but what else can be done to fix the problem.

1) Make penalty area smaller and a semi circle rather than a rectangle
2) If it's an off the ball incident (where the player fouled isn't in possession) send the culprit to the sin bin for 20 mins rather than award a penalty.
3) Harsher punishments for diving and simulation

3) Harsher punishments for diving and simulation

This.

IAmAClaret wrote:3) Harsher punishments for diving and simulation

This.

Punish all clubs for diving and simulation

Number 3.

It appears to most football fans that the refs and FA have allowed diving to become the norm over time, even the pundits think it's acceptable.

no, cheats are ruining football

Former Bolton, Man City and Derby forward,Francis Lee, was renowned during his time as a player for 'winning' penalties. As far as I can recall he was the exception. I imagine there isn't a team today anywhere that doesn't have at least one player guilty of it every time they step foot on a football pitch. A damning indictment of the modern game.

And get rid of the unanimous committee for a majority one. And get rid of the “there was contact” argument. It stinks football out.

If there is the slightest possibility he dived, he’s banned. Three matches to start with, doubles every time. I’d bet only one player would receive a twelve match ban, then it’s done. If the ref is conned, and a penalty scored, then all points gained from it are removed, the ref sits out the following weekends round of games to take part in “training”.

It’s all too vague. To the point where there is actually nothing happening to combat it. I’m not entirely sure the authorities want to combat it, and I don’t think they can. They no longer hold the power.

Deduct points for diving or fine the club according to its wealth rather than £1,000 for any club, make it 10% of clubs gross wealth and give half fine money to NHS there by making it very difficult for a club to argue against saving lives.

bobinho wrote:And get rid of the unanimous committee for a majority one. And get rid of the “there was contact” argument. It stinks football out.

If there is the slightest possibility he dived, he’s banned. Three matches to start with, doubles every time. I’d bet only one player would receive a twelve match ban, then it’s done. If the ref is conned, and a penalty scored, then all points gained from it are removed, the ref sits out the following weekends round of games to take part in “training”.

It’s all too vague. To the point where there is actually nothing happening to combat it. I’m not entirely sure the authorities want to combat it, and I don’t think they can. They no longer hold the power.

Absolutely spot on pal...but unfortunately it won't happen!!Any other sport and the outcomes are severe.Makes me laugh when all his team mates pat him on the back for cheating and say brilliant, well cheated!!

It's pure game theory, the players are incentivised to lie, even subconsciously or with very minor exaggeration which in their head can easily be justified.

This new retrospective panel thing tries to create an incentive not to lie (risk of a ban) but the players know only in the most egregious & obvious cases will they be punished. But the intensive and potential reward (to win a goal) is far stronger than that risk of a ban.

Harsher and more frequent punishment is needed until the incentive not to dive is greater than the alternative.

Yes penalties are ruining football. If I was in charge I would do 1 of these 2 things:

1. Ban Penalties - award a free kick from the nearest point outside the box - obviously yellow cards and red cards still stand.
2. Move the penalty spot further away from the goal.

On top of that - video evidence should be used during a game (without stopping the game) - a player should be red carded if he was found to simulate a dive and the goal removed.

Sorted.

As bobinho implies it is considered a serious issue currently blighting the game but apparently not serious enough to deal with aggressively. Certainly for me it leaves a sour taste in a game I've watched for the best part of 60 years. The tail is wagging the dog someone posted a few days ago and I think that is about right.

What's a penalty for Burnley, remind me
Re the options the game has changed so much that even with slow motion replays pundits still cannot agree.
I think though if an independent panel rules you should have had a penalty you get plus one on your goal difference, if you cheat to get one the goal is chalked off and a new result stands.

Four things ruining football

1) Cheating. It's endemic.
2) Pathetic standard of refereeing
3) Impotent governing body who seem to do whatever the match of the day pundits tell them to do
4) Pundits condoning all of the above with seemingly nobody prepared to risk stepping out of line. This is in contrast to the paying population who are getting increasingly fed up with it.

I cancelled Sky just before Christmas. Haven't missed it a bit. The only Premier League football I watch is when I go to the game.

I think most penalties given are not definites either way. You could judge them on percentages. I think the one we didn't get against Huddersfield was 90%, the one against for Arsenal was 50-50, and the Tottenham penalty was about 65%. Ours against West Ham was probably 80%.

