Shall we take a trip?
Further to very, very many discussions of the World Cup ... there is a genuine issue of diving and flopping, as everyone knows. But I think it's very much overstated and people don't seem to understand all that well why it is that the rules tend to give attacking players the benefit of the doubt when they fall over. It does break up the "flow of the game", but so does seeing Marco van Basten having his knees kicked out from under him, again. There's clearly a tradeoff to be made, and I don't think it's obviously wrong to err on the side of preventing injuries.
But more generally, I think the criticism of soccer players for being unmanly or lacking in character because they fall over a lot is misplaced. I've certainly seen rugby players who were justifiably proud of their ability to withstand crunching tackles round the upper body and waist[1], reduced to tears by the excruiating pain of injuries to those delicate weight-bearing joints in the lower leg. What would the sports of rugby or American football look like if it was common practice to stick out your foot and trip someone up at the ankle while they were running at full speed? Would a tough-guy real-man's-game player really continue to run on, unbalanced, after having taken a clip on the ankle? I don't think so. Association football is actually quite rare in being a sport in which the most common contact is lower leg to lower leg.
[1] thinking about it, I was always taught to tackle properly in the Welsh style, round the knees. But it's very difficult to injure someone's knees in this way, even at speed.
Come off it! I don't think anyone would dispute that football players do sometimes get fouled very nastily, and that being kicked in the shins can hurt like hell.
ReplyDeleteAdmitting all of that, it's still the case that they regularly fall over, apparently in terrible agony, when they are demonstrably not hurt even slightly. What's more, falling over and pretending to be hurt when you aren't has now become an established and major part of the game. And that sucks rhino cock.
Larry T
Yes, I'm not trying to say that there's no problem - but in a lot of cases, you don't actually know whether you're in agony or not until as much as a second after the contact, and a second can be a long time if you're putting weight on a twisted joint or stretched ligament. I don't blame footballers at all for developing the reflex of falling over when touched, and I don't think they've got any obligation to not claim fouls.
ReplyDeleteThe play-acting is totally undignified I agree, but the real problem is with people falling when they weren't touched (ie, cheating).
As a former footballer I'd like to add two points.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, getting kicked on the ankle, for example, can hurt like buggery for a couple of minutes - and then the pain disappears. It's the adrenaline, or whatever. I get very bored of macho pundits talking about "he's not hurt, he'll get up in a couple of seconds", etc.
Secondly, there is a big difference between diving (pace Gerrard) and fooling a defender into tackling at the wrong time and taking the tackle (and foul). The latter is quite skilful.
This comes back to one of the more baffling (to me) propositions advanced in that recent discussion on CT, which went something like
ReplyDeletea) not all apparent fouls are genuine
b) the referee has discretion over whether to give a foul
c) cameras! more cameras! line judges watching cameras! let's get this right people!
I'm a quadriennial blow-in myself when it comes to watching football. But it seems to me, from watching World Cup games alone, that what we've got here isn't a problem (a+b) looking for a solution (c), but a problem (a) which already has a solution (b). To put it another way, over the past few weeks I've seen approximately a zillion suspect dives and debatable fouls; but there were only a handful that the ref deigned to get involved with, and the number of those which held the game up was in the region of none.
Diving and play-acting may be a problem in a kind of absolute ethical sense - it shouldn't be happening, whether it has any effect or not. But if in point of fact it has little or no effect, I can't see that it's a problem worth worrying about.
But if in point of fact it has little or no effect
ReplyDeleteWell, it has a major effect on my enjoyment of the game, which when all's said and done is the only thing I really give a damn about.
And, to be sanctimonious for a moment, I'd argue that it also has an indirect negative impact at kids' games around the world.
These guys are some of the top sports stars in the world, playing on the bioggest stage. It's just plain embarrassing that they should carry on like that.
Larry
It is embarrassing - what I think is the real problem though is the aggressive appealing for penalties, which is a problem in cricket too.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience it is not actually that difficult to stay on one's feet when nudged or knocked by someone even when moving at some speed. I would wager that this is the experience of most other people as well, which is why divers get so much stick. It's not like rugby where you've just been punched in the temple and are trying to stay up to look hard; it is genuinely not that difficult to remain standing when tackled in football unless one's legs are literally swept away.
