Diving/Cheating. Ok for Wolves to do?

[Dinowolf]

WTF. What dive? What cheating? Good decision by the ref, and IMO a clear penalty.

 

[Norman Deeley]

My first reaction was that it was a dive - but I've only seen it from one angle and I suspect the defender's knee may have caught Dicko's thigh - quite enough to make you go down and as a few people have said, not much in the way of protests from the defender.

That comment re FF in the E&S is just piss-poor journalism isn't it? If it wasn't a dive Dicko is perfectly entitled to thump the journo.

 

[lemonjelly]

Happened not to far away from me.

First off, in the build up Dicko had out sprinted 2 Wednesday players from the left side of the pitch to win a long ball which had pretty much been booted into space. A ball he had no rights to win, but in being first to it put wednesday under significant pressure. He then beat his man & headed for the box at full tilt. Exceptional work.

Wednesday are piling back, seeing the danger belatedly. Dicko is approaching the box, and the more dangerous first challenge comes flying in. IMO Dicko HAD to avoid that one, as it risked being season ending. It was wild, and I am glad he missed the player flying in. On landing & keeping control of the ball Dicko is having to slow down/recompose, & another player makes an effort to stop him. Dicko has by this time run approx 120 yards at full pelt.

Contact is minimal, & to be fair, unlikely to be a foul elsewhere on the pitch. However, if that contact isn't made/Dicko isn't stopped, he's blatantly in on goal. Contact may be minimal, but the impact is denying a goal scoring opportunity.
Further, imo the first challenge should have been acted upon by the ref, as I felt the defender was out of control when making it.

 

[Carrotdude]

Taking an easy fall to get a penalty is completely different to pretending to get punched in the face. Haven't seen the incident yet so don't know how 'blatant' it was

 

[Donegal Wolf]

I never said anyone was happy about the dive, just dismissive, there have been a few pretty in depth verdicts put up and no mention of anything dubious around the penalty, just completely ignored. Yet when a far less influential decision was made a couple of games ago it was like the end of the world, you'd think having the topic so fresh in the memories could've prompted a better response and discussion around the issue, a chance for Wolves fans to take a real stance against cheating rather than just moaning when it goes against them, like was claimed a short while ago.

It could have been far more influential then last nights incident (I think it was a dive), as if the ban had been upheld it would have meant Sako missing 3 games. Part of the reason why there was more discussion was that it was still a "live" issue in the days after the game with Wolves appeal regarding the sending off.
Last nights incident has been and gone, people have accepted players dive, it goes for and against you at times and shrugged their shoulders and moved on.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

It could have been far more influential then last nights incident (I think it was a dive), as if the ban had been upheld it would have meant Sako missing 3 games. Part of the reason why there was more discussion was that it was still a "live" issue in the days after the game with Wolves appeal regarding the sending off.
Last nights incident has been and gone, people have accepted players dive, it goes for and against you at times and shrugged their shoulders and moved on.

Funny how that wasn't the case when it was someone else's player doing the diving.

 

[Kenny]

Funny how that wasn't the case when it was someone else's player doing the diving.

Although Afobe was getting a lot of Wolves fans having a go for diving a few weeks back. You are trying to compare (or it comes across as) the reaction to the Watford player who didn't dive but pretended to be punched in the face with Dicko going down in the area when challenged in what you feel is a dubious manner. That simply doesn't work.

If the Watford game had seen Sako sent off for a half arsed challenge where the lad had then dived then the discussion is on.

 

[Sniffer]

It could have been far more influential then last nights incident (I think it was a dive), as if the ban had been upheld it would have meant Sako missing 3 games. Part of the reason why there was more discussion was that it was still a "live" issue in the days after the game with Wolves appeal regarding the sending off.
Last nights incident has been and gone, people have accepted players dive, it goes for and against you at times and shrugged their shoulders and moved on.

I'll add to that by saying it the play acting by FF was immediately picked up by the national media as being outrageous. It was a discussion point on SSN and on the FiveLive 606 show they were asking callers to call in about the incident. Robbie Savage went short of condemning FF as he mentioned that he had done it himself to get a man sent off.

An incident like the penalty last night will have 100's of similar instances over the course of the season. I think that he was looking for it but can see why it was given.

