Diving

I noticed the other thread about cheating/diving was locked.  Was too parochial, I presume.  However, this is an appropriate topic for discussion and there is no need to make it about any nation or club.  For purposes of this discussion, I would separate diving from other forms of cheating, and from foul play.

Diving is clearly creeping in from soccer and is very disappointing.  Though still relatively infrequent, we do see more and more incidents.  To me the worst was when Bryan Habana was caught clearly faking.  It was embarrassing for him and the sport.  And goes to the core integrity of Rugby.  

We have seen incidents involving most teams and with players from all major Rugby nations.  So, no one is completely clean.  I can understand why some players might feel the need to embellish contact if they believe the referee didn't see something.  But, these incidents are likely rare, and I still don't like or condone it.  

Overall, how do you think we should officiate diving?  What are appropriate sanctions?  Anything else to get it out of the sport?  Like many things in Rugby, I believe the first step is to establish uniform standards, then try, however difficult, to have the referees enforce consistently.  I would also make this an equal part of post match reviews for sanction.  What else?

There are two types of "diving"

1) Types seen by Habana and Medard (I think) in high profile games where ther was no contact.

2) As seen by Matt Smith against Saints in December when a punch was thrown but "arguably" the player went down a bit easily.


First is easy, should be stamped out and players sanctioned if caught.

Second is harder, first because there has been foul play committed and who is to judge whether someone exageratted as falling over can be a culmination of things (after all look at what happens to a player at speed when they get the mildest of ankle taps). This second would be less likely if refs punished the offence and not the just the outcome.

LondonTiger wrote:There are two types of "diving"

1) Types seen by Habana and Medard (I think) in high profile games where ther was no contact.

2) As seen by Matt Smith against Saints in December when a punch was thrown but "arguably" the player went down a bit easily.


First is easy, should be stamped out and players sanctioned if caught.

Second is harder, first because there has been foul play committed and who is to judge whether someone exageratted as falling over can be a culmination of things (after all look at what happens to a player at speed when they get the mildest of ankle taps). This second would be less likely if refs punished the offence and not the just the outcome.

Logical, as usual.  It should be easier to take your first, obvious, example of diving out of Rugby.  But that second example, an exaggerated reaction because the referee might not have seen it is very hard to deal with.  I agree the solution is to deal with the original offence.  Unfortunately, many times the referee did not see it properly.  And I am sure you are mistaken - Saints would never throw a punch except in the face of unwarranted and extreme provocation.  Saints are a peaceful people, lovers not fighters.

Was it cockers who was having a moan (of course it was!) that when I think Gibson was punched nothing was done about it because he didn't go down.

I think in order to stamp out over exaggerating we need to make sure the citing panel don't come up with explanations like that

nathan wrote:Was it cockers who was having a moan (of course it was!) that when I think Gibson was punched nothing was done about it because he didn't go down.

From memory a forearm smash from Blair Cowan on Gibson. Gibson had been holding Cowan back and frustration got the better of him.

I do worry that professional players are, over time, being taught not to respect referees. All teams now work on how to handle officials, and you can't help but think the message is sometimes "Look, he's useless but we have to live with him, so let's work out how to minimize the damage he's going to do".

If you send players out with the idea that the referee is someone they have to handle, rather than obey, then respect is quickly lost. That attitude is only going to be reinforced when so much TV commentary these days focuses on what referees have done wrong, and how it affects the game.

agree with the above. think it was huguet rather than medard though

its a contact sport, so diving after contact is no different for me than pretending to be obstructed and trying to con the ref by throwing arms into the air. both are "cheating" but not punished in their own right.

maybe retrospective yellow cards for "cheating/faking"?

The discussion on the other thread has been getting far to heated and emotional, with lots of use of the word cheating in it, which definitely ups the ante in term of how supporters perceive it.

I agree that there is a clear distinction between a dive, such as the one that Habana and also Andy Hadden and an over reaction to bring an incident to a refs attention, which is what Nikko was guilty off. Plenty of players and coaches would commend him for what he did, in private but not on camera!

The Hadden incident of course suggests that this sort of thing has been around a lot longer than most of us would care to believe. Sportsmen have in fact been trying to con officials pretty much since the beginning of sport!

The main difference now is that with advanced TV coverage, we just get to see a lot more of it and then discuss it at length on various forums afterwards!

Would they commend him staying down until the moment it was clear he wasn't going to 'earn' a yellow? There's two clear acts for me, the exaggerated reaction and the feigning injury. Neither are particularly edifying sights and yeah, I think the Ulster players who have expressed their frustration and disgust have every right.

Lutton gave away the penalty, it was still a penalty and a stupid one at that. It's not about the influence it had on the result or that we were 'robbed' or any of that other shoite. The penalty could have technically been reversed for ungentlemanly conduct, its true, but if you do something like that you can't argue you don't deserve to be pinged whatever way the refs interpret it or the player reacts. The stupidity of the initial action is what cost us, not the playacting.

No, the issue is more intangible. The game is a hard one, that is ideally played with bone-jarring physicality, sportsmanship and mutual respect. Once you see this, the respect goes. I'm not meaning to sound like an old fart here, but it's sad. Normally I would have no problem supporting a team that has beaten us fair and square as Glasgow did once my team is out of it, but while I congratulate them on the result, I've got to admit I no longer fully respect them and I don't wish them well because of that. Two of my favourite players in NH rugby are going head to head, Al Kellock and Paul O'Connell. Each one is looking up to finish with silverware in their last ever game for their team, but what should be a celebration of both players careers and two excellent sides has been tarnished on one side because of some very unfortunate and unsportsmanlike actions.

Winning gets you medals, how you conduct yourself on and off the pitch gets you respect. If a player or coach is willing to trade one for the other, that's life, but no-one is under any obligation to stomach it. When it comes to the winning of trophies, this sort of thing doesn't devalue the success. Sport is sport, you do what you do to win. This kind of thing is as old as sport itself. But neither are people obliged to keep their mouth shut about how frustrating they might find it, or how it changes their perception of the players/teams involved. It's one of these things that everyone can agree that the world would be a better place if people had the respect for each other to compete fairly.

Mutual respect is the very core of rugby union be it between players or fans and it's why we don't have as many police attending games as fans for one.It's why we never see a player chest-up to an official. It's why we see players tearing lumps out of each other on the pitch yet they can applaud eachother off at the end. The play acting we saw shows a total lack of respect for all concerned but I wouldn't ever think any less of Glasgow, I still wish them the very best in the final and I still think they are a granite hard side who I admire. The player however could disappear from the game for all I care, there's no more a place for that in rugby than there is abusing officials or fans rioting. Shame on you Niko. Some see it as bringing it to the attention of the ref, most will see it for what it is, sissy diving.

P.S. I don't see it as cheating, it's just not rugby union that's all.

Pete330v2 wrote:Mutual respect is the very core of rugby union be it between players or fans and it's why we don't have as many police attending games as fans for one.It's why we never see a player chest-up to an official. It's why we see players tearing lumps out of each other on the pitch yet they can applaud eachother off at the end. The play acting we saw shows a total lack of respect for all concerned but I wouldn't ever think any less of Glasgow, I still wish them the very best in the final and I still think they are a granite hard side who I admire. The player however could disappear from the game for all I care, there's no more a place for that in rugby than there is abusing officials or fans rioting. Shame on you Niko. Some see it as bringing it to the attention of the ref, most will see it for what it is, sissy diving.

P.S. I don't see it as cheating, it's just not rugby union that's all.

That's a viewpoint I can live with. When people start calling it cheating, it seems to devalue Glasgow's result and that is not right. You have to be very careful using language with that level of emotion attached. We may have an occasionally theatrical Fijian on our roster, but we are not cheats. At least not any more than any other side in the league depending on what your definition of cheating is!

Diving is cheating, and it is the player diving that devalue's the reputation of his team. Not those pointing out that diving has no place in rugby.
That said, it wasn't diving that lost the game for Ulster. There are other factors involved. I don't blame Glasgow for the loss. That's down to Ulster really. I just hate diving, and if it was coached I would have absolutely no respect for that coach. I simply don't believe Townsend is that sort of coach.

How do we get rid of it?

If the other team committed an offence worthy of a penalty then reverse the penalty, and issue a yellow card. If an opponent commits an offence worthy of a card then reverse the penalty and card both.

I would support that munch, but that has to be the case for every single game. Every time it happens it should be addressed like that, and it needs to be made clear that it will before the clamp-down starts.

An IRB refereeing directive is needed to ensure it's consistently dealt with. No change to the laws is needed (ungentlemanly conduct), just need refs to agree with how it should be handled.

Yes, I meant in the case of any new IRB law. It needs to be stamped out, or else diving will be as much an issue as it is in soccer.

EDIT: I would like to see a law specific to diving to help strengthen any attempt to stamp it out, and also help ensure its prevention in the future. The problem with directives is that they change so often. What counts as ungentlemanly conduct now, may not in the future. Still, I would settle for the IRB taking action now, and using current laws.

Like everything, it all comes down to interpretation.

Fortunately we don't see many barn door Habanna style dives, which aught to be penalised, carded or should be citable if they are missed at the time.

What we do see a lot of, is players letting the refs know that they have been fouled, some in more theatrical fashions than others. This is much much harder to ref as it opens up the potential of a minefileld of inconsistency, which is likely to irritate fans as much as the actions themselves. I would imagine that most officials would rather just not go there either.

Punish the really blatant offenses, the ones where there is no contact at all and that will hopefully set the standard. Also the naming and shaming may even have some effect. Did not Habbana issue an apology for his effort and hopefully he won't do it again.

I think we are naïve though if we think that modern professional players are not going to play to the ref though. They just need to know that there are lines which should not be crossed!

There is a culture developing in rugby that someone else should do something. Referees should do this or World Rugby should do that. Adding to the pressure on the referee or citing process to adjudicate on the level of play-acting is like scoring figure skating, prone to recrimination and lack of objectivity. That can't be the way forward.

Maybe it's time the fans took some responsibility?
Perhaps fans should write to their own club saying that they don't want to see Matawalu type incidents disrespecting the ethos of the game and if that is the price to be paid for winning then it is too high?
Of course some fans will question why they should unilaterally disadvantage their team when 'everyone else does it'? If that is the case then we have to accept it is becoming an increasing part of the game and it will continue to grow in frequency because no one will speak against it.

"There is a culture developing in rugby that someone else should do something."

Nail head hit once again.
Rugby Union has been light years ahead of other, much more popular sports in embracing 'the way forward' married with technology but at the moment we've reached a point where Aukster's quote describes just what's strangling the game. Refs too easily refer incidents to the TMO where a strong decision is what's needed.
In the good old days we'd have had our post-match whinging sessions about decisions that were made on the spot in real time. Imagine that, making an error in judgement in real time.

Cutting a long story short I am beginning to very much dislike this current culture of rerunning clips in slow motion, from multiple angles yet still coming up with wrong decisions. Lets get back to making right or wrong decisions on the hoof where the game will continue at the pace many of the laws were made to dictate.

Am I just an old luddite?

I've said it everywhere, I may as well say it again. It's black and white.

You either can gain advantage through physical excellence and superior rugby skill OR you can gain advantage through unseen breaking of the laws.

There's no worse foul than others. If you don't win through good rugby alone, you are a cheat.

Stop getting worked up by over-acting. It's no more cheating than holding in rucks, blocking and shirt pulling.

Calling for zero tolerance on diving but turning blind eyes to the other elements of poor sportsmanship is just hypocrisy.

So we're all hypocrites, Clive? All of those that don't happen to agree with you that is....

You're wrong. There's a big difference between a little niggle and play acting to get someone sent off. Huge difference.

Munchkin wrote:So we're all hypocrites, Clive? All of those that don't happen to agree with you that is....

You're wrong. There's a big difference between a little niggle and play acting to get someone sent off. Huge difference.

A player will not get sent off unless he committed s foul that the laws state warrants than penalty. Nobody is going to convince a ref to brandish a red card for a minor offence no matter how many Oscars they have in their cabinet.

Nobody makes an offence a cardable one. It either is or it isn't.

P.S. If you think holding in rucks,  blocking and shirt pulling is ok to allow to happen, then I think you need to question the 'honour' tag we all seem adamant the sport of rugby is deserving of.

I want to see diving eradicated, but no more than I want to see all elements of dark arts eradicated.

clivemcl wrote:

Munchkin wrote:So we're all hypocrites, Clive? All of those that don't happen to agree with you that is....

You're wrong. There's a big difference between a little niggle and play acting to get someone sent off. Huge difference.

A player will not get sent off unless he committed s foul that the laws state warrants than penalty. Nobody is going to convince a ref to brandish a red card for a minor offence no matter how many Oscars they have in their cabinet.

Nobody makes an offence a cardable one. It either is or it isn't.

P.S. If you think holding in rucks,  blocking and shirt pulling is ok to allow to happen, then I think you need to question the 'honour' tag we all seem adamant the sport of rugby is deserving of.

I want to see diving eradicated, but no more than I want to see all elements of dark arts eradicated.

Yes I do think play acting can get a player sent off. It isn't hard to imagine a player placing himself in a position to get another carded, is it? Raise the head, act a bit. Jump into a tackle, act a bit. Football tells us this much, Clive. Players do get penalised for holding a player back, or for blocking, Clive. We can't say the same for play acting. That's what this whole debate is about............ I don't want the game to be sanitised either. To be reduced to nothing more than touch rugby. That's what will happen if the play acting persists. Players afraid to make contact in a contact game. I don't want players attempting to get other players carded by cheating by play acting, or by jumping into a tackle with the intention of having a player carded. That's the way the game could go, and it would destroy the game.

I understand your argument, Clive, but there are laws to penalise those dark arts you speak of. Not so much for play acting. I think IRB should step in and take measures to deal with play acting now. Not that it will stop it altogether, but that it can help prevent it by making players and teams aware that there will be consequences.

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not. I think that is what we all intuitively know. Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.

Ok, I may not be able to convince you that all fouls are equal. So ill park it for now.

The point is though, shirt pulling etc is a foul. It deserves to be spotted and penalised against.

when I played the game one of my attributes was my pace. So... when I had the opportunity to gain advantage in this area where I was superior, it was infuriating when somebody took the decision to block or hold me back.

I think we can all agree that in sport, if you lose out you should take it well and accept you've been beaten.

But here's the undeniable fact. Officials are either:

- Not trying to spot these infringements as well as they could be.
- Seeing these fouls but ignoring them if they feel they didn't directly cause advantage to guilty parties team.

It's far from zero tolerance. In fact id say lenient.

That is why players over-act. It's an attempt to encourage the ref to take the appropriate action they have not been taking in the past regarding such foul play.

Want rid of diving? Start penalising cynical play.

If TMO shows a player went down without actual contact. Red card.

Clive - what would you do with the first Matawalu incident?

Basically he and Gilroy were chasing a high ball. It looked to me as though Niko saw Gilroy running and jumped in the air to make contact with him. Neither player was near the ball and a surprised Gilroy instinctively put up his hands to stop Matawalu jumping into him. The result was a penalty to Glasgow (with some calling for a red card against Gilroy).

Maybe Matawalu totally misjudged the flight of the ball and it was an accidental collision but having looked at it a few times, it looks as though he was trying to buy a red card.

Jumping in the air isn't a foul, so how can a referee legislate if someone is purposely trying to make it look as though they have been "taken out in the air"?

The Glasgow player was running after the ball whilst the Ulster winger turned away from the ball and into the path of the Glasgow player clearly blocking him. It looked odd because the Glasgow player jumped in a farcical attempt to regather the ball. It's always a penalty because the Ulster player made no attempt to play the ball just the man. Never anything more but the ref had to check that.

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

alive555 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

The incident you're referring to was a complete accident, something anyone with a half a wit would know. A ban for recklessness was given for affecting a choke tackle that went awry.
Diving isn't cheating it's just cringingly embarrassing for whoever does it and their fans, you know, brave keyboard warriors like yourself. Soccer fans will always back you up on the diving thing though. You should comment there for some support before you get this thread blocked as well.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The Glasgow player was running after the ball whilst the Ulster winger turned away from the ball and into the path of the Glasgow player clearly blocking him. It looked odd because the Glasgow player jumped in a farcical attempt to regather the ball. It's always a penalty because the Ulster player made no attempt to play the ball just the man. Never anything more but the ref had to check that.

Have to disagree with your view on that, for me Gilroy knew he wasn't getting the ball so anticipated Matawalu making the catch and was wanting to make the tackle on him once he hit the ground only for Matawalu to misjudge it and try to milk it for all he could get

The same happened on the kick chase between the two, Matawalu was more focused on Gilroy and trying to move him or buy a penalty than getting to the ball and was maybe lucky not to be penalised himself

Pete330v2 wrote:

alive555 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

The incident you're referring to was a complete accident, something anyone with a half a wit would know. A ban for recklessness was given for affecting a choke tackle that went awry.
Diving isn't cheating it's just cringingly embarrassing for whoever does it and their fans, you know, brave keyboard warriors like yourself. Soccer fans will always back you up on the diving thing though. You should comment there for some support before you get this thread blocked as well.

this looks like an accident to you ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0

answer - no in fact he was banned for 3 weeks.

If he intended to choke Bennett then he would have received much more than 3 weeks. Try having a look with both your eyes....

alive555 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

alive555 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

The incident you're referring to was a complete accident, something anyone with a half a wit would know. A ban for recklessness was given for affecting a choke tackle that went awry.
Diving isn't cheating it's just cringingly embarrassing for whoever does it and their fans, you know, brave keyboard warriors like yourself. Soccer fans will always back you up on the diving thing though. You should comment there for some support before you get this thread blocked as well.

this looks like an accident to you ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0

answer - no in fact he was banned for 3 weeks.

alive how can you judge from that footage? I seen at least 3 incidents of players being choked in mauls over the weekend and not one was penalised and all 3 were clearer than that

alive555 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

As much as I don't agree with your take on O'Connor, it's good to see you agree that diving should be a Yellow card offence. I take it then that you also agree that Matawalu should have been carded? Genuine question.

marty2086 wrote:

alive555 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

alive555 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

The incident you're referring to was a complete accident, something anyone with a half a wit would know. A ban for recklessness was given for affecting a choke tackle that went awry.
Diving isn't cheating it's just cringingly embarrassing for whoever does it and their fans, you know, brave keyboard warriors like yourself. Soccer fans will always back you up on the diving thing though. You should comment there for some support before you get this thread blocked as well.

this looks like an accident to you ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0

answer - no in fact he was banned for 3 weeks.

alive how can you judge from that footage? I seen at least 3 incidents of players being choked in mauls over the weekend and not one was penalised and all 3 were clearer than that

cant u see he has the player right around the neck with his arm at the end of the maul ? thats why bennet was thrown unceremoniously thrown to the ground unconscious. extremely dangerous play. this is literally a choke tackle

Munchkin wrote:

alive555 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

As much as I don't agree with your take on O'Connor, it's good to see you agree that diving should be a Yellow card offence. I take it then that you also agree that Matawalu should have been carded? Genuine question.

absolutely 100pc

alive555 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

alive555 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

alive555 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Am I just an old luddite?

Well, if you are using the term Luddite you are old.  

To me, the diving is unique compared to other fouls because it reflects negatively on the sport in ways that other penalties simply do not.  I think that is what we all intuitively know.  Gouging and any other form of deliberate to injure actions are excepted of course.  

Agree completely - thats exactly what an ulster player committed in an earlier game by strangling a Glasgow player unconscious and all we hear about is matawalus dive and how Glasgow are cheats ?? Jesus get some perspective !  the first one is significantly more cheating and serious than play acting - it could kill someone !  
The first got 3 match ban, and do it again would be 3 year ban . quite rightly so.

For diving, simulating or complaining to ref - same result - it should be a straight yellow every time. Then it would stop.

The incident you're referring to was a complete accident, something anyone with a half a wit would know. A ban for recklessness was given for affecting a choke tackle that went awry.
Diving isn't cheating it's just cringingly embarrassing for whoever does it and their fans, you know, brave keyboard warriors like yourself. Soccer fans will always back you up on the diving thing though. You should comment there for some support before you get this thread blocked as well.

this looks like an accident to you ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0

answer - no in fact he was banned for 3 weeks.

alive how can you judge from that footage? I seen at least 3 incidents of players being choked in mauls over the weekend and not one was penalised and all 3 were clearer than that

cant u see he has the player right around the neck with his arm at the end of the maul ?  thats why bennet was thrown unceremoniously thrown to the ground unconscious. extremely dangerous play.  this is literally a choke tackle

Im not disputing where his arm was or even the ban, Im disputing how you can judge intent based on that

Thanks, alive. I'm trying to imagine what would likely happen if IRB did take action against diving and yellow cards were dished out. For example, how would fans react if their player was carded for diving in similar circumstances to the Matawalu incident? I think your response might actually be that of the majority of rugby fans. Nobody should be happy to see diving, and especially if it's your own player. Hopefully the IRB do take some sort of action in the near future. I won't hold my breath though.

Munchkin wrote:Thanks, alive. I'm trying to imagine what would likely happen if IRB did take action against diving and yellow cards were dished out. For example, how would fans react if their player was carded for diving in similar circumstances to the Matawalu incident? I think your response might actually be that of the majority of rugby fans. Nobody should be happy to see diving, and especially if it's your own player. Hopefully the IRB do take some sort of action in the near future. I won't hold my breath though.

I dont think anyone would have any problem whatsoever. In fact the Lutton challenge was basically a cheap shot. send both of them off !

Then you would also agree that there had been a few cheap shots from both sides during that game. Not that I'm defending Lutton. It was stupid. Just that he wasn't alone in committing high tackles.

Discipline has been an issue for Ulster this season. Hopefully with a new coach next season this issue is sorted. It has cost us a place in the final, I believe.

As a neutral the Matawalu dive left a bid taste. The Ulster guy was a bit high but there was no malice and if it had not been for Matawalu's theatrics, the game would have played on. I suppose he will say the end justified the means because it put Glasgow into a position to snatch a very lucky win. I think the Ref should have reversed the penalty, as what Matawalu did was just plain cheating and there should be no place for that behaviour in the game.

Michael Aylwin adding his views on diving in rugby, inside the Guardian:


No place for theatrical diving

Glasgow showed admirable composure in the final 10 minutes of a game they had spent largely on the back foot, but they owed the position from which they scored the winning try to a controversial penalty. This must go down as another game turned by the new mechanics of TMO protocol and the big screen. Not too mention the influence of the theatrical dive, which is creeping insidiously into rugby. To deal with the latter first, Niko Matawalu threw his arms up and fell to the floor, where he stayed a while to milk things further, after the hapless Ricky Lutton had thrown out an arm across his chest as Matawalu chased a loose ball. The referee had just awarded a scrum to Ulster for a Glasgow knock-on, from which they might have closed out the match, but when he watched Matawalu’s histrionics replayed from a variety of angles on the big screen, he decided to ask the TMO to check for foul play. There looked as if there had been some foul play, sort of, even though it happened in the blink of an eye in real time, even though it happened right in front of the referee who thought nothing of it first time round. On the advice of the TMO, the referee awarded Glasgow the penalty, from which they scored the winning try, but the “offence” would have gone unnoticed without the dive.

This gamesmanship of Matawalu’s will only become more common unless it is stamped out. Assuming we don’t want players going down at the slightest contact, as in another sport much criticised for it, there needs to be a new directive covering simulation. But further controversy in this case is that the incident occurred after the referee had blown his whistle for a knock-on. In other words, the ball was dead. The TMO described the offence to the referee as taking “a player down without the ball” – but if play has stopped already that’s no offence, unless it’s dangerous. The referee, though, deemed it a high tackle, which can be penalised after the whistle has gone. Was it a high tackle? It was more of a tug to the v of Matawalu’s collar. Certainly, it was nothing without the dive or the big screen. It all just feels very wrong. Two suggestions, then. Penalties should be awarded or reversed for acts of simulation. And referees should not be allowed to act on replays on the big screen, which are too easily taken out of context and owe much to the whim of the television director."

Interesting that Aylwin goes further than just penalties by suggesting that ref's should not be allowed to act on replays? I can't see how that would work if replays are needed to determine if a dive was really a dive. Agree about reversing/awarding a penalty against a diver, although I would go further and award a yellow card.

For me it is odd because in normal speed I first thought it was a serious offense. Only after seeing it in slow motion it appeared Matawalu might have milked it a bit.

Here is the strange old thing. The referee can see the replay on the big screen. The TMO on multiple screens. They come up with an opinion or ruling different than ours. How?

doctor_grey wrote:For me it is odd because in normal speed I first thought it was a serious offense.  Only after seeing it in slow motion it appeared Matawalu might have milked it a bit.  

Here is the strange old thing.  The referee can see the replay on the big screen.  The TMO on multiple screens.  They come up with an opinion or ruling different than ours.  How?  

Because they're professionals with directions from the unions that we're not aware of?

And Munchkin, the Guardian? Shame on you

Edit: as for the actual topic, I agree with LT. There are two different types: simulation and exaggerated. There's no point joining to two as they're two different. Simulation should be penalised. Where there it is clear (not fan clear, but real clear) a player is simulated it should be a yellow card for me (possibly even red following a clear message to the players). This is where someone clutches their face when contact was with the chest, or there was no contact at all. These are hard facts that can be proven one way or the other. The other kind are much harder to deal with. I was tapped on the back while running at full speed and now I have scars on my face after I used it as a brake. Small touches in the right (or wrong) place can over balance someone. So when is that slight touch real or not? Almost impossible to tell. The main tell tail sign is the theatrics. But then teams are coached to cheat with obstruction and blocking runs and if the opposing player doesn't make it clear they get away with it.

Personally, I'm with Clive here (one of the few). It's all cheating, and rugby has long coached cheating and it's been the biggest blight on he game in recent years (scrubs going down instead of backwards, rucks being a mess with slow ball). The idea of stamping hard on one type of cheating while lauding the other is hypocritical at best. But then I grew up in a football world and left it because of the cheating. I started feeling he same way about rugby long before diving because more common.

There is a difference between the "normal" cheating that goes on in rugby at every level - hands in the ruck, slowing the ball down, tugging a shirt, "dark arts" in the scrum, etc. which are part of rugby - as the offender knows that if they get caught they are going to be penalised and if they keep doing it they are going to get a card and actions such as diving and trying to undermine the referee.

"But then I grew up in a football world and left it because of the cheating. I started feeling he same way about rugby long before diving because more common.."

I'm the same Hammer although it was 50% soccer, 50% rugby for me as my friends and family were mixed as to what to be following. What went on in the soccer circles and the general attitude quite frankly disgusted me from a time I was no longer 'santa eligible' and could think for myself. Of course my coming from Northern Ireland mad it even worse with what always went on but that would be digressing off the subject.
Rugby union always had my admiration with the attitudes throughout the game from the local club fanbase to the wider world fanbase and players alike. I was always proud of the sport I loved and vrey much a fan of all the people I'd ever met in my life-long relationship with rugby union. Is is any wonder I get defensive when soccerisms even dare to peep over the parapet, the French clubs with their unending budgets being our biggest blight in my opinion. It's the little things that will eat away at the mutual respect held by all, dig away at the foundations and the whole lot follows soon after. What Matawalu did was just one of these little things and the fact he's not even been man enough to apologise shows the lack of respect he has for the sport that pays his wages. In this case Lutton was a klutz, it was stupid of him but it was neither dangerous nor a cheap shot. If he'd had a sly punch at Matawalu then yeah, cheap shot it is but in terms of our sport he barely touched him. Cue the leap into the air, face holding primadonna actions that have been debated. The fact Matawalu's actions have been defended is very sad indeed but thankfully only by very, very few. The disgusted majority means we're safe enough for now though.

doctor_grey wrote:For me it is odd because in normal speed I first thought it was a serious offense.  Only after seeing it in slow motion it appeared Matawalu might have milked it a bit.  

Here is the strange old thing.  The referee can see the replay on the big screen.  The TMO on multiple screens.  They come up with an opinion or ruling different than ours.  How?  

With Matawalu I think the officials ignored the fact that he dived, and penalised Lutton according to the letter of the law. I think ref's will continue to need to use the big screen. Maybe not make use of the TMO though. I'm not a fan.

HammerofThunor wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:For me it is odd because in normal speed I first thought it was a serious offense.  Only after seeing it in slow motion it appeared Matawalu might have milked it a bit.  

Here is the strange old thing.  The referee can see the replay on the big screen.  The TMO on multiple screens.  They come up with an opinion or ruling different than ours.  How?  

Because they're professionals with directions from the unions that we're not aware of?

And Munchkin, the Guardian? Shame on you

Edit: as for the actual topic, I agree with LT. There are two different types: simulation and exaggerated. There's no point joining to two as they're two different. Simulation should be penalised. Where there it is clear (not fan clear, but real clear) a player is simulated it should be a yellow card for me (possibly even red following a clear message to the players). This is where someone clutches their face when contact was with the chest, or there was no contact at all. These are hard facts that can be proven one way or the other. The other kind are much harder to deal with. I was tapped on the back while running at full speed and now I have scars on my face after I used it as a brake. Small touches in the right (or wrong) place can over balance someone. So when is that slight touch real or not? Almost impossible to tell. The main tell tail sign is the theatrics. But then teams are coached to cheat with obstruction and blocking runs and if the opposing player doesn't make it clear they get away with it.

Personally, I'm with Clive here (one of the few). It's all cheating, and rugby has long coached cheating and it's been the biggest blight on he game in recent years (scrubs going down instead of backwards, rucks being a mess with slow ball). The idea of stamping hard on one type of cheating while lauding the other is hypocritical at best. But then I grew up in a football world and left it because of the cheating. I started feeling he same way about rugby long before diving because more common.

I have never had an issue with the Guardian, Hammer, I trust them as much as any other paper, which isn't much, my issue at the time was with Rees who was nothing more than a PRL mouthpiece at the time.

I agree with you that a dive needs to be clearly seen as a dive. Matawalu's dive was clearly exaggerated. It was theatrics and it's this sort of behaviour that should be penalised.

No doubt that rugby coaches coach cheating, but I doubt coaches coach players to dive. At least I hope not... I don't think many would laud other forms of cheating whilst opposing the act of diving. Every week we hear supporters complain about players being off their feet, hands in the ruck, blocking, props not binding properly, mauls pulled down and the list goes on, and on, and on.... I think most supporters accept that not all cheating will be caught out, and that sometimes you get the rub of the green, sometimes it goes against you. Diving isn't so easy to accept though, and that's because diving is the act of attempting to have your opposition wrongly penalised, and most likely carded. It is a cheat apart from the rest, and unlike the rest it's a form of cheating that isn't seen to be penalised.

I haven't seen the Matawalu incident myself, it didn't appear in the highlights I looked at (before Glasgow's try near the end?). If someone has a video it would be nice.

These things aren't "soccerisms" though. They're pro sport things. The reason why players dive in football (soccer) is because, back when things got serious it was found those that fight to stay on their feet lose out because not only are they hampered by contact and lose the ball, they also don't get a free-kick. So they start going down when there is reasonable contact. Then they start going down with any contact (it's not a contact sport so illegal contact is illegal contact). Then they realise it's actually very difficult to identify whether there was contact or not in the spur of the moment and they start to dive. Same with shirt pulling, give a little tug and it can have an impact on the player but not enough to get penalise. After all, it happens all the time so the refs can't penalise every act can they? Otherwise it would just be stop/start and ruin the game.

There is absolutely no different between these cheating acts in football (soccer) and the scrum/maul/ruck/obstruction cheating acts in football (rugby).

How many tries have we seen that have involved obstruction? In high profile games? Lots. I've counted them all and there are exactly lots. It's even called "good play" by the commentators. So what do you do? Fight to get round the player and miss the tackle? Or run into them and fall to the floor flailing? In one scenario the cheater benefits and in the other he doesn't. How many times have we seen players penalised or even yellow carded when they're were pulled off their feet and then held in the ruck so they couldn't get out of the way? Games are won on penalties all the time in rugby. And don't even get me started on the scrums where the best cheater (because they're all trained to cheat) wins the penalty.

So you have high stake games where teams are winning because they're implementing the traditional cheating method more effectively that the others. So when these others implement new cheating (arguable, depends on whether emphasising is cheating) to counter the old cheating they lambasted and decried.

Diving isn't so easy to accept though, and that's because diving is the act of attempting to have your opposition wrongly penalised, and most likely carded. It is a cheat apart from the rest, and unlike the rest it's a form of cheating that isn't seen to be penalised.

What about the "dark arts" in the scrum? Not only can these lead to cards for the opposition, but also in serious injury. We've had props talking openly about how they're told never to go backwards, down before backwards. They twist and pull, turning in their opposition, pulling their arm down so they 'lose their bind' and get penalise. Then you have things in the ruck, holding players in the ruck to they get penalised will result in a card if it's in the right (or wrong) place. They don't get anywhere near as much criticism as diving (often with "well, fair play, he got away with it" or "mark of a good openside" and all that guff). Baring mind that "diving" is itself, often due to some illegal contact that was exaggerated. One way to get rid of these sort of dives is to not make illegal contact. If there's no contact it's easy. But instead we have players deliberately taking blocking positions, which they generally get away with.