Join Now  | 
Home About Contact Us Privacy & Security Advertise
Soccer America Daily Soccer World Daily Special Edition Around The Net Soccer Business Insider College Soccer Reporter Youth Soccer Reporter Soccer on TV Soccer America Classifieds Game Report
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalk Soccer America Confidential Youth Soccer Insider World Cup Watch
RSS Feeds Archives Manage Subscriptions Subscribe
Order Current Issue Subscribe Manage My Subscription Renew My Subscription Gift Subscription
My Account Join Now
Tournament Calendar Camps & Academies Soccer Glossary Classifieds
Exposed! The shabbiness of the English anti-diving campaign
by Paul Gardner, August 6th, 2017 4:51PM
Subscribe to SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner

TAGS:  england, referees


By Paul Gardner

It was totally right and proper that the farce of the English campaign against diving should be brutally exposed at Wembley, often called “the cathedral” of English soccer.

Exuding an insufferable self-righteousness about diving has long been an English affectation. A rather ugly one, too. Whatever they may tell us, it is still widely held there that only foreigners dive. 

So this season the English are starting another unpleasant witch hunt to punish the villainous divers. I have to point out that, despite the repeated explosions of outrage from England about diving, I have yet to see any reliable stats telling us just how frequent this unspeakable offense is. 

Under the new anti-diving onslaught punishing the offense itself seems much less important than heaping blame and infamy on the offenders in person. The attitude is slavishly reflected in the country’s media. Announcing the new crackdown, Reuters described it as aimed at “players who cheat referees by diving to win a penalty or get an opponent sent off.”

Quite a rap sheet -- cheating referees, getting false penalty kicks, and betraying fellow professionals by getting them red-carded. All that by falling down.

An example of what is known as zero tolerance. Advice to referees: get out there, look for diving, or even what appears to be diving, and pounce. 

So here, on Sunday, we had referee Bobby Madley, presumably highly regarded or he wouldn’t have been chosen to be the ref at the annual curtain-raiser to the English season -- the Community Shield game at Wembley. This year, a London derby, Chelsea vs Arsenal, a replay of last season’s FA Cup final, won by Arsenal.

Madley was doing OK until the 36th minute mark, when Chelsea’s Willian went down in the Arsenal penalty area. And thus begins what is an almost perfect example of why the English witch hunt is a disgrace.

Madley whistled immediately. Not for a penalty kick, but for a free kick to Arsenal and a yellow-card to Willian. For simulation -- i.e. for taking a dive. In Madley’s opinion, he wasn’t fouled.

At that point, the TV commentators take over: Martin Tyler -- by far the best play-by-play man in England, quite possibly in the world -- and Stewart Robson, a former Arsenal midfielder, now a TV analyst. 

Replays were shown, suggesting the possibility of contact. Not massive contact, but enough to unbalance the swiftly moving Willian. That possibility was completely ignored by Robson, who immediately and arrogantly ruled it out: “Certainly not a foul. There’s no question, it’s not a penalty.”

While Robson was thus laying down the law, the replays continued, with each one getting closer to suggesting that he really ought to be less certain. Not him. He ploughed on about there being no penalty kick: “Is he looking for it? He probably is. He kicks his own heel. I think the referee’s got that absolutely right.”

Robson’s knowledge of anatomy seems a bit faulty -- Willian’s heel was not involved, but the replays did show that his moving left leg did knock against the back of his standing right leg. More than enough to bring him down. Arsenal defender Hector Bellerin was right there, close behind Willian, and clearly attempted a tackle.

Having settled the matter, Tyler and Robson returned to the ongoing game. Then, a surprise -- it certainly seemed to take Tyler and Robson by surprise -- a new replay suddenly appeared, quite unannounced.

Evidently the guys in the truck had found something they thought the commentators should see. With good reason. For this new replay showed, unarguably, that Bellerin, running behind Willian had made contact. His left knee knocked against Willian’s left leg as it swung forward. 

For once the camera angle gave a clear view of the sudden change in direction of Willian’s left leg as it was knocked into his right leg. This vital replay began with Bellerin attempting to prod the ball away for Willian -- and failing to do so. That allowed just a moment for Tyler to say (correctly) “There’s no touch there.”  But then came the crucial and clearly visible contact. And resounding silence from Tyler and Robson. 

The contact could have been accidental, but that is immaterial. It was a foul, Willian was tripped by Bellerin, Chelsea should have had a penalty kick, Willian should not have been shown the yellow. 

