Okay so penalty given game won/lost....... but at least we got the cheating little toe rag eh?

@ Mohan, you could be right the rot has already started.

Goal line technology was something that needed to be brought in, but I'm not in favour of using video replays during games. The exception would be to review off the ball incidents by the 4th official with punishment decided by the match referee. The other aspect of technology I would bring in would be to get the referee's conversations recorded (though not broadcast live).

I think the best cure is stronger refereeing. Just get the referees to actually enforce the laws and do so consistently. Post match, maybe you can try and bring in some sort of video analysis, but the instance has to be 100% conclusive to then dish out any punishment. The "offending player IMO should be given the benefit of the doubt until the evidence provides clear and unambiguous proof of guilt. Again I think in all of this there is too much bias in penalising diving by those who look to get an offensive advantage, but I reckon there are numerous instances of defending teams going over very softly in dangerous areas to relieve pressure or win FKs when the attacker could be clean through etc. When the ref says play on, he never goes back and books the defender for diving.

Most of the time there is a stop in play ANYWAY. There is no way the ref wouldn't have blown his whistle for the Kompany tackle on Wilshere or when Cazorla went down to win us a penalty. In other instances, for example Lampard's goal against Germany that wasn't given, it would have taken a fourth official looking at the tv images less than 30 seconds to see that it should have been a goal. No difference to giving that goal 30 seconds later than when a ref is late at blowing his whistle for an offside call.

When we have issues like Fellaini headbutting Shawcross, Henry's handball against ROI or other things the ref fails to spot he can always punish the player at the next break in the game, the same as when the ref waves play on and after a break in play goes back and gives a yellow card to the player who commited the foul.

There really are no good reasons for NOT using the tv images to aid the ref. Those in charge of football are way too rigid in their thinking on this issue IMO. Done correctly it wouldn't slow down the game either. IMO getting it right more often is more important than another couple of short breaks in play anyway.

So how would the Ramires' dive have panned out under this new ruling?

Wasn't a dive. Penalty every single time. Ref got it spot on.
However - he would have blown the whistle regardless. In less than 30 seconds a fourth official could have helped him determining whether to award the penalty OR give Arsenal a free-kick and Ramires a yellow for simulation. Either way, it wouldn't have taken a second longer but he would have taken his decision on a better basis.

It was a dive, Ramires clearly engineers the contact. However, it was also a penalty.

I'm not arguing about the time it takes to make the decision, the decision itself is not clear cut which is the same whether you look at it on video the next day or in the dugout.

That is why the ref still has to make a decision. With the help of video he can more often than not be put in a position to make the right decision.

Biggus wrote:

Okay so penalty given game won/lost....... but at least we got the cheating little toe rag eh?

The toerag's suspension could affect that team's points gained in the games he misses. Suarez for example has been on fire and he'd be sorely missed, especially if a game was tight.

Depressed Rex wrote:

That is why the ref still has to make a decision. With the help of video he can more often than not be put in a position to make the right decision.

I think even with the benefit of replays he would still make the decision to give a pen. Like what GM said, it was a pen. He engineered it perfectly.

General Mirth wrote:

So how would the Ramires' dive have panned out under this new ruling?

Would've been let off under any sane scheme, despite the fact he engineered his fall. Given the stigma attached to a sanction for diving it would have to be reserved for egregious cases - generally no contact, running away from the defender, goalscoring opportunity gone, obvious simulation to win a penalty.

But that's ok - the point is that with a video review process in place players would consciously dive much less often, including in situations like that one.

The point is improvements are incremental, obviously there's no perfect system but video review would definitely be an effective deterrent.

Burnwinter wrote:

General Mirth wrote:

So how would the Ramires' dive have panned out under this new ruling?

Would've been let off under any sane scheme, despite the fact he engineered his fall. Given the stigma attached to a sanction for diving it would have to be reserved for egregious cases - generally no contact, running away from the defender, goalscoring opportunity gone, obvious simulation to win a penalty.

But that's ok - the point is that with a video review process in place players would consciously dive much less often, including in situations like that one.

I still think diving is too variable to be dealt with in that fashion because it deals with intent. Players go to ground easily elsewhere on the pitch, particularly defenders when they realise that they've lost control at the back and the strikers going to nip in ahead of them. The trouble is everyone has a particular sort of dive in their mind i.e. a Pires or an Eduardo trying for a penalty but there's much more to it than that because it happens all over the pitch and you have to deal with them equally.

Also, it still doesn't put an end to players rolling around trying to get someone sent off like Busquets did against Inter. As far as I'm concerned, that's the worst kind.

