Could Video Replays be used to stop diving in the World Cup

[borat]

I understand that Fifa is very determined not to introduce Video Replays into football. This is on two accounts in that they will avoid any rule that even slightly delays the game. Football is a fast flowing sport and they don't want anything to interrupt this. The second reason I unserstand is because on of Fifa's mottos is that the rules of the game are the same wherever you go. All you need is a ball and some goals. They don't want to be in a position where technology is used in some countries and not in others.

I can sympathise with both of these viewpoints. However, diving is a blight on the game. Diving is damaging the reputation of football and is not what the game is about. So to address this but keep withing the ethos of the game, I would like to see Video Replays introduced for all awarded Penalty decisions. Once a Penalty has been awarded the play stops, so there is definitely the opportunity to check the decision. If the penalty was justified then proceed, if not, free kick to the opposition and possible yellow card if required. If neither, or just an error but not a dive then drop ball on the spot where the incident took place.

IMO dives are very easily picked up on replay, like the Grosso decision, whereas the Ref always has a tough choice to make. This change would result in more cards to the divers and hopefully giving less incentive to keep on trying.

This of course won't stamp out diving across the field. But penalties can change the course of a game, and the result. The world Cup is the pinacle of Football and IMO should use technology to help improve the showcase event.

 

[lockyno1]

I think a NFL type of process where a team gets 2 "appeals" per match. But I beleive if the appeal is wrong and the ref is right, a yellow card is issued. Diving is a absolute joke.

 

[Macca_]

I dunno if it would work borat. It opens up so many variables. For instance some fouls that are there but players make a meal of it by going down etc etc.

Look at the League and the video ref. Fat lot of good it's been with so many decisions still getting called wrong. Now we have the video ref coming in from what he see's or doesn't see on replays. It's opened up a whole can of worms.

I think it would do the same in soccer. In saying that, if it had very strict rules as to how it was used, it could work. Can't see FIFA doing it though.

 

[Bob8]

Soccer is far more stop start than league, with play stopping for a throw in or free kick more frequently than every minute. As the situation stands, everyone is allowed to see the big screen apart from the referee who is to remain ignorant.

In league, it is technically illegal not to put the ball in straight, however this is just a technicality and so long as there is the going through the motions it is never penalised.

So it is with diving, it is not punished and is effectively legal. They could easily have someone watching the TV and speaking to the referee, but they prefer he remains unaware.

They could punish people for misleading the ref with five game suspensions imposed if they are caught on TV undermining the ref, they prefer to go along with the ref being undermined. The risibly justification is that punishing the players for trying to undermine the ref would undermine the ref. To see otherise intellegent men arguing this point is an embarrasment.

They could, but they are happy for the game to be about diving rather than football. What a buch of cretins.

 

[Zack DLR]

all that would happen is that the referees would refer anything that happens in the box to the 'video ref', by blowing it as a penalty... to be checked.

So as a result, any time a player is contacted in the box, they would go down, and take their chances with the video ref.


And what makes you so sure that a video ref wouldnt have awarded the italy penalty? There was contact, so whether it was a dive or not, there is a genuine case that it was a foul.

People have to make the distinction between a player intentionally going to ground after being fouled, and a player taking a dive without being fouled.

My opinion, Football is the greatest game of all time for good reason. We should always resist messing with it.
I like the idea that 100 years ago, and 100 years into the future from the richest to the poorest nations in the world, Football will essentially be played the same way, requiring only a ball and 2 goals.

 

[domdom]

one idea that might fly is to have a match review panel that could view footage, and obvious dives not picked up by the ref could come with a 2 match ban. even though a free kick, penalty or goal may result from the dive, the payer will be banned for two matches afterwards, which may prove an effective deterrent.

in the case of grosso in his match against australia, under this rule, would miss out on italy's next two games and would only be back for the final if italy make it that far. small consolation to us, i know, but the deterrent is there.

 

[borat]

all that would happen is that the referees would refer anything that happens in the box to the 'video ref', by blowing it as a penalty... to be checked..

yeah I agree with that. Refs would blow the whistle more as they would know there decision would be checked. However the upside is we would be getting far more decisions correct.

So as a result, any time a player is contacted in the box, they would go down, and take their chances with the video ref.

This is where I strongly disagree. IMO players would stay on their feet far more becuase by falling over on light contact or diving they would deny their team a goalscoring opportunity when the penalty is not awarded and open themselves to yellow cards.

And what makes you so sure that a video ref wouldnt have awarded the italy penalty? There was contact, so whether it was a dive or not, there is a genuine case that it was a foul.

People have to make the distinction between a player intentionally going to ground after being fouled, and a player taking a dive without being fouled.
..

I have said many many times on this forum that I thought the ref had to give the penalty. But I don't think anyone can deny that it wasn't the contact that brought him down. Grosso purposely went over the top of Neil and fell to draw the penalty. If it was a foul and a penalty then he need not have dived to help his case. That was done for effect. As you say, contact was there so why purposely fall over?

I beleive that in this instance if Grosso knew that the penalty would be reviewed and diving would result in no goal he would be more inclined to stay on his feet and have a shot. He could have easily steped inside Neil and took a shot and as he was so close to the 6 yard box he probably would have scored.

IMO the odds are currently stacked in the favour of the attatcker to take a dive. If executed proplerly they are more likely than not to win a penalty by doing so. A video ref would reduce those odds significantly and players would be more likely to stay on their feet and take a shot where they can.

 

[borat]

one idea that might fly is to have a match review panel that could view footage, and obvious dives not picked up by the ref could come with a 2 match ban. even though a free kick, penalty or goal may result from the dive, the payer will be banned for two matches afterwards, which may prove an effective deterrent.

in the case of grosso in his match against australia, under this rule, would miss out on italy's next two games and would only be back for the final if italy make it that far. small consolation to us, i know, but the deterrent is there.

It wouldn't change a thing. Players would be willing to sacrifce themselves to put their team into the WC quarter finals.

 

[Zack DLR]

Grosso purposely went over the top of Neil and fell to draw the penalty. If it was a foul and a penalty then he need not have dived to help his case. That was done for effect. As you say, contact was there so why purposely fall over?

Because there was no chance of a penalty being blown if he stayed on his feet.

The problem I see is a problem with the way advantage is interpreted.

Had Medina been of the opinion that Grosso was fouled, but Grosso stayed on his feet, he would have allowed play to continue. Grosso would then most likely have been dispossesed, or had his shot blocked or saved. His advantage would have lapsed.

Grosso would far rather have gone down and take his chance from the spot.

I seem to have the same problem regularly in my grade. I get illegally challenged just outside the box but manage to stay on my feet, the ref allows advantage, and I am almost immediately disposessed, having struggled to bring the ball back under control as I was regaining my balance.

I have told more than 1 ref that I would have much preferred the free kick, and will be sure to dive next time in order to receive it.

 

[borat]

Because there was no chance of a penalty being blown if he stayed on his feet.

But if a video Ref viewed it and saw that there was a foul that hindered his scoring opportunity then thats a penalty. As its being scrutinised more the need to fall over and seal the penalty would not necessarily be there. And the Ref is more likely to blow the whistle for such challanges due to the security of the video ref.

The problem I see is a problem with the way advantage is interpreted.

Had Medina been of the opinion that Grosso was fouled, but Grosso stayed on his feet, he would have allowed play to continue. Grosso would then most likely have been dispossesed, or had his shot blocked or saved. His advantage would have lapsed.

Grosso would far rather have gone down and take his chance from the spot.

I think he could easily have scored. Neil was the only defender within cooee and he was on the ground. Grosso took the best option at the time and went over the top of Neil but he easily could have stepped inside and taken a shot.

 

[chili pepper]

I'm totally against using replays during a game.

However, the administrators could use replays to suspend players after games for blatant dives.

Case Study 1

Thierry Henry. FIFA could suspend him for 2 games for a disgraceful display of poor sportsmanship and bringing the game into disrepute. France are punished - little consolation to Spain - and so is Henry.

The upshot - I bet he would have 2nd thoughts about diving again.

This approach will not spoil the 'flow' of games and although it may not rectify poor decisions bought on by theatrical dives, it would cause players to question the value in suchdives given they may face suspensions.

Definately the way to go!

 

[Bob8]

Plenty of people are watching these games on TV, yet the ref is not allowed to learn from them.

TV replays can be annoying in rugby league, but the issue there is not that the video ref is too important, but not important enough - he can only speak when spoken to.

If a video ref could speak to the ref whenever he wished, the game would not have to stop for the video ref to be consulted and the blatant cheating would not be feasible - for one thing you can know where the ref is looking, but not where the video ref is looking.

 

[Bob8]

Anther thing,

Even if no-one spots it at the time, a blatant dive should lead to a five game suspension and it would then stop.

Easy-peasy, diving stops and it demonstrates that trying to undermine the ref is not acceptable. Except, FIFA would not like that to happen.

 

[chili pepper]

Anther thing,

Even if no-one spots it at the time, a blatant dive should lead to a five game suspension and it would then stop.

Easy-peasy, diving stops and it demonstrates that trying to undermine the ref is not acceptable. Except, FIFA would not like that to happen.

Absolutely

 

[Macca_]

I have a name for it.

The RR.

Ronaldo Replays.