A&H

Simulation Solutions?

M

Martiju

Well-Known Member
Just saw this short video from Sky, in which Matt Le Tissier makes some interesting, and debatable, points about simulation and DOGSO.
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
What do members think would happen if interpretations of DOGSO were changed as he suggests - at least for one-on-one situations - with the aim of encouraging players to stay on their feet in the box and try to score? Would this take us back to the original intentions of the law which was about preventing the 'professional foul'? Would it make a difference at all (ie. is it easier/less risky to go down under the slightest touch and hope for the penalty than to make an attempt on goal under pressure)? Would it make it easier or more difficult for referees?
 
The Referee Store
He is spot on with this

Personally I would like to see that the goalkeeper can not be sent off for DOGSO however outfield players still can.
This could solve the diving problem like mentioned in the video as the player doesn't have a motive of trying to get the keeper sent off.

Outfield players would still need to be sent off however otherwise you could have a situation where an attacker is one on one and the defender is struggling to keep up and he could just trip him. This would still need to be red for DOGO
 
Liam Cleary said:
Outfield players would still need to be sent off however otherwise you could have a situation where an attacker is one on one and the defender is struggling to keep up and he could just trip him. This would still need to be red for DOGO
Click to expand...

You could equally have the same situation with keepers, player knocks the ball round him so he just grabs the foot to preven him getting on to the end of his touch.

The laws surrounding fouls and misconduct should apply to all players for me. Just my opinion.
 
jack.prescott said:
You could equally have the same situation with keepers, player knocks the ball round him so he just grabs the foot to preven him getting on to the end of his touch.
The laws surrounding fouls and misconduct should apply to all players for me. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Very good point

Maybe only incidents outside the penalty area being classed as DOGSO?
Inside the area they win a penalty which is a chance of scoring and more often than not they are scored
 
This has to be the best punditry piece I've seen on this issue. Getting tripped doesn't propel you 6 feet in the air and throw your arms up while you do it! And more often than not, the Penalty awarded for a DOGSO foul is a better opportunity than the original foul, especially when you consider the substitute/makeshift keeper that may be in net!
 
This may be in the wrong section, but I do wonder what views we have on the following:

Wolves v Watford. - Watford player rolls around as if shot after no contact from the Wolves player. Wolves player is sent off but rightly wins his appeal.

Do you think the Watford player should be charged and receive a three game ban for his actions in trying to get a player sent off? And do the FA have the power to charge him?
 
Personally, and from a moral point of view, I do. However the FA have long maintained that they won't overrule a decision (or non-decision) made by the referee, so if he's seen something and decided to act/not act then there is no retrospective punishment. To do so would undermine every refereeing decision and make decision-by-hindsight the norm in all televised games.
 
Liam Cleary said:
He is spot on with this

Personally I would like to see that the goalkeeper can not be sent off for DOGSO however outfield players still can.
This could solve the diving problem like mentioned in the video as the player doesn't have a motive of trying to get the keeper sent off.

Outfield players would still need to be sent off however otherwise you could have a situation where an attacker is one on one and the defender is struggling to keep up and he could just trip him. This would still need to be red for DOGO
Click to expand...

Usually if the keeper commits a foul it's because he's already been beat - ie the player has rounded him. So the GSO is more 'obvious' here than at any other time. A PK is usually less advantageous in this situation more than any other.

No, the problem is the culture - and referees are a big part of the cause here.

Players know they won't get a foul - especially a penalty - unless they look like they've been flattened by an off-road semi-trailer. A nudge to the legs that affects the player to enough of an extent that it interrupts their control of the ball thus influencing a shot or allowing a defender to challenge IS a foul.

It's like low-level holding. This DOES affect play, yet it's never called.

So we are punishing players who do the right thing and stay on their feet. If we stop doing that, we'll eliminate diving.

The way we referee the game ENCOURAGES diving in a big, big way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I do not think that how a game is refereed affects how much simulation takes place. Watch any game in the football league and you will see players attempting to get decisions by cheating. Whether it be diving, or knowingly trying today on when the ball has gone out of play. As far as I am aware, referees do not cheat, so why should players? Diving takes place irrespective of anything else, and it needs stopping. Maybe if simulation was rewarded by a red card the clubs and players would think twice about it.
 
Of course the refereeing affects simulation - if we only blow for a free kick when a player hits the deck, then why on earth WOULDN'T a player go down when he feels contact?

I am strongly against a red card for simulation - you already see too many referees who know simulation has occurred but refuse to caution. Make it a red card and no referee will ever do anything about it.

Suspension from a Match Review Panel is the best measure - when penalising a player for diving there's still always an element of doubt. Let the review panel suspend a diving player - even if he wasn't booked. That's how you do something about it.

Personally, I think we need to go one step further - if the dive led to a goal or the opposing team receiving a red card and the team with the diver then won or drew the match, they lose all points for that game and the other team is granted a win.

THAT is the only way to stop diving, while the current culture of no responsibility exists.
 
But there is a responsibility, and it lies with the clubs. But of course that will not happen, so we as referees have to try to deal with it. And we can. Why would a referee not issue a red card for simulation if that was the punishment. I cautioned a player for simulation in a Sunday league game recently, and players and spectators expressed surprise. We are out there to uphold the laws of the game, and should do so. If it was decreed that simulation would receive a red card, then so be it. I would have no qualms about doing so.

As for taking points off clubs, that is a wholly separate debate, and not one which a referee has any control over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top