• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Diving/Cheating. Ok for Wolves to do?

Why is Dicko running in the opposite direction to the ball? To ensure contact? He misses the defenders leading leg all together and just throws himself forwards into the bloke.

As WH has said, what else can the defender do? He's given up on making a challenge, he can't disappear. There's only one bloke looking to make contact in that shot and he ain't wearing blue and white!

Watch the video. Dicko has just beaten the wild lunge challenge and then his next touch is to take it away from the next defender, his next movement would be to change direction but he can't as he makes contact with the leg which has of course been left there to do what? Its not as if the defender has stepped back is it. He has gone forward and put his leg out.
 
I have no problem with it whether it's our player or another player. If the FA are going to put measures in place to eradicate it, then fine, but if they are not then it's all game.

Pretending someone has hit you when they haven't is a totally different animal.
 
or to put this to bed. You want people to have a similar reaction they had after the Watford game. If I believed Dicko had taken a dive I wouldn't be on here defending him, in this instance I don't he dived. So I can't join in with you on this one. If Dicko or anyone else dives/pretends to be have been punched v Derby on Friday, don't worry I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and protect my moral standing on the planet.
 
Watch the video. Dicko has just beaten the wild lunge challenge and then his next touch is to take it away from the next defender, his next movement would be to change direction but he can't as he makes contact with the leg which has of course been left there to do what? Its not as if the defender has stepped back is it. He has gone forward and put his leg out.

What relevance has the first defender got? Dicko takes several steps between the two challenges so plenty of time to set himself for his next move. The defender may not step back but he certainly doesn't step forward, he doesn't even make a challenge, he realises he can't get the ball and he stops, as said previously, what else is he meant to do? Run away? Drop to the floor? Disappear? He's done as much as he can to avoid the contact and in the end it's Dicko's motion that creates the contact, not that of the defender.
 
or to put this to bed. You want people to have a similar reaction they had after the Watford game. If I believed Dicko had taken a dive I wouldn't be on here defending him, in this instance I don't think he dived. So I can't join in with you on this one. If Dicko or anyone else dives/pretends to be have been punched v Derby on Friday, don't worry I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and protect my moral standing on the planet.

..
 
There's footballers and those involved in football in this forum, i'm frankly surprised at the fuss, it's how football is played in 2015 surely.
 
Has the thread been closed yet or can I say look at where Dicko is looking as he passes the defender. He looks at the ball before turning to look at the ref after he is brought down.

He cant be looking at the ball and where the defenders leg is at the same time.
 
Yeah I bet it was really hard to see the bloke standing a foot in front of him when he turned his head slightly to look at the ball 2 yards away.
 
As previously implied, there’s certainly a continuum to this sort of thing, and the actions of Nouha and the Watford cock are so far apart as to not even be worth comparing.

But even in the penalty box, there are different levels of bad behaviour. I certainly wouldn’t condone blatant diving, by which I mean falling over without being touched by an opponent with a view to conning the ref into awarding a pen, but I don’t think that’s what Dicko has done here. Rather, I’d call this taking advantage of a situation. There has been contact, albeit slight, and he’s decided to ask the ref whether he thinks it’s worth a free kick by going to ground. If the ref says no, then no one’s really going to make too much fuss; if he says yes, bonus. The rules might be in black and white, but how the ref interprets them is by no means so clear cut.

I don’t think this is any different in principle from a bowler asking for an lbw (pre-Hawkeye, of course) when he suspects the ball would have missed the stumps. Gamesmanship, at worst (which is fine), but not exactly cheating (which isn’t).
 
A couple of things here which I think are important.

Firstly, while the referee was in a decent position, I am not sure how much of the incident he saw. The Wednesday defender could have obstructed his view of Dicko. Kenny says he cannot recall if the assistant flagged, which is fair enough. It is worth bearing in mind though that the assistant would have had the best view of the incident, and I would like to think he would have flagged. That would have made the decision much more credible.

Secondly, on another thread it was mentioned Wolves being awarded a penalty, but the assistant flagged, and told the referee that the Wolves player had dived. Result a free kick and a caution for simulation. I think last nights situation was not all that different, and I would not have been surprised had there been a similar outcome.

The comments on here show just how tough a call it was, and referees are informed there can be no question of doubt when awarding a penalty kick. So we can only presume that the referee was totally convinced of it.
 
Firstly, while the referee was in a decent position, I am not sure how much of the incident he saw. The Wednesday defender could have obstructed his view of Dicko..

On this point. From the ref's view point, he would have seen the leg which Dicko went over. He was kind of around the "D" of the penalty area when it happened and no one was blocking his view of the defender who committed the foul
 
This thread demonstrates why you cannot introduce real time video technology into the game for this type of decision. After seeing it numerous times we are spilt more or less 50/50 as to whether it was a dive or not.
 
This thread demonstrates why you cannot introduce real time video technology into the game for this type of decision. After seeing it numerous times we are spilt more or less 50/50 as to whether it was a dive or not.

Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender, so it would take 30 seconds to say no penalty.
 
Indirect freekick for obstruction should have been given.

I was just about to post this!

Kenny, have you ever tried to pull your upper body back out of the way of contact, whilst having BOTH your legs (sort of) behind you? You've got to have one leg forward of you to push back against, and it was that leg that Dicko made contact with.'Its not as if the defender has stepped back is it. He has gone forward and put his leg out.

As a technical thing, (FRANK!!) I don't see it as a foul. Surely this is a simple case of obstruction?
Isn't it this type of foul that makes the hackles rise when a seasoned athlete falls over at minimal contact so hated?
It was just obstruction.
And could I say FRank, that obstruction in the box these days is a very rare thing indeed.

Paddy, this is a decent conversation which has half the forum split.
If it's boring you, try not to click on it...
 
Back
Top