One way to stop cheating might be to introduce a rule that if the player behaves in such a way that he exaggerates the level of contact then it is automatic that the penalty is not given.

I completely agree with the OP that refs are awarding too many penalties where there is only minimal contact. I don't think the problem can be solved by having committees look at them after games. Better that refs get instruction that they should be more reluctant to give penalties, especially where there is minimal contact.

No. Television is.

bobinho wrote:And get rid of the unanimous committee for a majority one. And get rid of the “there was contact” argument. It stinks football out.

If there is the slightest possibility he dived, he’s banned. Three matches to start with, doubles every time. I’d bet only one player would receive a twelve match ban, then it’s done. If the ref is conned, and a penalty scored, then all points gained from it are removed, the ref sits out the following weekends round of games to take part in “training”.

It’s all too vague. To the point where there is actually nothing happening to combat it. I’m not entirely sure the authorities want to combat it, and I don’t think they can. They no longer hold the power.

Change slightest possibility to probability and I think this would work ideologically and practically. Players know with a unanimous decision needed for a definite dive, that they will in all likelihood get away with it. We’ve seen it all season.&

Review every possible dive - not just those resulting in cards or penalties too

And dock an incremental point each time a team is found guilty (1pt, 2pts, 3pts... etc. I don’t think the points gained being docked would work, you could dive at 1-0 up, and win 2-0, but the game has completely changed), in addition to an increasing suspension, and that’s a pretty hefty deterrent. Imagine diving last game of the season and losing 3/4 points, missing out on being Champions / getting into CL/ EL/ getting relegated, and being banned for a huge chunk of the next season.

Erasmus wrote:refs are awarding too many penalties where there is only minimal contact

But not enough penalties when defenders man-handle opponents at set pieces!

Maybe goalline officials who aren’t scared of actually making decisions is not a bad idea after all

Sutton-Claret wrote:Yes penalties are ruining football. If I was in charge I would do 1 of these 2 things:

1. Ban Penalties - award a free kick from the nearest point outside the box - obviously yellow cards and red cards still stand.
2. Move the penalty spot further away from the goal.

On top of that - video evidence should be used during a game (without stopping the game) - a player should be red carded if he was found to simulate a dive and the goal removed.

Sorted.

Definitely harsher punishments for diving but also the media could help by calling it what it is, cheating. Let's get rid of this word 'simulation' (yes Sutton I'm looking at you ha ha), it irritates the hell out of me. It's diving, it's cheating, stop trying to legitimise it by using a politically correct word. A player who 'wins' a penalty after being lightly clipped accidently on the ankle then does a glorious swan dive and lands with a perfect 10 should be banned for at least 3 games and branded a cheat. In an age when football has ceased to be a man's game and hard, crunching tackles are a thing of the past why are we allowing this slimy, underhand cheating to carry on. The thing is it's there for all to see and we witness in almost every game now, why are the authorities making noises about wanting to stamp it out then doing almost nothing about it? Hendrick was clearly fouled at Huddersfield and even their manager had the good grace to admit they'd got away with that one, but as Sean Dyche said afterwards he went down 'naturally'. There was no meal made of it, no diving with hands out, his legs had very clearly been taken from under him and we got nothing. Arsenal have a player who backs into Tarks, feels his hands on his back and throws himself forward in the most spectacular fashion that even Tom Daley would have been proud of and wham - we lose to an injury time penalty.
I despair I really do.

No but diving cheats certainly are

Erasmus wrote: One way to stop cheating might be to introduce a rule that if the player behaves in such a way that he exaggerates the level of contact then it is automatic that the penalty is not given.

What is simulation, what is exaggeration etc? You're just changing the phrasing of a very hard to prove and subjective question.

pureclaret wrote:Deduct points for diving or fine the club according to its wealth rather than £1,000 for any club, make it 10% of clubs gross wealth and give half fine money to NHS there by making it very difficult for a club to argue against saving lives.

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

I think its an outdated part of the game and could do with an urgent overhaul

The original concept seems to have been for deliberate handball by defenders stopping a certain goal. In other words the punishment usually fitted the crime - a goal was scored:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_kick_(association_football" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

see 'History'.

Another factor to consider is that an incident which leads to a direct free kick in the area may give problems with keeping the defenders ten yards away. Remember when indirect free kicks were given in the area and players would line up in the goal - all a bit chaotic.

