Diving

First topic message reminder :

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?

Munchkin wrote:I haven't read all your comment, Hammer, but will once I get a chance.

"Contact was enough to knock you over so you flap you're arms about and make sure it's seen"

Why the need to flap your arms about if you've knocked over? If you've been knocked over illegally then appeal to the officials. No need for the dramatics.

Because the officials have so much to see they miss things. what is the difference between calling out to the ref and waving your arms about? Both are methods to draw the attention of the officials. I'm not talking rolling over 20 times and crying out in pain.

"Contact was enough to effect you negatively but not enough to knock you down so you go down to make sure it's seen"

No you don't, Hammer. It's a lie however you look at it. If a player has been illegally prevented from competing, then that player should appeal to the officials. As above.

No, I don't what? It is a lie, but it's an exaggerated lie instead of a fabricated one. "I drank 20 pints" instead of 15, compared with "I've climbed Everest" when you actually stayed in Kathmandu getting stoned. It's still a definite lie (cheating), without a shadow of a doubt.

"No or marginal contact that had no effect on you but you go down to pretend there was."

If no player has illegally prevented another from competing then no grounds for complaint.

Think you misunderstood what I meant with this one. This is the full on, not even touched but went down like shot, diving.

There is simply no excuse for diving or play acting of any kind. Any player who cannot trust officials to enforce the law does not have a right to create a false impression by play acting/diving and fooling those officials into making a call they may not have otherwise made.

My point of view is from the realistic, enforceable one (or at least attempting to be). IMO cheating in away that the referee isn't going to penalise (because it's a commercial games and fans are easily bored, look at the comments in the Wales v Ireland game, or any game with a 'whistle-happy' ref) is the biggest blight on the game. They're scorned for not letting it play rather than praised for not letting teams cheat. And even in that one game, teams adapted and cut their penalty count, the game opened up and it was a cracker. That's why I'd prefer refs were instructed to take a much dimmed view on the marginals. Teams would soon learn.

While these things are not dealt with, players will take it into their own hands, just as they do with the rucks, etc. And they are simply not clear enough (even the ones some say are 'obvious' others disagree) to reliable enforce.

And just to clarify, I'm not saying diving is ok, but I see it as no worse than any of the other forms of cheating used for advantage (splitting them into benefiting yourself or punishing the opposition if you wish).

And I've lost track now.

LD, I was under the impression that the penalty wasn't given for Hayden, but for some other, legitimate, offence.

LD has a point. We are asking for a player to be hung drawn and quartered for something that the rulebook does not mention (although maybe it should), and at the same time we are in a perpetual state of blissful ignorance with regard to how poorly the laws are enforced in other areas of poor sportsmanship.

Its quite simply hypocrisy.

HammerofThunor wrote:LD, I was under the impression that the penalty wasn't given for Hayden, but for some other, legitimate, offence.

No he cheated, he has since admitted to it:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-haden-dived-to-cheat-the-welsh-1179032.html

clivemcl wrote:LD has a point. We are asking for a player to be hung drawn and quartered for something that the rulebook does not mention (although maybe it should), and at the same time we are in a perpetual state of blissful ignorance with regard to how poorly the laws are enforced in other areas of poor sportsmanship.

Its quite simply hypocrisy.

Cheers Clive, thats all I was trying to say, I know I come across as stubborn on here at times, but I am only trying to make a point.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I don't care about cards or no cards or carry on playing.  I simply want Lord to admit Matawalu Cheated as much as the holder-backer.  It CAN happen that both players Cheat in the encounter.

You show me in the laws where it says what Matawalu done is cheating, and you will have me agreeing with you. Exaggeration is different to simulation.

We are debating that there should be a law specific too diving/play acting. Whether it is law or not, it is still cheating. It is possible to cheat and not actually break any laws. It is probable that diving can be cited under ungentlemanly conduct, but I would like to see a law introduced specific to diving.

Also, I am not condoning Matawalu's behaviour, the man is a first class pleb for acting the way he does, and the Aviva will be welcome to him next year.

In every game there are tens of incidents where players 'run interference'.

To me, that's just as dirty and unsportsmanlike as over-acting.

