Simulation/diving

[Pidge]

Is there a debate to be had around the changes in approach to this by refs recently. It used to be that football was a contact sport, so a foul was only awarded when contact was sufficient to bring the player down or seriously affect his balance so that he was unable to continue with the ball. It was simulation if a player fell over to influence the refs decision, and in fact a yellow card should be given for doing that. Now refs are just asking if there was any contact.

 

Last night United were given a penalty when Fernandez suffered a minimal contact to his foot. For me that is not a foul. Do we like this change?  Do referees have the right to change the rules to this extent?

[Ackey]

"Recently" = "A decade or more", no? It's perhaps continuing down a road of less and less contact, but it's not new. 

 

That said, it's also arguable that the speed of the game has changed and that minimal contact can and does lead to decisions that look like live dives until you consider what you'd do if someone lightly tapped your ankle whilst you were running full-tilt.

 

It's an imperfect world, with imperfect rules and imperfect application of them.

[Pidge]

The FA Laws of the Game Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct have not changed. section 3 Cautions for Unsporting behaviour  A player must be cautioned if attempting to deceive the referee e.g. feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation).

 

Football is still a contact sport.  So inherent in that comment is the fact that some contact will not be a foul.  So the change to asking "was there ANY contact" cannot possibly be right.  

VAR gives a great opportunity to negate the speed of the game you mention.  It is easy to see in most cases when a player has gone down when they did not need to fall.  In my book the only reason a player goes to ground risking injury, is because he wants to deceive the referee that he was fouled.  When I used to play 5-a-side, I would never fall unless properly clattered. It hurt to much!