ReplyDeleteAs for Phil's comment: were it actually the case that play-acting had no demonstrable effect on the game then it would indeed be a waste of time trying to "solve" it. However, there are at least three cases of a player being dismissed as a result during this World Cup, along with a couple of dodgy penalties / handballs, which can have a demonstrable impact on both the entertainment value and the result of the game. That a referee may choose not to give a foul if a player dives is not in question; rather, that the nature of the modern game (where players actually practise diving) is such that the referee quite often isn't going to be well enough informed to make the right call.
- Chris
I only recently came across this. The Italians have a world for the play-acting side of the game. Furbizia
ReplyDelete(which just goes to reinforce my disproportionate dislike of the Italians - they actually admire it, for crying out loud)
um, 'word'
ReplyDeleteUp to a point, Luis.
ReplyDeleteThe word ‘furbizia’ itself means guile, cunning or astuteness.
You could also call it being sly, sneaky, underhand or a bit dodgy, or the art of pulling a fast one. The word in Italian isn't limited to the footballing context, and the concept in football isn't uniquely Italian.
Furbizia isn't the sole preserve of the Italians. You could consider tactical fouling - where a foul is conceded in the opposition's half to stop them mounting a counter-attack - an art perfected by Man U and Germany, to be very similar.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed as though FIFA had cracked down on this in the group stages (for example, Klose's sending off) but the referees seem to have repented judging by their reluctance to book Van Bommel in the last few matches.
Phil: But it seems to me, from watching World Cup games alone, that what we've got here isn't a problem (a+b) looking for a solution (c), but a problem (a) which already has a solution (b).
ReplyDeleteI think the point of the pro-camera camp is more that (b) is a totally crap excuse for a solution to the problem of (a).
Speaking as a fan of American football, I have to say that some of the best and tensest moments in the sport have involved video review. It's anything but boring to watch, and it's far more enjoyable to wait for a decision when there's some reasonable certainty that the right call will be made. It's not perfect, but maybe 2-3% of NFL games are seriously impacted by dubious officiating.
Yes, but at the risk of repeating something I said about a million times on CT, football is a game that flows. Gridiron ain't. It stops all the time. If this isn't understood, nothing is understood.
ReplyDeleteGranted, association football doesn't stop as much as gridiron football, not that anything does (except the last ten minutes of a basketball game). But it's not really as though association football contains 45 minutes of continuous play. Even a totally clean game generally has a couple dozen stoppages for out-of-bounds calls, kickoffs after goals, etc., and a substantial fraction of scoring comes directly out of corner kicks and well-placed free kicks already.
ReplyDeleteAnd adding replay wouldn't increase the number of stoppages--it would merely make a few of them slightly longer.
What, you think it takes the same time to look at a replay as to take as corner?
ReplyDeleteAs yesterday's game proved, diving is effective because refs are so inconsistent they leave players with little alternative.
ReplyDeletePujol tried to rugby tackle Robben, who stayed on his feet and got nothing as a result. If he'd made the most of a genuine foul then Webb would have had to have given Pujol a second yellow and Holland a free kick, as happened later on when Iniesta went over and Heitinga went off. I think in the former case the ref should have played on as he did, but sent Pujol off.
Igor Belanov
ejh: No, which is why I said "slightly longer."
ReplyDeleteAlso, video review isn't used on every play in American football--only on ones where there's a serious controversy. This would affect very few corner kicks.
What would it affect then? I mean are we just going to have goals reviewed? (Why do we want this? The only obvious outcome is that the number of goals will be reduced.) What are going to be the criteria?
ReplyDeleteVideo review would primarily affect situations where a foul was suspected to have been committed, and there was less than entire certainty as to what the penalty should be, if any. This is exactly the place it has in American football.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm afraid that in association football that doesn't really mean anything, not least because it's phraseology borrowed from one sport and applied to another. But let's assume it means somebody up in a studio somewhere is going to "suspect" that a foul has been committed. What's going to be happening to the ball while this is going on? If play continues, it makes a nonsense of your previous two postings.
ReplyDelete(Or if it means that the ref is going to have to suspect a foul, it's going to miss almost all of the controversies that's it's supposed to address, isn't it?)
It's a nonsense. In football, many or even most goals are potentially controversial somewhere along the line. This is because there are many fouls (or collisions which might have been fouls) and because people are always close to being offside even when they are not. Bluntly this means that if you are going to review potential controversies, you're going to be reviewing all the time in a game where play is continuous.
It doesn't fit the game. It may fit others, but it doesn't fit this one because it some very obvious, identifiable ways (though less identifiable to those who do not know it) it is very different.
Well, this discussion has clearly ceased to be about sports officiating.
ReplyDelete