Cheating - Perhaps It's Time to Focus on the Coaches?

I've had this thought in mind for a little while now and I thought it might stimulate some discussion.

We all know that the vast majority of modern footballers are cheats.  There are some honourable men amongst them, but I think the prevailing condition in the game now is that cheating is the norm and that players who don't do it are considered naïve almost to the point of being labelled 'unprofessional'.

But who taught them to be that way..?   I don't believe that youngsters start off like that.  If you're going to play the game to such an extent that you become good enough to earn a living out of it, then you must love it a lot, and you don't set out to deliberately damage something you love.... have a passion for...

It seems to me that most cheating is instilled in young players now when they first come to the attention of clubs who commit to developing them as youth players with a view to becoming adult professionals.  And that is usually the point at which most fall under the influence of a fully qualified FA approved coach for the first time.

For a young athlete in any sport, their coach is the font of all wisdom.  His every utterance is holy writ.  The young player will hang on his every word.  There is also the (probably) unspoken threat that those who don't toe the line and play the game the way they are taught, don't "make it".  

And so, these youngsters have it instilled into them that they are no longer playing in the playground.  That this is the real world and they are amongst the big boys now and they had better shape up or ship out.  In that situation, most youngsters will acquiesce and when coach teaches how to pull jerseys, trip opponents or how to fall down and roll over in mock agony, then that's what they do, and to impress the coach, they learn to do it real good.

Now.... what I've just written is speculation.  I can't prove that coaches do this.  But I'd bet a pound to a pinch of pigsh*t that it's going on at every professional club in the country with a youth programme.

And so we end up with almost completely amoral players like Januszai, who is a very talented young man, but seems to have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about what he is doing, week in, week out.  I wonder how young and impressionable he was when the coaches first got their hooks into him?

I don't think public opprobrium is going to have any effect.  The time when that might have made a difference is long past.  I doubt very much that peer pressure inside the game, to stop cheating, exists because there are so few honest players left that they are easily ignored.   Players are inured to fan disapproval from the stands and can shrug off a bit of booing with more or less indifference.  There is a rule of thumb in football now.  Only the opposition's fans boo the cheat and players don't give a toss what the opposition's fans think.

So, if we must depressingly acknowledge that cheating is now completely embedded in the game, how can we combat it..?   Well, the way I see things, it might only be tackled by challenging it at source.   Get at the coaches.  

One possible way of doing this might be as follows:    The FA should draw up a code of conduct for coaches that expressly forbids the teaching of the "Dark Arts" of football (I'm just using that phrase as a "one-word-covers-all").  Coaches would be required to sign up to the code of practice.  The FA appoint a referee assessor to each professional game and his remit could be extended to monitor the behaviour of players, in conjunction with the referees report of games, and where it becomes apparent that there is a problem, the FA should then allocate an observer to be attached to the club.

The observer would be attached to the club for a duration long enough to establish what is going on there and identify any coaching malpractice.  If it is established that a coach is teaching players.... especially youngsters..... in a way that uses unethical practices, then that coach could have his qualification suspended so that he can be re-trained, or for the most serious (or repeated) offences, his badge could be withdrawn.

The job could be done by former referees who could take a coaching qualification.  An experienced ex-ref, who knows what he is looking for and knows how to spot it, would be a nemesis to any coach who is up to no good.

Now, I am aware that this could be expensive, but one of the penalties attached to having a coaching observer allocated to a club, would be to make the clubs financially liable for the investigation, including paying the observer's salary.  Hit the clubs with a double-whammy.

The coaches wouldn't like it.  The clubs would be up in arms about it..!!   Who would want to have their coach suspended in the middle of the season..?   I can imagine the howls of protest.   But what a threat like this would do, would be to up the ante, big time.   Perhaps it really is time to play hardball with the coaches, especially the ones from overseas.  They may have qualifications from other countries, but they coach in this country on FA licence, and that is something the FA can withdraw.  

Other professions have codes of conduct for ethical practice.  Medical practitioners answer to the BMA and can be struck off.  Lawyers answer to the Law Society and can be debarred.

Perhaps it's time a rule of ethical behaviour was imposed on football coaches, that has the power to strip them of their ability to practice.  Let's see if they're still so keen to teach the dark arts when they face the prospect of losing their livelihoods.

Over to you, gentlemen, for discussion.

I mentioned elsewhere that I find it depressing to watch football on BT Sport and listen to Michael Owen damn near berating players for NOT going over at the slighest touch or looking to maximise any advantage to be gained from a foul. Kilnnsman was considered a hero for incorporating a "dive" into his goal celebration. So how are we to preach a code of ethics in training when one of the Country's best known/loved footballers is avocating cheating?

The referee Association don't help themselves by drawing a distinction bewteen "exaggeration" and "simulation" and what annoys me more than anything is that we don't even call it diving anymore for fear of breaching anyone's human rights or offending their delicate sensibilities. "Sorry son but you...are...a...cheat"

As for the Club's financing the observers you mention, if cheating is so deeply ingrained in a club what's to stop then simply bunging a observer a boatload of cash to look the other way?

Penalise the club by docking points or having them play the next match behind closed doors...problem is, in order to recoup lost points or revenue, they'll simply resort to cheating in order to restore parity with everyone else.

"What formation we using today boss 4-4-2?"
"Nope, fall-fall-roll"

I will say this again, football has been littered with cheats for as long as there have been cameras. Just because diving isn't big or strong, doesnt mean the nonsense centre backs and central midfielders have been doing for years isnt cheating

No one ever comments about people claiming a throw in when it clearly came off them. Just because its not near the penalty area doesnt make it any less cheating yet this goes on game in game out and no one mentions it.

Yeah, think diving is incredibly overrated as a problem in football. It's unsportsmanlike but there is a lot of unsportsmanlike aspects in football, from time-wasting, clipping when a team is counter-attacking, claiming corners or throw-ins that you know aren't yours, shouting at the referee, pulling of shirts at corners...

I don't think it affects the game to the extent that some people think it does, and it's certainly not something that offends me morally.

I don't think it's instilled into anybody, it's just human nature rearing its ugly head, people want to win and most are willing to do anything to win, if that means exaggerating contact, or going down without any at all, most footballers would do it. That's just human nature unfortunately.

I'll say this much - football used to be a man's game.

Tackle hard, be tackled hard, but play on.

It p!sses me off no end when you see a...soft footballer go down with no/minimal contact and do more flips than Tom Daley with a fake scream of agony.

I was always brought up that if you got a kick on the ankle, a stamp on the arm, or an elbow to the jaw, you didn't  go crying to mummy or the teacher. Or the referee in this case. You got on with it. Don't cry.

You didn't let your foe know that he hurt you, but you had to get him back at the next opportunity. Then, at the end of the game, you'd shake hands with no ill-feeling. Proper.

I guess that mentality isn't seen today. Shame.

Some interesting comments, gentlemen and thank you for posting your thoughts on the issue.  

Crimey:    I'm sorry, but I find your response somewhat depressing inasmuch as it seems (tell me if I'm wrong) that you find cheating, if not acceptable, then accepted......... that this is now an aspect of the game that is 'set in concrete' and will never go away.  

The most depressing thing of all, is that you could be right.

Please don't take this personally, but I would say that view indicates a surrender to the dirty side of human nature.... an unwillingness to want to rise above or fight against something that is clearly wrong.

Edmund Burke once said  "For wickedness to flourish, it only requires that good men say nothing."   I think that was an astute and correct comment.  The resolution of any problem starts with an acceptance that there is a problem in the first place.  

I'm afraid I have to say that I disagree with your point of view in this instance.


Dave:   I'm with you on the issue of Michael Owen.  Not only is his voice monotonous and his standard of delivery irritating, but the content of his of co-commentary amounts to little more than banal drivel.  But that's just my opinion.  In a way I have a grudging admiration for him, for getting BT Sport to pay him to spout such tosh.  He must have a very good agent.

I take your point about referees taking what appears to be a soft option by distinguishing between different types of fall, but I can see where they're coming from.  Exaggeration (as distinct from simulation) is where a player falls when he might otherwise have stayed on his feet.  He may have been genuinely impeded, pushed or tripped, but if he stays upright in an attempt to play on, but loses the ball anyway, then the offender has gotten away with it and that's as annoying as a player going down on minimal contact.

