A leading member of the Referees' Association and former top referee made the statement a few years ago that footballers cheated. He was made by the Football Association to apologise and withdraw his statement. To me that ranks with the imprisonment of Galileo by the Vatican in 1663 for suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round.
Of course footballers cheat and the more professional the game the more they cheat. Anyone who thinks differently is living in a fantasy world.
One of the most flagrant ways of cheating these days is what most people call 'diving'. The Laws of the Game refer to it as 'simulating'. Referees are told that any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the referee, must be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour'. In other words the player must be cautioned.
Diving is nothing new. Older Reading supporters will no doubt remember that former Elm Park star Maurice Edleston was not adverse to falling over in the penalty area when he ran out of other options. He used to say 'it was worth a try.'
Today diving or simulation has become more prevalent and in many cases more sinister. It is also often a very difficult decision for a referee to make. A referee has to be 100% certain before deciding that a player has feigned an unfair tackle. Only last week I had a player fall to the ground whilst being challenged for the ball. It was obvious to me that his opponent had not made contact and had I been unsighted I might have thought that he had dived. Luckily I was in a position to see that he had actually tripped over his own feet. The arms went up although there was no offence, but it was also not a dive.
A referee has to be convinced that no physical contact of any kind has been
made before accusing a player of diving. Unless he is perfectly placed, it is not always easy to be sure, so some seemingly blatant dives do go unpunished. Another form of simulation is the over-exaggeration of the result of any tackle. That other book 'Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game' says
'players who clearly simulate injury in order to deceive the referee should also be dealt with under this law'.
This refers to those players who fake serious injury after a tackle. This is why I say simulation has become more sinister because they are deliberately trying to get the referee to take disciplinary action against their opponent.
he F.A. Code of Conduct for referees says that you mustn't criticise another referee. However, as an illustration let me take you back to the England-Argentina World Cup match when David Beckham was sent off. Beckham, you might remember, was lying on the ground when he lifted his leg to bring down the Argentinian player who was walking backwards. The Argentinian fell to the ground writhing in agony.
The only reason the referee could have for sending off Beckham was violent conduct. Beckham was petulant, even stupid but violent? I don't think so. A yellow card might have been more suitable. The Argentinian player was lucky not to have been cautioned. He simulated injury to an extent that he obviously didn't sustain. His antics were clearly intended to deceive the referee into thinking that Beckham's actions were severe enough to require something stronger than a yellow card.
It shows that even top referees can be fooled, and that cheating can sometimes prosper - in football at least. And that is of course why they do it.
Dick Sawdon Smith