Here we are back to the domestic football season. The World Cup, which we looked forward to with such anticipation, is almost a distant memory, and with England's performance, probably best forgotten. A tournament that promised so much, particularly from its referees, turned out to be a disappointment.
Keith Hackett, Premiership referees' supremo, predicted that the FIFA clampdown on diving, would give a lead that the global game would follow. So how did it all go wrong?
How did the World Cup turn out instead to become a cheater's
charte?.
Just before the tournament started, referees were instructed to give five areas special attention. Part of the problem perhaps, was that dealing with diving was the last of the five. That may have had a negative effect. It almost seemed referees thought 'that’s the least of our worries'. They were also warned that before penalising any suspected diving, they had to be sure that no contact had been made.
This, of course, has always been the problem, with what the law calls 'simulation'. Some times a player will go down without a foul being committed but has not dived in an attempt to deceive the referee. There has been some form of innocent contact.
I have had players tripping over their own feet or even tripping over the ball. Sometimes they go down because they have overstretched themselves. If the referee is in the right position, then he can quite clearly and legitimately wave play on. If he's not in the perfect position and didn't see whether there was any contact or not, he shouldn't automatically believe that the player was faking his fall.
I don't wish to be critical of the world's finest referees but there
were I believe a couple of other factors. In the first England game, one of the opponents went down in the penalty area and looked up for penalty to be given. Instead, the referee indicated to him by a little piece of mime, that he considered it was a dive. The referee didn't give a penalty but he didn't caution the player either. I think that if the referee had reached for his yellow card, it would have sent out a clear message that diving was not going to be tolerated and players would have been more cautious for the rest of the tournament. As it was they seemed to act more blatantly as the tournament went on.
The other thing is that I don't feel some of the referees considered the wording of the simulation law sufficiently. What it says is, 'any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the referee, must be cautioned as unsporting behaviour.' Sometimes players would brush against opponents and then not just fall down but dive dramatically into the penalty area. There is no question that it was done with the intention of deceiving the referee.
In the semi-final there was one spectacular example by Ronaldo. He threw himself through a mass of opponents with a dive of which any Olympic swimmer would have been proud. Desperation perhaps, but a clear case of simulation with intent to deceive. Again he received no sanction.
Then there was feigning injury to hopefully get an opponent cautioned or sent off. How many times did we see players writhe in agony after a tackle only to be up and running without any ill effects, once the referee had taken
action? Again of course it is difficult. No referee wants to caution a player for simulating injury and then find he's broken his leg. But players did it again and again without sanction.
The opportunity that Keith Hackett forecast was missed. Too much perhaps to expect diving to be eradicated by one tournament but let's hope local players now don’t think they have a licence to cheat.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2006