Is this a dive?

I did return, post #9.

I'm interested to see that it is literally 100% in the dive camp. It's plainly obvious there is very little contact, but in my opinion he's entitled to go down for the reasons stated above.

A slightly different question...should it have been a penalty?
 
Shamikebab said:
No of course not, and he wasn't entitled to go down.
Click to expand...

Why not?

He's beaten the defender for pace, nicked the ball past him, and 'dived' to avoid getting completely destroyed by a far larger player. If the defender doesn't attempt to barge him, he gets to the byline and can cut the ball across to one of two guys in the middle creating an obvious goalscoring chance.

Interestingly, the majority of Dundee fans I've spoken to, aren't too fussed about it. Aberdeen fans seem to be split 50-50.
 
I'm not sure why you're even asking when you've obviously decided to protest that it isn't a dive?

There's absolutely minimal contact and he goes down extremely theatrically. Simple as that really.
 
Illgresi said:
Why not?

He's beaten the defender for pace, nicked the ball past him, and 'dived' to avoid getting completely destroyed by a far larger player. If the defender doesn't attempt to barge him, he gets to the byline and can cut the ball across to one of two guys in the middle creating an obvious goalscoring chance.
Click to expand...

Because it's a contact sport, you can't dive and claim there would have been a foul. Fact is the defender has made no contact, the attacker has dived and tried to con the referee into giving the penalty.
 
Shamikebab said:
Because it's a contact sport, you can't dive and claim there would have been a foul. Fact is the defender has made no contact, the attacker has dived and tried to con the referee into giving the penalty.
Click to expand...

So he's supposed to run full pelt into the defender? Had he done that (potentially injuring himself), would it have been a penalty then?

Robbo said:
I'm not sure why you're even asking when you've obviously decided to protest that it isn't a dive?

There's absolutely minimal contact and he goes down extremely theatrically. Simple as that really.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not really interested in whether people think it's a dive or not, I'm actually more interested in the point above. When does it stop being a dive, and start being a player trying to protect himself from injury? Also, despite there being minimal physical contact, the defender blatantly impedes him from creating a goalscoring opportunity. Why should that not be rewarded with a penalty?
 
Last edited:
Illgresi said:
Why not?

He's beaten the defender for pace, nicked the ball past him, and 'dived' to avoid getting completely destroyed by a far larger player. If the defender doesn't attempt to barge him, he gets to the byline and can cut the ball across to one of two guys in the middle creating an obvious goalscoring chance.

Interestingly, the majority of Dundee fans I've spoken to, aren't too fussed about it. Aberdeen fans seem to be split 50-50.
Click to expand...

:confused:

No-one is ever 'entitled to go down'. If you are taken down then it's a penalty. If you are not but hit the deck it is a dive.

It was a dive. Stone wall. 100%

It didn't look it from the first angle, but you can see in the replay that he's down before he is ever touched.

Illgresi said:
So he's supposed to run full pelt into the defender? Had he done that (potentially injuring himself), would it have been a penalty then?
Click to expand...

Had he run into the defender? No, that wouldn't have been a pen either. If the defender had cleaned him out without contact on the ball then that would have been a penalty.

That's not what happened.
 
Gilly said:
Had he run into the defender? No, that wouldn't have been a pen either. If the defender had cleaned him out without contact on the ball then that would have been a penalty.

That's not what happened.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the defender has the right to step into his path, and the attacker is then obliged to run around him? As had he continued on his path, ran into the defender, potentially been injured, and forfeited a goalscoring opportunity, it still wouldn't have been a penalty?
 
Illgresi said:
So you're saying the defender has the right to step into his path, and the attacker is then obliged to run around him? As had he continued on his path, ran into the defender, potentially been injured, and forfeited a goalscoring opportunity, it still wouldn't have been a penalty?
Click to expand...

He's not avoiding injury, the defenders "tackle" is late and clumsy, but it's not made with excessive force or with disregard for his opponents safety. ie, in itself it's not serious foul play.

Nor is there contact with the attacker enough to impede him, so no, it's no foul, no pen, no nothing. Except a yellow card for an attempt to deceive the ref.

The defender pulls out of the challenge at the last moment so no harm would have to come to the attacker at all. He's just dived trying to a win a pen.
 
Trusty said:
Did he not have his left peg clipped? The defender pulls out too late..
Click to expand...

Looks to me like, if there's any contact at all, it's attacker making contact with defender. The defender doesn't bodycheck him, his arms are up in the air, both of his feet are planted firmly on the ground and he's stood upright.
 
c_zpsb48b8a9d.jpg


Contact?
 
Its Peter Pawlett of course its a dive, just search youtube for him and you'll find many more examples.

Oh your photo doesn't show any contact at all.
 
Left leg bent? its so hard to tell, makes you realise how harder job refs have..
 
Only getting a 2 match ban. I hope they appeal it and it gets doubled. He's already i believe been done for it twice this seasons so a 2 match ban isn't obviously long enough to teach him a lesson.It should have been at least 4 this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom