Cheating

Has winning become all that matters to the extent that cheating is acceptable as long as the players can fool the referee? Pundits now praise players for ‘winning’ a penalty which seems odd unless they have forced an opponent to commit a foul. If the match result is everything why bother to have any rules at all? Some managers already behave as if the rules only apply to the other team.

There was an interesting example in the game at Stoke. Van Dijk was beaten to the ball so he grabbed the Stoke player’s sleeve to slow him down.. That was clearly cheating and Stoke deserved the penalty kick. But then the Stoke player cheated by throwing himself to the ground which in some circumstances would have justified a sending off. Some would say that a shot from 12 yds (11m) isn’t always enough punishment, for example, where a foul prevents a clear goal-scoring opportunity. However, Stoke were awarded the lottery of a penalty kick which was unsuccessful. But what about the Stoke player? The whistle hadn’t gone when he dived so should he also have been punished?

The Stoke player did what so many players do and ‘went to ground’ as soon as he felt any contact in the area, his hope being that the referee would give a penalty. In this case a foul was committed but so often there is no foul when players dive.

If there was an easy solution, it would have been tried but the amount of cheating and defending of the indefensible has given us a game that sometimes looks unhealthy.

It's a vicious circle now. Referees expect players to go down as a way of signalling they've been fouled, so those who stay on their feet don't get decisions, so more players go down...

Doping and match fixing are the only types of cheating in football. The laws of the game are there to be broken if the rewards for breaking them are greater than the potential punishment. The amateur corinthian attitude to football in this country gets on my nerves, the point of the game is to win by any means necessary.

But Jay Rodriguez instead of staying on the ground after being fouled chose to continue and missed the sitter. He was not cheating but stupid. Or he badly wanted to score his first goal for Westbrom.

But Jay Rodriguez instead of staying on the ground after being fouled chose to continue and missed the sitter. He was not cheating but stupid. Or he badly wanted to score his first goal for Westbrom.

He has already scored for WBA...

What I don't get is how you lose the natural instinct to want to stay on your feet and play the ball. They're just a bunch of babies by and large.

Doping and match fixing are the only types of cheating in football. The laws of the game are there to be broken if the rewards for breaking them are greater than the potential punishment. The amateur corinthian attitude to football in this country gets on my nerves, the point of the game is to win by any means necessary.

Then the punishment should become more severe !

If shirt pulling and diving in the box were to become automatic reds (and the refs applied the rules properly) then we would no doubt have half a dozen reds in the first match which would send out a proper signal and perhaps even solve the problem !

The 'Corinthian' attitude which you mention is worthy in sports like golf and snooker which IMO makes them all the better for it !

For lots of players going down is a legitimate part of their game. Mane, Hazard and Coutinho are three that spring to mind. They are constantly evaluating where they are. If they realise they cannot get to where they want with the ball then they immediately switch to trying to engineer any contact so they can go down.

Hazard is the master. It seems obvious to me but the ref usually just obliges and awards a free kick or pen around the box.

How about 'gaining' 10 - 15 yards at a throw in? Is that not cheating too?

Doping and match fixing are the only types of cheating in football. The laws of the game are there to be broken if the rewards for breaking them are greater than the potential punishment. The amateur corinthian attitude to football in this country gets on my nerves, the point of the game is to win by any means necessary.

Disagree completely with your attitude. I hold to the values of sportsmanship—being fair, honourable, and humble. I prefer the Rickie Lamberts of football, instead of the Diego Costas. Winning at all costs is antithetical to the spirit of sport.

What I don't get is how you lose the natural instinct to want to stay on your feet and play the ball. They're just a bunch of babies by and large.

This. Sometimes it's like players would prefer to 'win' a penalty than score.

A friend of mine argues that while he doesn't agree with diving, it's no different to a defender cynically pulling someone back on the half way line to stop a break. If anything, the foul is worse because you are denying the game a chance of a goal, one of life's (especially if you're a Saints fan) precious commodities. "But you still get booked for the foul", I'd say, but in truth you also get booked for diving if the ref deems it to be simulation. What's the difference?

That's why, although I'll never accept diving "as part of the game", I do at least understand why players do it - a spur of the moment decision to try and win, or not lose, a game of football. What I really have a problem with is the feigning injury and play acting that goes on in order to try and get other players booked or sent off. You might also argue that a player on a booking is going to play more hesitantly, and therefore make the game easier for you, or a team with 10 men is easier to beat, but there's something unpalatable in the lack of respect between professional players - when you see an athlete rolling around on the floor pretending he's been the victim of GBH in order to trick the referee into sending off a (relatively) innocent person, it's just a bit pathetic.