Anyway, this isn't going anywhere but before we talk about officials dealing with video evidence, let's just try goal line technology. If that works, we can talk about more complicated elements.

I disagree with you. You just need to make sure that everything that gets punished is definitely a dive. Sure there are complex cases, but there are also simple ones.

The only controversy that remains is that some things that seem to be dives still go unpunished - but how is that worse than having no way to sanction, suspend or deter divers at all?

Video review isn't complicated, it's effectively used in a range of sports to deal with issues with at least as many grey areas as diving.

It's not half as controversial or complex as people seem to think. It significantly improves a situation where flagrant offences go unpunished.

DK Gooner wrote:

Goal line technology was something that needed to be brought in, but I'm not in favour of using video replays during games. The exception would be to review off the ball incidents by the 4th official with punishment decided by the match referee. The other aspect of technology I would bring in would be to get the referee's conversations recorded (though not broadcast live).

I think the best cure is stronger refereeing. Just get the referees to actually enforce the laws and do so consistently. Post match, maybe you can try and bring in some sort of video analysis, but the instance has to be 100% conclusive to then dish out any punishment. The "offending player IMO should be given the benefit of the doubt until the evidence provides clear and unambiguous proof of guilt. Again I think in all of this there is too much bias in penalising diving by those who look to get an offensive advantage, but I reckon there are numerous instances of defending teams going over very softly in dangerous areas to relieve pressure or win FKs when the attacker could be clean through etc. When the ref says play on, he never goes back and books the defender for diving.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, you say that technology needs to be brought in even miking up refs but then you say that the solution is stronger reffing (which I agree with), can't you see it'd be the thin ebd of the wedge? You can just imagine Blatter supporting the introduction of these at free kicks (just to see more goals scored).

As Squalkid suggested teams could be allowed the use of them say 1-2 times a game.

I think what he says makes sense Biggus. I'm all for goal line technology but that's pretty much my limit, and only because that gives a definitive answer that cannot be questioned. There are no grey areas with it, a ball either did cross the line or did not. Goals are the most crucial aspect of a game and if technology means errors like those which denied Pedro Mendes at Old Trafford or Lampard against Germany can be cut out then the authorities have a responsibility to ensure its implemented.

As for other technology, in-game reviews etc, that would only provide a definite answer in extreme cases. The majority of the time a referee would still have to weigh up the facts and rule based on his opinion, so I believe things should be left as they stand there. How many times do we watch match of the day and the pundits and presenters still cannot come to a decision based on half a dozen camera angles and slow motion replays. As much as they sometimes clear up situations, angles and slow mos often distort it to as you can't read the pace of the game properly. Look at Eduardos penalty against Celtic or Rooneys against us with Almunia, both clear dives when you consider all the evidence, but each player can point to camera angles, Rooney moreso, which show contact with the keeper which they could argue warrants a penalty. It isn't definitive in either case.

I'm all for referees being recorded, I see no harm in it. And I think more could and should be done by way or retrospective punishments when incidents are missed or called wrongly during games. I think a missed but clear dive during a game which may have brought a yellow card should should be subject to a one game ban retrospectively.

Clrnc wrote:

Depressed Rex wrote:

That is why the ref still has to make a decision. With the help of video he can more often than not be put in a position to make the right decision.

I think even with the benefit of replays he would still make the decision to give a pen. Like what GM said, it was a pen. He engineered it perfectly.

I was the one saying it was a pen. Video would only come to the same conclusion. Which is that the ref made the right call. If a 4th official was sitting watching Cazorla's 'effort' a few weeks ago - then instead of awarding us a penalty he probably would have given Cazorla a yellow and given a freekick to the other team.

All in the space of 30 seconds or so.

Tam wrote:

I think what he says makes sense Biggus. I'm all for goal line technology but that's pretty much my limit, and only because that gives a definitive answer that cannot be questioned. There are no grey areas with it, a ball either did cross the line or did not. Goals are the most crucial aspect of a game and if technology means errors like those which denied Pedro Mendes at Old Trafford or Lampard against Germany can be cut out then the authorities have a responsibility to ensure its implemented.

But it won't be the limit Tam, you known as well as I do that sooner or later a controversial goal will be scored where the ball went out for say a goal kick corner or a throw in and there will be calls to extend it.

Goal line technology in itself is pretty pointless IMO. How many times a season is there genuine debate whether the ref got it right or not? 3, 4? For all teams in a whole campaign?

Happens often enough to be relevant, last season's Fa cup final for instance.