A turning point in the game? Maybe -- though Chelsea’s subsequent performance in the shootout doesn’t inspire confidence in their penalty shooting. 

But certainly a talking point for the halftime studio gurus, no? No. They -- Mario Melchiot, Warren Barton and Kate Abdo -- simply didn’t discuss the incident. Not a word.

Which nicely defines the English attitude to diving: of course it was a dive, the referee said so, so did the TV expert, so the awkward fact that the TV replay showed clearly that it was not a dive, is calmly ignored. The diving witch hunt is up and running. It has its first victim, a Brazilian.

Right. But what this incident really did was to expose the inevitable injustice of any witch hunt. In a witch hunt there have to be victims. After all, what kind of a witch hunt would it be if it turned out that the supposed crime rarely happened?

There’s no fear of that. Not as long as good referees can invent calls as bad as Madley’s. Even then, it’s difficult to blame Madley. This was not an easy call. What is unacceptable is the arrogance of the call. Madley surely had to have some doubt, right from the start, about what had happened. He could not have seen that there was no contact, because that is not what happened.

But the witch hunters make no allowance for doubt. They know, don’t they ever. If it looks like a dive, however remotely, it must be a dive. I’d like to think that Madley’s error -- which I see more as arrogance than poor judgment -- will make all referees less quick to make diving calls, less ready to comply with the ugly influence of the witch hunters.

  1. Kenneth Barr
    commented on: August 6, 2017 at 6:29 p.m.
    First, Robert Madley is statistically more likely to call a dive than a defensive foul. That is his mindset. Second, if he's considered the best the English FA has then the state of officiating there has sunk to a new low. Gone are the days of a George Crawford, Roger Milford or Roger Gifford that officiated with a healthy dose of common sense as well as had impeccable positioning during play. Since assessor reports are never made public we will have no idea how Madley was rated for today's match but given the FA's politics he probably graded quite high. All in all, it's just another typical match for Sweet Fanny Adams.
  1. John Soares
    commented on: August 6, 2017 at 6:29 p.m.
    Most contacts are not a foul or dive...just part of the game. Some refs seem to feel the need to call "something" when a no call would be much preferable. Went down too easy let him stay down and look foolish. Surprisingly these same refs will often allow the game in general to go way too "physical" let them play, broken legs and all.
  1. Anthony Tognocchi
    commented on: August 6, 2017 at 6:30 p.m.
    Bravo Mr. Gardner! As always, your analysis is spot on. The stubbornness, or is it stupidity, to not see and subsequently describe what the rest of the world can knows is beyond comprehension. The continued movement toward negative football is going to kill the game I love. Keep reporting as you see're seeing it correctly.
  1. Kyr-Roger St.-Denis
    commented on: August 6, 2017 at 6:46 p.m.
    Hogwash. The contact, between the defender's shin and William's ankle, was slight, so it's not unreasonable for the ref not to spot it. In the replays, the announcers were concentrating on the defender's foot, and once that cleared without contact, they stopped looking for contact. In both cases it's human error, not some FA-orchestrated conspiracy. Only an irrationally Anglophobe like Gardner would put it down to conspiracy.
  1. Paul Roby
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 6:08 p.m.
    You do know that the "Anglophobe" Paul Gardner is English?
  1. dave minshall
    commented on: August 8, 2017 at 9:42 a.m.
    I believe the referee would have needed a video replay to detect the very slight contact on Willian so that he would have arrived at the correct decision. If Madley had done his homework he would have realized Willian does not have a history of going down easily in order to gain penalties, and then he would maybe have given him the benefit of the doubt. However I really do have an issue with you saying that Martin Tyler is by far the best play by play commentator. He described the red card to Pedro as violent conduct when we clearly know it was Serious Foul Play ... a rookie mistake, and not his first major foot in mouth moment.. enough said..
  1. R2 Dad
    commented on: August 6, 2017 at 7:07 p.m.
    Agree with John--was it incidental, careless, reckless or excessive force? This appears incidental/trifling and since not all contact should result in a player going down, a no-call would have been the preferred response. By issuing a card the ref is making a judgement call when he didn't have all the facts and therefore proves his fallibility when it would have been better to not remove all doubt.
  1. Kent James
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 12:11 a.m.
    PG, I don't doubt you're right on this call, but you're being hard on the ref (though the commentators, since they have the replay, deserve your vitriol if they don't change their mind given clear evidence). You are fight on that refs should hesitate to card a dive; it should not be "he went down to easily" (that should be a no call), it should be reserved for fouls made out of nothing (not embellishments). On the other hand, you are dead wrong to suggest that diving is never a problem. First, when players frequently try to game the ref by diving, that makes refs hesitant to call real fouls, to avoid looking foolish if they're being gamed (so they hesitate to call fouls, leading to the kind of physical game you claim to abhor). Second, they make the sport look silly. That aspect earns soccer players undeserved reputations for being weak. Not helpful when you're trying to grow the game. To me, the solution is for refs to be very hesitant to call people for diving during the game, but if players dive, they should be punished retroactively, and reasonably severely.
  1. Kevin Leahy
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 10:36 a.m.
    The FA has a big concern about diving but, not time wasting and feinting injury. Trying to influence the game with phony dramatics is drag on the game in all phases. The players make a mockery of the game with all the stunts they pull. I rememeber Luca Toni in the World Cup against the U.S. The biggest guy on the field kept going down every time someone came near him. The carding of a player should be without a doubt.
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 10:48 a.m.
    maybe if they did not always throw up their hands and scream like they have been shot...
  1. Forever Blue
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 11:11 a.m.
    A foul is when contact causes a change in the players movement, momentum or balance. Unfortunately the rule do not specify the degree of contact. It up to the ref's judgement. Refs make mistakes and that's part of the game. I do believe that you cannot target or mandate a campaign against diving without VAR. There are just too many angles and views to consider and make an accurate judgement that may warrant a card.
  1. I w Nowozeniuk
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 12:02 p.m.
    Obviously, diving puts the ref in a bind unless there is a clear view of the incident. Diving should be reviewed post-game and a hefty monetary penalty assessed ($10K) with a two game ban. That should send the message.
  1. Footballer Forever
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 1:27 p.m.
    Huh! with such title, I had to check it out and it had to be "Get off my lawn" Paul Gardner. Nothing to read or see if it pertains to such ignorant and obnoxious blogger. :P
  1. Anthony Pignataro
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 3:31 p.m.
    Every contact looks like a foul in slow-mo. Announcers should not rely n slow-mo to look for a foul. Normal speed shows if it is a dive better then slow-mo.
  1. uffe gustafsson
    commented on: August 7, 2017 at 8:42 p.m.
    Well there is also the reputation of players taking a dive, like Suarez and refs learn that. Remember the video of Italian team practice diving. That said not all falls are dives and refs need to make really sure it's a none contact before issue a card for it. I don't like it either when players dive in the box it makes the game a clown circus. So why not let replays later be the inforcement by the league to punish obvious divers. That should put a stop on it.
  1. R2 Dad
    commented on: August 16, 2017 at 7:52 p.m.
    And cue La Liga, where Ronaldo earns a red for diving, sparking a retaliatory push and 5 game suspension. The Butterfly Effect in action.