There is a very fine line and I think referees are trying to do the best they can but they are dealing with something (cheating) that is becoming a very finely honed skill and the only thing they can do is focus on the real issue:  Was the player really impeded / fouled..?   If he was, then whether he goes to ground or not should be irrelevant. A foul is a foul is a foul, right..?

Unfortunately, the laws of the game are not helpful here.  If the player stays upright and the referee calls and signals "Advantage, play on", then the law states that play cannot be subsequently called back for a free kick.   If the referee doesn't call an advantage, the players think he hasn't seen the foul, they  all stop playing and start waving their arms about, appealing for a free kick which means that play is disrupted anyway.  it's a lose / lose situation for the ref.  

Personally, I would like to see the advantage law changed to a situation where the referee can let play run on, but signal that he is playing advantage without finality of decision being involved at that point.  He could still bring play back for a free kick if a genuine advantage doesn't accrue.

I see what you are saying about the deduction of points for cheating, but whereas that would punish the offence, it wouldn't address the issue as to how this is being so thoroughly inculcated into the game.  Yes, punish the offenders in a way that would hurt them by all means, but also get to the core.... the root... of the problem and I am pretty much convinced (although I can't prove anything) that the root of it all lies with the coaches.

Moving on to your comment about observers being given corrupt payments, perhaps I should clarify what I meant by clubs paying the observer.  

The observer would be employed and paid by, the FA.  The club would then recompense the FA for his services.  If they refuse to cough up, then penalise them with points.... big time.  Punitive level.   Possibly even relegation level.   Faced with that threat, they'll pay.

By distancing the observers' remuneration from the clubs, it would make corrupt payments via bank accounts impossible because they would be visible to investigators.  Large payments made in cash would have to be laundered somehow, and money laundering is a criminal offence that the police would take a very serious interest in.  Would an FA observer want to risk a stretch in chokey, the destruction of his career in football and the damage to his personal reputation, just so some dodgy coach can carry on his activities..?  I wouldn't, that's for sure.  

Corrupt activity in football is very much on the police's radar.  Wads of grubby twenties in brown paper bags, stuck behind the toilet pipes at motorway service stations are not going to duck under it for very long.

Besides that, I think you underestimate the integrity of many good men in the game.  I used to go to Referees Association meetings and cheating in the game was very much on the agenda.  Many, many people care passionately about football and would be horrified to read Crimey's comments that trivialise the issue and accept it with a shrug of the shoulders.

Personally, I think that some people of very high integrity could be recruited and if put to the task, would carry it out conscientiously and with vigour.

Finally, Duty:    I am in quite broad agreement with you regarding the physicality of sport.  There is a part of me (probably the part that used to enjoy getting bashed about on the rugby field) that somewhat misses the times when tackles used to crunch and two players colliding at full throttle was "a part of the game".

Of course, I don't condone some of the more extreme thuggish behaviour and if you have read a previous thread of mine, comparing the 1970s hatchet men with today's divers you will know I condemned the more extreme activity of the worst offenders.

Yes, it used to be the norm for a player to carry on when hurt because he didn't want the opponent to see it.  It was a sort of "Was that your best shot, mate..?" mentality.

Of course, these days, footballers are very expensive commodities and must be protected from injury as much as possible.  Not least because insurance companies, who take on the risk of paying for footballer's medical treatment are watching and will invalidate a claim at the drop of a shinpad, and the Myrmidons of the Health and Safety Executive, who have their finger constantly on the "Duty of Care" button where the FA, as an employing organisation are concerned are also monitoring sport in general, and football in particular.

As much as I would like to see tackling brought back into football and a return to a more vigorous, physical contest, I (a) don't think it is possible in the social climate of the age, and (b) wouldn't want to encourage a return to the most serious excesses of the past.

We want players to be safe.  We want to encourage skill and we want a fair game.   Well, I think the game has pretty much achieved the first two of those things now, but the last has been compromised to a wholly unacceptable level, in my opinion.

I just want to see football become clean.   I just don't like cheating

Pampered overpaid diving cheats have turned me off the game to such an extent that I barely even watch motd anymore. Sadly I am the extreme minority and this will only be fixed when I become the majority.

Perhaps serial divers should be genuinely and severely fouled for a period of five minutes in a game without any penalisation by the referee. That might sort 'em out