outlaw_member
Established Member
The discussion regarding diving has recently intensified, after Eduardo won a penalty via an act of simulation in the Champions League clash against Scottish giants, Glasgow Celtic. As any casual observer will be aware of, the Croatian striker is not the first player to cheat in such a manner nor will he be the last, yet the furore in the aftermath has portrayed the image that Eduardo is an exclusive case. Obviously, simulation is an ugly part of football that needs to be eradicated before it becomes as common as a 5 yard pass. However, is simulation a problem in itself, or is it linked to another method of cheating that has largely been overlooked?
We've all seen the Paulo Montero's and Martin Keown's of this world, whose rugged and tough defending has left attackers fearing in their wake. Such aggressive footballers have been celebrated, especially within the British isles where getting stuck in and being hard is commonly expected from anyone who takes up the sport. Shirt tugging, kicking heels and various other illegal methods of defending has been widely accepted as part of the game, despite the fact that it is also a prevalent problem that needs to be addressed. There has been many occasions where a defender has tugged the shirt of an opponent to stop him in his tracks. Isn't that also an act of cheating? Conversely, simulation has been bandied as a problem imported by foreigners whose faux naif reactions is apparently a direct contrast to our supposedly honest and hardworking English players.
So considering these two facets of football, it is quite apparent that simulation is a reaction to the over-aggressive acts that are executed by defenders. There is no real deterrence to such an approach to defending because the referee often allows the play to continue, provided that the player remains on his feet, and the ball carrier is than severely affected from performing his intended action. Falling down gives the referee no option but to make a decision, whereas remaining honest usually means that any illegal interference will in all likelihood go unpunished. Robin van Persie's recent comments on the issue has revealed this very same thing, whereby he has exaggerated a foul in order to ensure that the referee makes the correct decision. This is a pivotal part of the problem, as the referees tend to make decisions based on the reaction of the players involved, rather than the nature of the incident itself. Until this vital flaw is rectified, I can't envisage any progression in removing these aspects of football.
By no means am I suggesting that simulation should be condoned, but it is important to determine why players feel the need to fall down so easily. The only way simulation could be removed from within the game, is if the various illegal methods used by defenders to defer attackers is also part of the agenda.
<a class="postlink" href="http://outlawsmemoirs.blogspot.com/2009/10/simulation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://outlawsmemoirs.blogspot.com/2009 ... ation.html</a>
We've all seen the Paulo Montero's and Martin Keown's of this world, whose rugged and tough defending has left attackers fearing in their wake. Such aggressive footballers have been celebrated, especially within the British isles where getting stuck in and being hard is commonly expected from anyone who takes up the sport. Shirt tugging, kicking heels and various other illegal methods of defending has been widely accepted as part of the game, despite the fact that it is also a prevalent problem that needs to be addressed. There has been many occasions where a defender has tugged the shirt of an opponent to stop him in his tracks. Isn't that also an act of cheating? Conversely, simulation has been bandied as a problem imported by foreigners whose faux naif reactions is apparently a direct contrast to our supposedly honest and hardworking English players.
So considering these two facets of football, it is quite apparent that simulation is a reaction to the over-aggressive acts that are executed by defenders. There is no real deterrence to such an approach to defending because the referee often allows the play to continue, provided that the player remains on his feet, and the ball carrier is than severely affected from performing his intended action. Falling down gives the referee no option but to make a decision, whereas remaining honest usually means that any illegal interference will in all likelihood go unpunished. Robin van Persie's recent comments on the issue has revealed this very same thing, whereby he has exaggerated a foul in order to ensure that the referee makes the correct decision. This is a pivotal part of the problem, as the referees tend to make decisions based on the reaction of the players involved, rather than the nature of the incident itself. Until this vital flaw is rectified, I can't envisage any progression in removing these aspects of football.
By no means am I suggesting that simulation should be condoned, but it is important to determine why players feel the need to fall down so easily. The only way simulation could be removed from within the game, is if the various illegal methods used by defenders to defer attackers is also part of the agenda.
<a class="postlink" href="http://outlawsmemoirs.blogspot.com/2009/10/simulation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://outlawsmemoirs.blogspot.com/2009 ... ation.html</a>