Clearly we've moved along way from penalties merely being punishments for fouls etc. to them being 'won'. It seems now that the punishment is much more then the original crime.

If the authorities are unable and clubs unwilling to do anything about this it makes the result of a match, as the OP points out, dependent merely on the skill of winning a penalty. That is a ridiculous situation which destroys the whole concept of football.

The solution therefore is to award penalties only if the foul prevents a certain goal being scored, in the opinion of the referee. You could complicate this a bit by allowing for a foul that prevents a pass to someone who can clearly score a goal. You have to be aware that managers will find loopholes in any changes.

Fouls in the area that don't prevent a goal could be awarded a direct free kick on the edge of the penalty area nearest the incident (with defenders having to be at least ten yards away).

This will still lead to lots of debates: Ramsay's penalty for Arsenal, Hendrick's at Huddersfield. It would stop silly penalties like Hazard's last night. It won't stop cheating generally though, just reduce the benefits of it.

Cheating in the box. Straight red.
Outside the box. Yellow.
Plus: for the next 7 days all cheating incidents are shown looped at the start & end credits of every sports show and sports bulletin with the Benny Hill theme as audio.

Sorted!

Sidney1st wrote:Number 3.

It appears to most football fans that the refs and FA have allowed diving to become the norm over time, even the pundits think it's acceptable.

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.

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.

KRBFC wrote: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.

I haven't seen last nights one yet, I didn't watch the game because I thought it would be boring like they normally are

We've all seen players stick their leg out when a defending player is making the tackle, to initiate contact so they can throw themselves down.
Yes it's difficult for the ref to spot, but that's where sterner retrospective action is required.

Sidney1st wrote:I haven't seen last nights one yet, I didn't watch the game because I thought it would be boring like they normally are

We've all seen players stick their leg out when a defending player is making the tackle, to initiate contact so they can throw themselves down.
Yes it's difficult for the ref to spot, but that's where sterner retrospective action is required.

Yeah, I agree that's a dive, like the Wilshere one last night or the Murray one against us but what about the Ramsey one? did he dive?

There's a clear kick to Hazard's foot.

It's a foul, no matter how he then reacts.

Same with Tarkowski on Ramsey

KRBFC wrote: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.

OK so your actually saying that if the defender just brushes the attacker in the penalty area the attacker can throw himself to the ground and legitimately be awarded a penalty?
As in last nights farcical display by Hazard who`s foot is touched so he`s allowed to go down like he`s just been shot in the leg and the Tarks incident where Ramsey actually backs into him initiating the hands on his back that catapult him through the air like a circus cannon.

UpTheBeehole wrote:There's a clear kick to Hazard's foot.

It's a foul, no matter how he then reacts.

Same with Tarkowski on Ramsey

Utter ********....see post above!

KRBFC wrote:Yeah, I agree that's a dive, like the Wilshere one last night or the Murray one against us but what about the Ramsey one? did he dive?

Of course he did. That contact with Tarks was not sufficient to make Ramsey fall. It wouldn't have made my toddler fall over.

Proving that is another matter of course but I think we all know it.

bob-the-scutter wrote:Utter ********....see post above!

There is a clear, clear kick to his foot. It's not a brush, Bellerin was trying to whack the ball away and caught Hazard's foot.

It's a foul, ergo a penalty.

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

This Diving committee has had an averse effect on penalties, it has made things worse.

Previously - Player goes down, it looks unnatural, ref either gave a pen / free kick or books the player for diving

Now - Player goes down, it looks unnatural. Ref more likely to give the pen / free kick, as it takes the decision of whether cheating took place out of his hands. If the player dived, then 2 match ban, if not, then he got it right.

However to compound this, after VAR, if there is even the slightest contact, there is no way the committee can conclusively prove the player dived, unless in extreme circumstances (Lanzini).

In my book, there have been dives over the season, which were overturned by the panel because contact was instigated.

UpTheBeehole wrote:There's a clear kick to Hazard's foot.

It's a foul, no matter how he then reacts.

Same with Tarkowski on Ramsey

Nonsense. Touch doesn’t = foul. It needs to unfairly impede the player. That’s the subjective measure referees need to judge which obviously creates grey areas. Hazard’s wasn’t as clear cut as some. But if you look closely at at the Ramsey “foul”, he isn’t unfairly impeded, he just launches himself

Roosterbooster wrote:Nonsense. Touch doesn’t = foul. It needs to unfairly impede the player. That’s the subjective measure referees need to judge which obviously creates grey areas. Hazard’s wasn’t as clear cut as some. But if you look closely at at the Ramsey “foul”, he isn’t unfairly impeded, he just launches himself

Watch the video, and tell me you wouldn't be screaming for a penalty if that kick was to a Burnley foot

bob-the-scutter wrote:OK so your actually saying that if the defender just brushes the attacker in the penalty area the attacker can throw himself to the ground and legitimately be awarded a penalty?
As in last nights farcical display by Hazard who`s foot is touched so he`s allowed to go down like he`s just been shot in the leg and the Tarks incident where Ramsey actually backs into him initiating the hands on his back that catapult him through the air like a circus cannon.

I don't think it matters how the player falls over, the important part is the contact made. Is the contact a foul, if so then it's a penalty regardless of if the players does a triple backflip IMO. I don't think the force of a tackle makes it a foul or not, Hazard was clearly fouled though so he can go down however he wants.

The authorities need to revisit the definition of a foul; get rid of this 'contact' nonsense. Then when they have decided what practically constitutes a foul, make sure their referees follow it.

:mrgreen: wrote:I don't think it matters how the player falls over, the important part is the contact made. Is the contact a foul, if so then it's a penalty regardless of if the players does a triple backflip IMO. I don't think the force of a tackle makes it a foul or not, Hazard was clearly fouled though so he can go down however he wants.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Watch the video, and tell me you wouldn't be screaming for a penalty if that kick was to a Burnley foot

I have watched it. Of course I’d be screaming for a penalty if it was a Burnley player. I also scream for a foul every time Ash goes down. I’m biased. When I objectively watch the Ramsey incident, I am in no doubts it’s a dive. When I watch the Hazard incident, I think possible foul, definitely made a meal out of it. The problem I have with it, is that because it is in that grey area, and he clearly over-exaggerates the contact, I cannot judge if he was actually impeded. So I wouldn’t give a penalty. If the reaction to the contact was natural, then the judgement on being impeded or not would be much easier to make. Referees have made it difficult by saying they won’t give a foul unless you go down. This has only made their job harder. And made simulation acceptable

How Ramsey went down is literally no different to how Ashley Barnes goes down, on multiple occasions, every single game.

Cant do much without a video ref - needed to provide "proof"

Apply the rules - there's enough shirt pulling etc at corners to have 10-20 penalties per game

Any proven simulation should result in a heavy points deduction

Dissent to the referee should be an instant dismissal

Apply these and the top 6 wouldn't be the top 6

UpTheBeehole wrote:How Ramsey went down is literally no different to how Ashley Barnes goes down, on multiple occasions, every single game.

Tough **** what you think about Barnes isn't it though.

You go cry into your milk elsewhere.

Bastards might need a few supporters... i'd welcome your switch.

bob-the-scutter wrote:

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.

starting_11 wrote:Tough **** what you think about Barnes isn't it though.

You go cry into your milk elsewhere.

Bastards might need a few supporters... i'd welcome your switch.

I'm just calling out the double standards of some Burnley fans.

KRBFC wrote:Yeah, I agree that's a dive, like the Wilshere one last night or the Murray one against us but what about the Ramsey one? did he dive?

I'll have a look later.
From memory there was enough contact from Tarks for it to warrant a penalty, BUT they've not been given before for similar contact.

Sidney1st wrote:I'll have a look later.
From memory there was enough contact from Tarks for it to warrant a penalty, BUT they've not been given before for similar contact.

I honestly don't know the rule that determines what a dive is/isn't. I think a dive is when a player falls over having not been touched but it doesn't matter what I think because the rules (that nobody seems to know) should be final.

KRBFC wrote:I honestly don't know the rule that determines what a dive is/isn't. I think a dive is when a player falls over having not been touched but it doesn't matter what I think because the rules (that nobody seems to know) should be final.

It is a tough one.

We've all seen players go over with minimal contact.
Some players appear to stick a leg out to ensure contact so they can dive, but that's difficult to prove enough to punish it.

Sidney1st wrote:It is a tough one.

We've all seen players go over with minimal contact.
Some players appear to stick a leg out to ensure contact so they can dive, but that's difficult to prove enough to punish it.

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.