Let the diving and blindness begin

[chuck]

Didn't see the match, only the highlights, but do think Eduardo took the dive. The other 2 goals by the Arse were decent though.

Quite the rant by the head of the SFA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8223917.stm

"We have shown courage to use retrospective punishment when it comes to simulation. I'd urge Uefa to do so."

ooohh matron. :D

A little bit of simulation during a football match?! What's the world coming too. Why doesn't he just call it diving.

Wenger just talks nonsense sometimes as well:

"Wenger acknowledged Celtic keeper Boruc did not bring down Eduardo in the penalty incident but claimed his forward was taking evasive action.

Following the Gunners' eventual 3-1 win, Wenger said: "I do not go as far to say Eduardo dived.


"He went down, for what reason I do not know. Having seen it again on television, it doesn't look a penalty.

"I do not think he (Eduardo) would have complained if the penalty was not given."



WTF?

[//\/\/]

"Evasive action" - dive!dive!dive! -wenger's clearly been watching das football boot too much :D

(i'll get me whistle...)

[Dirty0900]

Oh boo hoo, he took a dive. Celtic were shit and were never gonna get through, shit Scottish club trying to be bigger then they are. If it was 0-0 over two legs before this travesty, I'd care. Aresnal were always going to win.

Lock thread.

[//\/\/]

riii-iii-ight; but getting back to the crux of the matter...

...it looks like eduardo's going to be punished by uefa. my question is; why now? if they have the laws in place to do this, why have they had their collective heads up their fat arse until now? eduardo's not first, and not the most blatant seen in recent years.

i'm happy for them to start doing this, as it's the only way you're going to get diving stopped, or at least reduced. but it's strange that suddenly there's an escape-goat produced. normally uefa likes to puff out its chest and announce whatever it is they're clamping down on from season to season; not just suddenly react by applying laws they've never bothered about before now...

[Rog]

+1

[big screen satellite]

diving, feigning injury its all the same - but the difference is that in rugby - a premeditated act such as 'bloodgate' resulted in a big ban...

diving to alter the outcome of a game or feigning an injury to stop play is, imo, the same - if you are going to tackle it - it needs to be considered the same thing

- afterall its all cheating and whoever does it (and united have had a few too, i know) then the punishment should be the same - the only issue is - you need hard evidence

i'd love to see the game sorted but this is on of many issues... and to be honest you cannot punish eduado, because the game was altered and its done - Celtic won't get the game replayed, likewise, Crystal Palace won't get their goal back...

the people in the game need to set rules, and stick by them and prevent potenitially massive decisions being made wrong - video evidence cannot be used on things like eduaudo's dive, if they are not gonna retrospectively use it on other issues....

this comes up every season and nothing concrete is done about it ever

[stimpee]

Kenny Dalglish was saying after the match that having video replays wouldnt stop play for more than a few seconds. If TV stations can show the replay in seconds, so can officials. The only downside i can see is that teams will waste time complaining that someone dived just to waste time if theyre ahead. In tennis you can only request the hawkeye 3 times per set...

[//\/\/]

if you can have red cards dished out or rescinded after the event, then surely a dive can be punished retrospectively without resorting to stopping the match, which i don't think anydoby really wants...

[chuck]

The video ref is used in NRL and rugby. In the rugby - they're all wired up and the ref, who has final control/say of the game signals that he wants a TV check - and then has to tell the TV ref who's watching the screen upstairs what he wants to check.

eg. "Can you confirm that the ball was grounded?" or "Is there any reason I cannot award the try?"

The TV ref will watch it from whatever angles the broadcaster can provide - then answer the question that the referee asked. Control always stays with the match referee, but they take advice from the TV ref. It's only used in contentious scoring situations.

It's not for foul play or other in-play incidents. In those sorts of incidents, players can be cited after the fact - must take place within 48 hours, and there's a hearing.

In the Eduardo case - if the ref thought it was a dive - he could signal and request something like - "Was contact made with the striker?" - and the TV judge would have to make a call.

If the ref has already decided that there was contact, he's fully entitled to not go to the TV referee. Or he could decide to check only with his linesmen.

