Hansen: Suarez goes down too easily

[div0]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19874217

"The first question they are asking themselves is 'has he dived?' I don't think they are asking themselves whether that guy has made contact.

I tend to agree with a lot of what he's saying, but the above quote stuck out to me.

It appears like he is saying that if there is contact, then it should always be a penalty and the player can't have 'dived'.

Whereas, I think the first thing a ref should be asking himself is 'has he dived'. Ie, was there sufficient contact to constitute a foul and therefore award a penalty.

It's undoubtedly a hard decision for a ref to make, but I really hate the way that people make out like any contact in the box is automatically a penalty. Penalties should be awarded for a foul. A lot of the problem comes down to the fact that if you're fouled, but stay on your feet off balance and heading for the end of the pitch, then you don't get a penalty. Whereas people who are 'touched' can throw themselves to the ground and 'win' a penalty.

Thoughts?

 

[div0]

It's no helped by referees they will give free kicks for fouls when the player doesn't fall over outside of the box but inside the box for something is similar is usually not a penalty. There are players who cheat and refs that are inconsistent. There isn't one problem to solve which makes it so difficult.

Absolutely agree.

When awarding a penalty the focus should be on whether a foul has been committed. But it is undoubtedly difficult.

None more so that corners and free kicks around the penalty area. Players grabbing and pulling each other all over the place, where anywhere else on the pitch it would be a free kick, but often the ref just lets it slide. The thing I find hardest about this scenario, is that if refs do start punishing it, then attackers have less to lose than defenders, so they could be all over the defender and at worst might end up with a free-kick against them, but if the defender does the same and the ref sees it the other way, then it's a penalty.

Undoubtedly some hard decisions for refs to make. But I think it's often made worse by pundits implying that any contact is a penalty. Often pouring over a super slow motion replay, where a player is almost horizontal, but if you stop it at the right moment, the bottom 3 pixels of their left boot have skimmed off the shoe-lace of the defender and so 'there was contact' and so must be a penalty and definitely not a dive.

 

[div0]

The situation would be solved be better referees.

You know, ones that actually give fouls correctly rather than for the slightest contact, and ones that actually gave fouls when there where fouls as opposed to just ignoring them because they happened in the box and "everyone does it".

I think most people would be pretty much amazed how quickly diving stopped then.

It is down to better referees, but I don't think they're helped by pundits like Hansen analysing super slow-mo replays for 'contact', instead of trying to decide whether there was actually a foul.

There's so much tv analysis on 'contact', that lots of people seem to think any contact should automatically be a penalty. This does nothing to help the situation and if a referee rightly decides that there wasn't a foul, then they're 'proved' wrong by a freeze-frame of a guy who's dangled his trailing leg, as he throws himself past a defender (or some equally annoying variation of 'winning' a penalty).

 

[div0]

Sorry don't know how to embed but an interesting video RE Suarez and the fouls he doesn't get. He really does get kicked about !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LeCZQ7nwD-Q

There's definitely some terrible tackles in there on him, but a whole load of those are not penalties.

1:15: Suarez nicks the ball past the defender, then goes over his outstretched leg. Verdict: Foul, but massive overreaction from Suarez. Get up you pansy.

1:30: Nice bit of skill from Suarez, then nicks the ball in front of the defender and throws himself to the ground. Verdict: Dive. I'm not even sure if he does get touched or not, but I've watched it a good few times and it doesn't look like he's fouled, just that the ball's heading out and he decides to throw himself down.

1:55: Suarez stands on the ball at the same time as the defender sticks a toe on the ball. Suarez then goes over the defenders leg. Verdict: No penalty, no dive. Both players just played the ball fairly.

2:11: Defender wins the ball and Suarez goes over his leg. Verdict: No penalty, no dive. Suarez is just late and his momentum takes him over (albeit very dramatically).

I can't be bothered going through them all, especially as some are only viewed from distance, but if that video is meant to show 'fouls' that Suarez should have got, then I think there's a lot of cases where it's wrong. Sure there's a lot where it looks like he should have had a free kick, but there's also a lot where he throws himself about, usually because he's arriving at speed just as the defender touches it away.

 

[div0]

Okay firstly look at Suarez's knee jerk back as he is fouled by O'Shea, this was widely accepted by pundits as a stone wall penalty.

The video quality is very poor, but to me this looks like a 'good' dive. I still don't see any evidence of a foul, but will concede that the video is unclear.

Just goes to show that a refs job is hard

Zooms showed that Suarez knicked the ball before Evans, Suarez gets clattered by outstretched leg, penalty. Haven't got time to look at other two as I'm drafting in dota. But as I said before his over exaggeration does him no favours

I disagree. In super slow-mo, Suarez does touch the ball first (stands on it). The defender then touches the ball, causing it to pop out to the side after Suarez has stood on it. Suarez then goes over the outstretched leg.

It's not a foul, it's not a dive. It's just a tackle.

EDIT: watched 2;11, no idea what happened defender got ball and Suarez did some sort of flip somehow, not really sure why its there.