 

[Donegal Wolf]

As said by several posters it was far more blatant, and could have had a bigger influence on the rest of the season with a 3 game ban for violent conduct.

 

[Langers]

I've watched it a few times this morning and I still think it's a dive.

Though what I think constitutes a dive appears to be different to the laws of a game. I'm of the opinion that you don't go down unless you can't stop yourself - last night's appeared to be a case of Dicko anticipating the contact and 'playing' for the decision, and I can't agree with that. There does appear to be slight contact but I just don't like the way that's still deemed to be worthy of a penalty. He could have stayed on his feet IMO.

Still - the rules of the game state it's a penalty as contact (although minimal) was made. Moreso than the penalty Bournemouth won against us a few weeks back that wasn't even in the box (why didn't we have a separate thread for that one...?).

If that was the other way round, I'd have seen why it was given, but pissed off that it was.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Although Afobe was getting a lot of Wolves fans having a go for diving a few weeks back. You are trying to compare (or it comes across as) the reaction to the Watford player who didn't dive but pretended to be punched in the face with Dicko going down in the area when challenged in what you feel is a dubious manner. That simply doesn't work.

If the Watford game had seen Sako sent off for a half arsed challenge where the lad had then dived then the discussion is on.

It's all simulation, what Dicko did is no more part of the game than what FF, it's all cheating, so if you're against simulation then you should disagree with both acts.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Comparing Dicko to Forestieri is nonsensical. There was minimal contact which he looked for. Should be comparing him with Diego Costa rather than that cockpocket at Watford.

 

[Kenny]

It's all simulation, what Dicko did is no more part of the game than what FF, it's all cheating, so if you're against simulation then you should disagree with both acts.

I do....but at this moment in time I don't think Dicko dived.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Having seen the incident, it does look like a very soft penalty. There was minimal contact, but nowadays players are told by their clubs to go down in such situations. Though it was not even remotely similar to the incident in the Watford game.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Rule 12 states that it is a foul is the player trips or attempts to trip the player in a careless or reckless manner or uses excessive force. The referee does not have to determine whether the attacking player could have got out of the way or could have stopped themselves going down - indeed had Dicko not gone down the referee could still have given a penalty.

Unfortunately, very few referees give a penalty unless the player hits the deck despite the fact that they don't need to see that in order for it to be a foul. Elsewhere on the field of play, referees will often signal play on when a player has evaded a challenge that otherwise would have been a free kick but very rarely do they do this in the penalty area. Perhaps if more officials were willing to take responsibility and do the same in the penalty area players would feel less need to actually have to go down to get a penalty.

For me, the defender left himself open to tripping Dicko which is why he knew he had no defence.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Referees are advised not to use the advantage clause in the penalty area except in a situation where a player has got a tap in to score.

 

[Johnny75]

Referees are advised not to use the advantage clause in the penalty area except in a situation where a player has got a tap in to score.

Is there any reason for that Frank? Looks a good idea to me.

As far as the 'sliding scale of cheating goes' the FA have their own don't they depending on the situation. Diving is a yellow card, yet deliberate hand ball, spitting or deliberate foul play can constitute a penalty, sending off and post game ban. Seems sensible to me.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Is there any reason for that Frank? Looks a good idea to me.

As far as the 'sliding scale of cheating goes' the FA have their own don't they depending on the situation. Diving is a yellow card, yet deliberate hand ball, spitting or deliberate foul play can constitute a penalty, sending off and post game ban. Seems sensible to me.

The reason is basically because the clubs do not want it. A foul in the penalty area is either a penalty or a free kick to the defending side. And as often as not the defending side are happy to get the free kick, and take the pressure off them. Though there are occasions when advantage is the best option, for example if the attacking team have everyone up and the ball breaks well for the defending team to have a good breakaway. The referee will have his thinking time to decide on what to do.

Simulation is indeed punishable with a yellow card, but as I mentioned elsewhere, the referee association would like it to be punished by a red card.

 

[fizzwolf]

It may well have been 2 penalties. Can't remember who it was who played Dicko through in the first half but his first touch in the penalty area took the ball out wide (went out too) and the defender on his left didn't make a challenge. One of them split second times where I thought had the defender tried to play the ball as Dicko touched it wide he would have gone over and probably got one.

 

[Sniffer]

Frank, your input and knowledge in these debates is excellent and long may it continue.