There are a number of theories why we have seen a growth in footballers diving or what the Laws of the Game call 'Simulating action intended to deceive the referee'.
Some people will tell you it's the influence of the vast numbers of foreign players now plying their trade in English football. Some sort of suggestion that they don't have the same sense of sportsmanship as we do. Others blame the money that now rules the game and the 'win by all means', fair or unfair, mentality that that engenders. Then there are those who believe it is the fault of the managers and coaches who tell their players to 'go down' when tackled, particularly in the penalty area.
My own theory is that it all stems from the change in the Laws in 1995. Prior to that time the Law said. 'A player who intentionally trips or attempts to trip an opponent shall be penalised by the award of a direct free kick to the opposing team'. It was of course left to the referee to interpret the player's actions. Was it his intention to play the ball but had missed and brought his opponent down? Or alternatively, had he set out to trip his opponent?
This, as might be imagined, left itself open to some apparent inconsistency amongst referees. Perhaps some were better mind-readers than others. In my view, the dive was not so prevalent prior to 1995 because, if a player went down, the referee was not worried whether there had been contact. He had to make up his mind what the player's intention had been.
Now the Law has taken out the word 'intentional' for a trip. The Law has also changed to say, 'A direct free kick will be awarded if a player tackles an opponent to gain possession, of the
ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
'.
'I went for the ball', a young player shouted at me last weekend when I gave a foul against him for a trip.' It's not what you intended that matters', I replied. 'it's what actually happened'. Removing the need for a referee to make a decision based on his interpretation of a player's intention should mean no more mind-reading. This, it was hoped, would lead to greater consistency.
In many ways I think it has. The only reason a player can get away with bringing down an opponent now is by playing the ball first and the opponent going down over his outstretched leg. Note that he has to play the ball first, not bringing his opponent down on the way to the ball. But I was always taught that there is no action without a reaction.
As this new twist to a trip gradually stink into players, they realised that any contact, even accidental, could result in a free kick or penalty. So why not simulate a contact, particularly if it is on the blind side of the referee? The referee no longer has to wonder what the player's intentions were. Unless the player has played the ball first, he now has a different problem. If a player goes down he has to judge whether he was actually touched by his opponent and, although it sounds simple, it is not always that easy.
It is of course inevitable that referees will make mistakes, for they have only a split second to make a judgement. The worst thing for referees is those players who exaggerate their fall and those who celebrate the referee's decision, making other players feel the referee has been conned.
I am not saying the change in law was a wrong one, but it has to be understood that removing one set of problems seldom makes a referee's life any easier. It merely produces a whole new set of decisions to make.
Dick Sawdon Smith