It works in rugby - most replay decisions take no more than 2 minutes. That's based on anecdotal evidence - not statistics. But it's a very different game from football, so might not work.

What Harlequins did with the "Bloodgate" fiasco - was beyond cheating - that was insane stupidity - and Dean Richards deserves his 3 year suspension. Putting an injured player back onto the field, in an attempt to win the game - then actually cutting the player who'd subbed off, in the dressing room after the game - because the oppositions medic was suspicious. And they admitted to doing it 3 or 4 times. Asshats.

[chuck]

hahaaha... have just watched hightlights of the game. The ref is an complete twat. The linesman is a blind fuckwit. The softcock line official who complained about a water bottle being kicked deserves a big mug of warm milk and a liedown. No complaints about the result - Diaby's own goal was a complete mare. Thought Arsenal had it all over Utd until then. Arshavin's strike was class. Rooney seemed to be falling and the ball was a long way from him when Alumnia caught him.....

[//\/\/]

i think we should separate the football from the rugby when it comes to replays, because rugby is, by its very nature, more of a stop-start affair; and as you say, it's more about fine, technical issues around tries, rather than split-second decisions.

my fear about having tv decisions around diving in the box is that refs would become like cricket umpires, who are so undermined by replay technology (and that's about to get worse) that they even refer blatant decisions to the 3rd umpire just in case they've somehow missed something. so we could have the match stopping every time somebody went down in the box. and then there'd be calls to extend it outside the box, of course, because diving is diving wherever it's done, so matches could end up lasting for hours!

[chuck]

i think we should separate the football from the rugby when it comes to replays, because rugby is, by its very nature, more of a stop-start affair; and as you say, it's more about fine, technical issues around tries, rather than split-second decisions.


Fair call - they're very different games.

I'm interested in some of the goal line/goal-mouth technology that's was being developed. At least I think they've been stopped - FIFA has banned it from consideration. One of them was being developed by Hawkeye - same radar type tech as used in the cricket for showing LBW.

In cricket - that can't be used to over-rule an umpire's onfield call - but it's used for TV only.

I think there's a case for that sort of technology to be part of the game - it's instant - and the call can go to the ref within seconds. If it was controversial - there'd be players wailing and moaning and rolling around on the floor anyway - plenty of time to get a decision made. ;)

There's so much cash wrapped up in football these days - with Champions League places making or breaking a team - that it's going to take a howler during a big game to really force the issue probably.

[big screen satellite]

2 game banz

not enough in my opinion.... ;)

[//\/\/]

not enough in my opinion.... ;)

you wouldn't've been saying that the last few seasons ;):p;)

[matt]

I still can't believe football doesn't use TV replays to decide on those occasions if a ball has crossed the line or not. It seems farcical when seconds later all those viewers at home can clearly see that the ball crossed the line. How hard would it be to introduce a rule where a fourth official watching on TV signals to the ref that the ball did in fact cross the line? Play wouldn't even have to be stopped.

Can't really see how it would help with diving incidents to be honest though as some of those are not at all clear cut even when viewing replays. Would seem fair though to introduce a rule where in cases of clear diving missed by the referee then retrospective punishments can be handed out - something like a year long ban ought to deter people. However I still think it's harsh as fuck on Eduardo as no such rule exists at present and why he was singled out is beyond me as there's been plenty more blatant ones in the last few years. Guess UEFA will do anything they can to impede the Premier League clubs Champions League aspirations this year.

And as for rugby, Quins deserve everything they get. Shame Leicester didn't get done too but they're a bit more subtle about it and Hipkiss wasn't stupid enough to wink when he came off with a "blood injury" moments before the penalty shoot out against Cardiff in the European Semi Finals last year.

[//\/\/]

However I still think it's harsh as fuck on Eduardo as no such rule exists at present and why he was singled out is beyond me as there's been plenty more blatant ones in the last few years.

...actually, there is- it's just that uefa haven't had the balls or resources to enforce it. as long as they're consistent about enforcement, then fine - somebody had to be first to be singled-out; but it's the consistency that will probably be sadly lacking...