Sign in to leave a comment. Don't have an account? Join Now



Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
VAR: Howard Webb's skewed videos     
In no time at all we shall be getting, in MLS, the benefits of video replays ...
Chuck Blazer 1945-2017: The Fatally Flawed Friend     
The tragedy that was Chuck Blazer is now over. And tragedy it assuredly was, a good ...
New medical study shows FIFA protocol is being ignored    
To laugh ... or to cry? There is no middle course here, no way of dodging ...
The Gnat's Eyebrow and other VAR stupidities     
The trial of video-assistance for referees currently under way at the Confederations Cup in Russia cannot ...
That Goal    
It was Pele who started the "soccer is beauty" theme. He titled his autobiography -- one ...
Tab Ramos paints a rosy American future in the changing U-20 World Cup -- but a U-18 World Cup would make more sense     
Tab Ramos has been talking in glowing terms of his team and its adventures at the ...
What's this? A goalkeeper penalized for rough play?     
Meet Sorin Stoica. Maybe you've seen him in action during MLS games. Not a highly paid ...
Scots wha hae! Thoughts on the sad and ominous decline of Scottish soccer    
I note, with considerable exasperation tempered by sadness, that Scottish soccer is experimenting with a marvelous ...
Celebrity coaches -- who needs them?     
I am still finding it difficult to come to terms with the extraordinary way in which ...
Wenger must stay -- even the stats agree     
Arsene Wenger should stay. That's what I think. And I think that way because I respect ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives