When is a dive not a dive?

The diving controversy took another twist on Monday when UEFA decided to overturn the two match ban previously given to Arsenal’s Eduardo. Originally accused of diving to gain a penalty in the Champions League qualifier against Celtic, UEFA now seem to have accepted that contact was made by Celtic keeper Artur Boruc and that therefore, there was no cheating involved.

This decision has left an already grey area in a murkier shade of grey than it was before. The question is when is a dive not a dive?

Debate

Since the Eduardo incident there have been many incidents that have added to the debate. Two of the most high profile cases involved Wayne Rooney. Firstly there was the penalty given to him against Arsenal when he was ‘brought down’ by Manuel Almunia and secondly there was the penalty given for him when he was…well, given for him for England against Slovenia.

In my opinion, the penalty for England against Slovenia can be discounted from this debate as it was quite simply a rank bad decision. I’m not sure Rooney dived as such; I just think the referee got it horribly wrong.

Relevant

However, the penalty for Manchester United against Arsenal is very relevant. Did Almunia make contact with Rooney? Yes. Was Rooney already going to ground before the contact was made? Yes. Could Rooney have avoided the contact? Yes. Was Rooney in a position where he was likely to score? No. Was a penalty the correct decision?

In the Eduardo case, if we accept that there was contact made, however minimal, did Eduardo theatrically throw himself to the ground to make that contact obvious? Yes. Could Eduardo have avoided the contact? Was he in a position where he was likely to score? No. Was a penalty the correct decision?

Awarded

We have all seen cases where a striker has definitely been fouled but manages to stay on his feet and get a shot away. Whether the goal is scored or not, the penalty is not then awarded. It is a fact that referees tend to only give the penalty if the player goes to ground. Would penalties have been given to Eduardo or Rooney if they had stayed upright, even if contact had been made by the keeper?

Football will always be a game of opinions and this area is one where it is difficult to reach agreement. I actually think that the Rooney one was the right decision and the Eduardo one was wrong. Many others will totally disagree.

Simulation

The rules in relation to penalties need to be clarified and the definition of diving, or simulation, also needs to be made clearer. At the moment, it appears that going to ground without any contact is regarded as cheating whereas going to ground with minimal contact, when the player has no need to go to ground, is regarded as fair and part of the game.

I think that a foul is a foul wherever it happens on the pitch. Referees have to start giving penalties for fouls that do not lead to the attacking player ending up in a messy heap on the floor. If this started to happen then players would soon realize that they do not have to take up a mixture of Olympic diving and Shakespearian acting to point out to the referee that they have been fouled.

Sleazy

I know it is a novel idea, but wouldn’t it be nice if footballers only fell to the ground when they had no physical choice but to do so. The players, the referees and the authorities all have a massive part to play in cleaning up this somewhat sleazy area of the game. The sooner they do so, the better.

I’m not sure that rescinding Eduardo’s ban is sending the right message at all.