If a player has the legs on you, you have lost out in that contest. Thats what the game should come down too, winning and losing based on fair contests.

Hindering players is just not honourable. This is basic people. Shirt pulling and blocking should be stamped out. We should all be up in arms about the 'dirty' players who are not content to allow the game to be won and lost on skill.

If these 'dark arts' were stamped out. The over-acting thing would not even be a topic. Fact.


(And just again, to clarify - I'm talking about over-acting, not simulation).

clivemcl wrote:You say a nudge. Quantify a nudge for me. If the player runs at a steep angle and makes contact with a chaser , at what point will it become unlawful exactly?

At the point where it's enough to end the players chase, not just slow him down. If he grabs him, fair enough he's tried to impede him- penalty. If he is trying to push him off course by running into him hard then it's probably a penalty. But if its just two players running side by side, each one trying to jostle past the other and slow him down then no, play on. You expect that there is going to be some contact in that situation. All part and parcel of the game. The player with the superior strength and speed will win. However, if the player exaggerates that contact to try and make it look like more than it was then if I was a ref I would go against the diving player.

Look if in your hypothetical, if the player comes across is deemed to have caused it foul it will be by making enough contact to stop the runner entirely not just slowing him down slightly. It's expected that there will be some contact when chasing for a ball and a good, tenacious player will try and fight through that contact. If you deliberately exaggerate the contact to con the ref, then it's you who is in the wrong.

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I don't care about cards or no cards or carry on playing.  I simply want Lord to admit Matawalu Cheated as much as the holder-backer.  It CAN happen that both players Cheat in the encounter.

You show me in the laws where it says what Matawalu done is cheating, and you will have me agreeing with you. Exaggeration is different to simulation.

We are debating that there should be a law specific too diving/play acting. Whether it is law or not, it is still cheating. It is possible to cheat and not actually break any laws. It is probable that diving can be cited under ungentlemanly conduct, but I would like to see a law introduced specific to diving.

Yes, I agree 100%. But even though Matawalu's behaviour stinks of shoite, HE was the one being fowled. The Ulster player got exactly what he deserved from the outcome, a pen against his team. I hope that in times to come we can have a review on simulation, but in this incident no matter how much Matawalu over reacted, he was being held back and that is a pen.

Diving is different again from exaggerating.

A dive for me is going down without contact.

Lets get this straight - I do not like the over acting and never will.


Just re-looked at the clip and this site shows both the offence and the over acting

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/vine-ulster-aggrieved-losing-out-on-place-in-pro-12-final/25739

However looking at the photo in the article, you can see that not only is it off the ball it is a high tackle (around the neck) and should have been a red card

How do you KNOW he did not get winded or hurt slightly with a neck tackle?

BTW - I actually do not really like Matawalu and glad he is leaving (and do not like his over acting) - but you arguments is so biased it is unbelievable

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Diving is different again from exaggerating.

A dive for me is going down without contact.

It's different degrees of the same thing. For me, what's really bad about what Matawalu isn't even going down. It's staying down to try and encourage a card. That is the really frustrating aspect.

I've never disputed that it was a penalty and I've never disputed that the referees handled it correctly. All i've said is I don't have any respect for the player involved on the basis his actions didn't show us any respect. I don't want to see him leave Glasgow with a medal with the way he acted towards us in that game. It's not a rules argument, it's a respect argument for me. I don't think that is biased and unfair.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Diving is different again from exaggerating.

A dive for me is going down without contact.

THIS. 100%.

And what about the OTHER off the ball tackle on the Scottish no 22 - shall we ignore that too?

Notch wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Diving is different again from exaggerating.

A dive for me is going down without contact.

It's different degrees of the same thing. For me, what's really bad about what Matawalu isn't even going down. It's staying down to try and encourage a card. That is really frustrating.

Yes it is frustrating, and if he managed to play on after that incident then that is something to look at, luckily the refs did not fall for his acting, but it was still a pen to Glasgow.

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Diving is different again from exaggerating.

A dive for me is going down without contact.

It's different degrees of the same thing. For me, what's really bad about what Matawalu isn't even going down. It's staying down to try and encourage a card. That is really frustrating.

Yes it is frustrating, and if he managed to play on after that incident then that is something to look at, luckily the refs did not fall for his acting, but it was still a pen to Glasgow.

I've never said it wasn't at any point. That has nothing to do with my point.

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Diving is different again from exaggerating.

A dive for me is going down without contact.

It's different degrees of the same thing. For me, what's really bad about what Matawalu isn't even going down. It's staying down to try and encourage a card. That is really frustrating.

Yes it is frustrating, and if he managed to play on after that incident then that is something to look at, luckily the refs did not fall for his acting, but it was still a pen to Glasgow.

I've never said it wasn't at any point. That has nothing to do with my point.

OK, OK,calm down, calm down.(In a scouser accent).

Riskysports wrote:And what about the OTHER off the ball tackle on the Scottish no 22 - shall we ignore that too?

What you're talking about is foul play and I have no problem with how the foul play from Ulster and Glasgow was handled by the match officials. The stupidity of the Ulster players got it's just desserts in the end.

But I do not think those actions, while illegal, showed disrespect to the opposition team. My argument isn't that Ulster deserved to win due to these actions- they didn't. It's not that the penalties conceded weren't penalties- they were. It's not that the referees handled it badly- they didn't, although I'd like to see refs talking to over actors and divers and warning them otherwise it will become a larger problem.

My only argument is that simulation, diving and trying to get other players penalised or carded is disrespectful to your opponents, and while I was happy to congratulate Glasgow on a deserved win I am not happy with the on-pitch conduct which was not in the spirit of the game. I don't care what other fans are saying, thats what I'm saying.

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:LD, I was under the impression that the penalty wasn't given for Hayden, but for some other, legitimate, offence.

No he cheated, he has since admitted to it:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-haden-dived-to-cheat-the-welsh-1179032.html

You re both right. That story is Dennis Law relegating Man U.

It's "Cawm down, cawm down!" Hand swivel action from both wrists.

Wrong Again Lord!!!!!!!!!!!

Notch wrote:

Riskysports wrote:And what about the OTHER off the ball tackle on the Scottish no 22 - shall we ignore that too?

What you're talking about is foul play and I have no problem with how the foul play from Ulster and Glasgow was handled by the match officials. The stupidity of the Ulster players got it's just desserts in the end.

But I do not think those actions, while illegal, showed disrespect to the opposition team. My argument isn't that Ulster deserved to win due to these actions- they didn't. It's not that the penalties conceded weren't penalties- they were. It's not that the referees handled it badly- they didn't, although I'd like to see refs talking to over actors and divers and warning them otherwise it will become a larger problem.

My only argument is that simulation, diving and trying to get other players penalised or carded is disrespectful to your opponents, and while I was happy to congratulate Glasgow on a deserved win I am not happy with the on-pitch conduct which was not in the spirit of the game. I don't care what other fans are saying, thats what I'm saying.

As I said I do not like the player and do not like his overacting. Although on that instance he was fouled by a possible red card offence and hooked round the neck.

What boils my spuds is the this not has gone to 'Glasgow are a bunch of xxx and I hope the win xxx they do it all the timexx they try to get our players sent off


Which is just rubbish and makes us a bit more defensive in the face of sore grapes from people (Yes sore not sour)

I will re-iterate I do not like Matawalu and glad he is leaving and do not like his (Or anyone elses) over acting (But it happens 100x a game)

Further to that, if there are no consequences it will become endemic. Say Ulster see Matawalu winning the league and think "Well, winning at all costs is winning at all costs" and we see this kind of thing from our own players in the future? That would be even more galling and frustrating for me than seeing it from an opposition team, cut even closer to the bone, and be even less acceptable. If it's not dealt with somehow, eventually we'll be on a slippery slope where it becomes the rule and not the exception. So ensuring players act within the spirit of the game on the pitch is in everyone's interests.

Riskysports wrote:

I will re-iterate I do not like Matawalu  and glad he is leaving and do not like his  (Or anyone elses) over acting (But it happens 100x a game)

I'd take the bugger in a flash...acting and all. Yes, a liability but the instincts of a shark.

Decided to just watch back the incident, and even as an Ulster fan, hand on heart I think the bigger atrocity here is Lutton getting away without a yellow.

When I saw the incident on the night I truly did not think about Matawala's reaction - I was fuming with Litton's idiocy and his stupid grin.

That's the kind of thing that costs games. If I ran Ulster rugby, I'd be fining players who do that kind of thing.

I agree with somebody earlier. I don't think you can say with 100% assurance that Niko wasn't hurt.

To me though, this was a poor call by the ref.


How can you not card a player for a tackle both off the ball AND round the neck. The mind boggles!

clivemcl wrote:Decided to just watch back the incident, and even as an Ulster fan, hand on heart I think the bigger atrocity here is Lutton getting away without a yellow.

When I saw the incident on the night I truly did not think about Matawala's reaction - I was fuming with Litton's idiocy and his stupid grin.

That's the kind of thing that costs games. If I ran Ulster rugby, I'd be fining players who do that kind of thing.

I agree with somebody earlier. I don't think you can say with 100% assurance that Niko wasn't hurt.

To me though, this was a poor call by the ref.


How can you not card a player for a tackle both off the ball AND round the neck. The mind boggles!

+1

Problem is not only do coaches ignore it, they specifically encourage their players to do it. They can moan all they like in post-game interviews about 'the lack of discipline'. I know they actively coach for the dark-arts and niggles that might just get them over the winning line with some subterfuge if necessary. All sides engage when it's on.

Michael Aylwin of TheGuardian wrote: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."

So Lutton had nothing to gain by grabbing Niko's shirt. Why did he do it then? Presumably if he had nothing to gain it was an instinctive reaction that most people who have ever played the game experience at some stage in their playing career. Was it out of the ordinary compared to the rest of the shirt holding by both sides during the game (including by Matawalu) - categorically not.

The difference was simply that Niko pretended he had been felled. He didn't tell his captain or the referee or assistant but instead feigned injury to get the crowd to (successfully) bully the referee. It's interesting that all the rugby pundits have condemned Niko's act as basically anti-rugby. True rugby men who have played the game and understood what it is and stands for have condemned Matawalu.

Nigel Owens is lauded as being one of the best refs because he lets the game flow - aka not stopping it for every minor infringement. For those who support Matawalu's actions are you prepared to have the game descend into a three hour series of stoppages and restarts for every infringement (with TMO adjudication)?

That is the real question this incident raises.

Riskysports wrote:

Notch wrote:

Riskysports wrote:And what about the OTHER off the ball tackle on the Scottish no 22 - shall we ignore that too?

What you're talking about is foul play and I have no problem with how the foul play from Ulster and Glasgow was handled by the match officials. The stupidity of the Ulster players got it's just desserts in the end.

But I do not think those actions, while illegal, showed disrespect to the opposition team. My argument isn't that Ulster deserved to win due to these actions- they didn't. It's not that the penalties conceded weren't penalties- they were. It's not that the referees handled it badly- they didn't, although I'd like to see refs talking to over actors and divers and warning them otherwise it will become a larger problem.

My only argument is that simulation, diving and trying to get other players penalised or carded is disrespectful to your opponents, and while I was happy to congratulate Glasgow on a deserved win I am not happy with the on-pitch conduct which was not in the spirit of the game. I don't care what other fans are saying, thats what I'm saying.

As I said I do not like the player and do not like his overacting. Although on that instance he was fouled by a possible red card offence and hooked round the neck.

What boils my spuds is the this not has gone to 'Glasgow are a bunch of xxx and I hope the win xxx they do it all the timexx they try to get our players sent off


Which is just rubbish and makes us a bit more defensive in the face of sore grapes from people (Yes sore not sour)

I will re-iterate I do not like Matawalu  and glad he is leaving and do not like his  (Or anyone elses) over acting (But it happens 100x a game)

I appreciate that, and I appreciate why you would be defensive but I'm just unhappy with a few incidents that Glasgow have been involved in that have caused me to lose respect for only some people who are involved with their current team. I didn't like the way Townsend tried to use the media to add pressure towards getting Alan O'Connor cited earlier in the season. I was furious in fact, and it still rankles. O'Connor was in a situation where he probably didn't realise what was happening and instead of dealing with it behind closed doors they went on a media offensive- against a guy making his first ever professional start and probably just making an honest mistake. It was dangerous for the Glasgow player and it's important to make sure these issues are addressed properly, but in my view that could have all been handled behind the scenes, legitimate complaint, get it looked at etc. The way he dragged it through the press was just so disrespectful to Ulster and to our player. I remember when Ferris was gouged and no-one from Ulster really mentioned it in the press even though that was clear-cut violent play and the strong likelihood was that this incident with O'Connor was a young guy trying to hard and not intending any harm- Townsend trying to create a media controversy to put pressure on the citing commissioner just struck me as the lowest road available. So that was a lot worse than Matawalu and his histrionics at the weekend, but both lead to the same outcome for me; Glasgow trying to influence the disciplinary process. I don't have any problem with the outcomes for Ulster. I just don't like the way those incidents on and off the field came across as being disrespectful and slightly unsporting

I'm not trying to dredge anything up or cause an argument, or be disrespectful to anyone in any way. I'd like to reiterate that this is NOT an attack on the Glasgow fans on here in any sense Just explaining how I feel right now. It's no reflection on Glasgows fans or on the majority of their staff. It doesn't change who I'm supporting in the Final either, because I would support an Irish side over a non-Irish side anyway, but I won't be unhappy if certain individuals in the Glasgow set-up finish trophy less. Thats a low emotion, maybe, but it's true. I'm not over-enamoured of how those incidents played out.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Michael Aylwin of TheGuardian wrote: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."

So Lutton had nothing to gain by grabbing Niko's shirt. Why did he do it then? Presumably if he had nothing to gain it was an instinctive reaction that most people who have ever played the game experience at some stage in their playing career. Was it out of the ordinary compared to the rest of the shirt holding by both sides during the game (including by Matawalu) - categorically not.

The difference was simply that Niko pretended he had been felled. He didn't tell his captain or the referee or assistant but instead feigned injury to get the crowd to (successfully) bully the referee. It's interesting that all the rugby pundits have condemned Niko's act as basically anti-rugby. True rugby men who have played the game and understood what it is and stands for have condemned Matawalu.

Nigel Owens is lauded as being one of the best refs because he lets the game flow - aka not stopping it for every minor infringement. For those who support Matawalu's actions are you prepared to have the game descend into a three hour series of stoppages and restarts for every infringement (with TMO adjudication)?

That is the real question this incident raises.

That is the bit that is so off the mark - he was felled - by an off the ball neck tackle - he may have made have made the most of it - but he did not pretend (See picture of said arm round his neck off the ball)

How do you kown he was not winded - he landed on his face?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I don't care about cards or no cards or carry on playing.  I simply want Lord to admit Matawalu Cheated as much as the holder-backer.  It CAN happen that both players Cheat in the encounter.

You show me in the laws where it says what Matawalu done is cheating, and you will have me agreeing with you. Exaggeration is different to simulation.

We are debating that there should be a law specific too diving/play acting. Whether it is law or not, it is still cheating. It is possible to cheat and not actually break any laws. It is probable that diving can be cited under ungentlemanly conduct, but I would like to see a law introduced specific to diving.

Yes, I agree 100%. But even though Matawalu's behaviour stinks of shoite, HE was the one being fowled. The Ulster player got exactly what he deserved from the outcome, a pen against his team. I hope that in times to come we can have a review on simulation, but in this incident no matter how much Matawalu over reacted, he was being held back and that is a pen.

Although I do believe the penalty harsh, I can accept it as according to the letter of the law. It doesn't really matter what I think about Lutton being penalised though. What the debate is about is the reaction of Matawalu. The diving. The cheating. Should penalties be awarded against those who do so, exaggerated or not? I have no doubt that diving/play acting should be penalised regardless of reason why. We do see penalties reversed for players reacting to other types of incidents, and so too, at the very least, should penalties be reversed for the act of diving. With the Lutton incident we had a scrum penalty awarded to Ulster - penalty reversed for Lutton's challenge - no reverse of that penalty for Matawalus play act and attempt to have a player carded by not only diving, but also feigning injury. This shouldn't be.

The Great Aukster wrote:

So Lutton had nothing to gain by grabbing Niko's shirt. Why did he do it then? Presumably if he had nothing to gain it was an instinctive reaction that most people who have ever played the game experience at some stage in their playing career. Was it out of the ordinary compared to the rest of the shirt holding by both sides during the game (including by Matawalu) - categorically not.

Instinct or not - tackling without a ball is worthy of being penalised. As is tackling around the neck.

The Great Aukster wrote:

The difference was simply that Niko pretended he had been felled. He didn't tell his captain or the referee or assistant but instead feigned injury to get the crowd to (successfully) bully the referee. It's interesting that all the rugby pundits have condemned Niko's act as basically anti-rugby. True rugby men who have played the game and understood what it is and stands for have condemned Matawalu.

I'm well and truly fed up with this rhetoric. Its a bloody myth. A myth spouted by people who want to claim they are superior. But it is a baseless claim!

What does the game stand for? Breaking the laws as long as you can get away with it? How very honourable? Shoulder barging player because he's probably faster than you - how very honourable!

Its like the guys who come on here talking about the 'good old days' don't have an ounce of wit. saying things like "I'd have just got up and knocked him out, that would be that. We'd shake hands and have a pint after". All well and good if you think invited cards upon yourself is a good way to get your team a win.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Nigel Owens is lauded as being one of the best refs because he lets the game flow - aka not stopping it for every minor infringement. For those who support Matawalu's actions are you prepared to have the game descend into a three hour series of stoppages and restarts for every infringement (with TMO adjudication)?

That is the real question this incident raises.

I AM PREPARED.

For fecks sake - the point of any law and the penalty that come's with it is that its meant to be a bleedin deterrent!

If the consequences are high enough, and the laws enforced enough, it would not take too long for the game we love to be rid of it's shirt pulling, holding in rucks, and blocking.

And listen guys - it's win-win. If there are NO incidents of shirt pulling and blocking, there will be no occasions where players like Niko will feel it's in their best interests to 'milk it'.

How do you KNOW he dived? He took a clout to the neck. 1) Players are told to keep still if they have one. 2) Lot of funky stuff in the neck that can effect you in funky ways. Are you basing on past experiences? Or they way he fell? What is it about this one that makes you so sure it was an unnecessary dive?

I've only seen the brief clip that was posted above and that was certainly inconclusive.

Riskysports wrote:That is the bit that is so off the mark - he was felled - by an off the ball neck tackle - he may have made have made the most of it - but he did not pretend (See picture of said arm round his neck off the ball)

How do you kown he was not winded - he landed on his face?

I'm afraid I have to disagree, I don't think he would have even lost his footing had he not chosen to go down. Felled is very dramatic term and an inaccurate one. Looking at it he's impeded, he's caught, its a pull back on his shirt which is a penalty. No doubt right decision reached, anything harsher would be out of line for what happened. He is spun off balance and then he decides to go down. Thats not a natural consequence of the way he moved. It doesn't influence the ref in any way... just leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Which we can both agree on.

Wrong quote, see below.

@Notch below, someone had to

HammerofThunor wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:How do you KNOW he dived? He took a clout to the neck. 1) Players are told to keep still if they have one. 2) Lot of funky stuff in the neck that can effect you in funky ways.  Are you basing on past experiences? Or they way he fell? What is it about this one that makes you so sure it was an unnecessary dive?

I've only seen the brief clip that was posted above and that was certainly inconclusive.

+1^99

(which is still just 1, but it's more...meaningful)

Agreeing with yourself Hammer?

clivemcl wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

So Lutton had nothing to gain by grabbing Niko's shirt. Why did he do it then? Presumably if he had nothing to gain it was an instinctive reaction that most people who have ever played the game experience at some stage in their playing career. Was it out of the ordinary compared to the rest of the shirt holding by both sides during the game (including by Matawalu) - categorically not.

Instinct or not - tackling without a ball is worthy of being penalised. As is tackling around the neck.

The Great Aukster wrote:

The difference was simply that Niko pretended he had been felled. He didn't tell his captain or the referee or assistant but instead feigned injury to get the crowd to (successfully) bully the referee. It's interesting that all the rugby pundits have condemned Niko's act as basically anti-rugby. True rugby men who have played the game and understood what it is and stands for have condemned Matawalu.

I'm well and truly fed up with this rhetoric. Its a bloody myth. A myth spouted by people who want to claim they are superior. But it is a baseless claim!

What does the game stand for? Breaking the laws as long as you can get away with it? How very honourable? Shoulder barging player because he's probably faster than you - how very honourable!

Its like the guys who come on here talking about the 'good old days' don't have an ounce of wit. saying things like "I'd have just got up and knocked him out, that would be that. We'd shake hands and have a pint after". All well and good if you think invited cards upon yourself is a good way to get your team a win.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Nigel Owens is lauded as being one of the best refs because he lets the game flow - aka not stopping it for every minor infringement. For those who support Matawalu's actions are you prepared to have the game descend into a three hour series of stoppages and restarts for every infringement (with TMO adjudication)?

That is the real question this incident raises.

I AM PREPARED.

For fecks sake - the point of any law and the penalty that come's with it is that its meant to be a bleedin deterrent!

If the consequences are high enough, and the laws enforced enough, it would not take too long for the game we love to be rid of it's shirt pulling, holding in rucks, and blocking.

And listen guys - it's win-win. If there are NO incidents of shirt pulling and blocking, there will be no occasions where players like Niko will feel it's in their best interests to 'milk it'.

+1

EDIT: just to pad out a bit. I've long said on here that I'm not a massive fan of Owens as a ref. I feel he lets too much go and then when he feels he needs to penalise something, he does. Which means he's not consistent. That approach will lead, in the short term, to exciting games, but in the long term it allows and even encourages an insidious creep of 'low level' cheating that ruins the game. I would much prefer a few weeks or even a whole season, where teams are penalised much more than currently to clean up the game. You often see it at the start of seasons where they're told to watch out for xxx, for them to stop bothering a few weeks in (probably because they get a load of grief for being whistle-happy by a load of 'fans'.

Hammer, good point on the refereeing - not that long ago there was a supposed clampdown on scrum put-ins, with the referee having to make sure the ball went in straight - result lots more reset scrums and the referees giving up on enforcing it in practice.

Ok, I'm lost!

How can you actually dive in rugby?

Yes, you can go all Niko on us and make a meal of something, but I can't see how you can dive in our sport!

In football, over paid nancies will throw themselves to the ground to try and kid on that there was contact made to win a freekick or penalty.  In rugby, can you "fake" that contact was made?

Now, look at Niko at the weekend. Was he a total ponce about things? yes! But this does not excuse the fact that the Ulster Prop committed a high tackle! Niko didn't "dive" he made a total meal of it! Contact was made and down he went!

Folk are moaning that had he not acted like such a big baby, the officials would not have seen the high tackle and would not have awarded a penatly! So are we saying it's ok to comitt a penalty so long as the refs do not see it?
Utter nonsense!

I can only see two occasions when "diving" would be an option to try and "con" a penalty.

1. A player tries to punch you, misses, and you go down like a french winger pretending that contact has been made! No one wants to see folk play acting, but the main offence here is the thrown punch! Just because someone misses with thier punch, they shouldn't get penalised for it?

2. A player tries to trip you, misses, and you go down like a Welsh fullback pretending that contact has been made! Same issue as above!

Two wrongs do not make a right! 

We also shouldn't be penalising or not depending on the outcome of an offence! It's the intent that matters! Why should we reward incompetent offenders with a lighter punishment?

tigertattie wrote:Ok, I'm lost!

How can you actually dive in rugby?

Yes, you can go all Niko on us and make a meal of something, but I can't see how you can dive in our sport!

In football, over paid nancies will throw themselves to the ground to try and kid on that there was contact made to win a freekick or penalty.  In rugby, can you "fake" that contact was made?

Now, look at Niko at the weekend. Was he a total ponce about things? yes! But this does not excuse the fact that the Ulster Prop committed a high tackle! Niko didn't "dive" he made a total meal of it! Contact was made and down he went!

Folk are moaning that had he not acted like such a big baby, the officials would not have seen the high tackle and would not have awarded a penatly! So are we saying it's ok to comitt a penalty so long as the refs do not see it?
Utter nonsense!

I can only see two occasions when "diving" would be an option to try and "con" a penalty.

1. A player tries to punch you, misses, and you go down like a french winger pretending that contact has been made! No one wants to see folk play acting, but the main offence here is the thrown punch! Just because someone misses with thier punch, they shouldn't get penalised for it?

2. A player tries to trip you, misses, and you go down like a Welsh fullback pretending that contact has been made! Same issue as above!

Two wrongs do not make a right! 

We also shouldn't be penalising or not depending on the outcome of an offence! It's the intent that matters! Why should we reward incompetent offenders with a lighter punishment?

+1

Surely the crux of all this is that if the Ulster tight head hadn't held back Matawalu around the neck, off the ball, there'd be nothing for Matawalu to 'exaggerate'.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Surely the crux of all this is that if the Ulster tight head hadn't held back Matawalu around the neck, off the ball, there'd be nothing for Matawalu to 'exaggerate'.

More than that though. We can't stop at simply telling off Lutton. As mentioned previously, theres a whole host of illegalities in the game that are not being dealt with sternly enough.

I would suggest that an ideal world would be where Niko does not have to 'milk it', because Niko is confident in the ability of the officials to accurately spot, and accordingly punished all incidents of unsportsmanlike cheating.

clivemcl wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Surely the crux of all this is that if the Ulster tight head hadn't held back Matawalu around the neck, off the ball, there'd be nothing for Matawalu to 'exaggerate'.

More than that though. We can't stop at simply telling off Lutton. As mentioned previously, theres a whole host of illegalities in the game that are not being dealt with sternly enough.

I would suggest that an ideal world would be where Niko does not have to 'milk it', because Niko is confident in the ability of the officials to accurately spot, and accordingly punished all incidents of unsportsmanlike cheating.

One thing not being dealt with sternly enough is Dylan Hartley who looks set for another ban this time for head butting, theres just no teaching some people

tigertattie wrote:Ok, I'm lost!

How can you actually dive in rugby?

Yes, you can go all Niko on us and make a meal of something, but I can't see how you can dive in our sport!

In football, over paid nancies will throw themselves to the ground to try and kid on that there was contact made to win a freekick or penalty.  In rugby, can you "fake" that contact was made?

Now, look at Niko at the weekend. Was he a total ponce about things? yes! But this does not excuse the fact that the Ulster Prop committed a high tackle! Niko didn't "dive" he made a total meal of it! Contact was made and down he went!

Folk are moaning that had he not acted like such a big baby, the officials would not have seen the high tackle and would not have awarded a penatly! So are we saying it's ok to comitt a penalty so long as the refs do not see it?
Utter nonsense!

I can only see two occasions when "diving" would be an option to try and "con" a penalty.

1. A player tries to punch you, misses, and you go down like a french winger pretending that contact has been made! No one wants to see folk play acting, but the main offence here is the thrown punch! Just because someone misses with thier punch, they shouldn't get penalised for it?

2. A player tries to trip you, misses, and you go down like a Welsh fullback pretending that contact has been made! Same issue as above!

Two wrongs do not make a right! 

We also shouldn't be penalising or not depending on the outcome of an offence! It's the intent that matters! Why should we reward incompetent offenders with a lighter punishment?

Regarding the bold bit, or you get pushed in the chest and collapse to the floor clutching your face. Is pushing ok? Well, ideally not but just a little push in the chest due to a neck tackle on a prone guy isn't really an issue.

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Surely the crux of all this is that if the Ulster tight head hadn't held back Matawalu around the neck, off the ball, there'd be nothing for Matawalu to 'exaggerate'.

More than that though. We can't stop at simply telling off Lutton. As mentioned previously, theres a whole host of illegalities in the game that are not being dealt with sternly enough.

I would suggest that an ideal world would be where Niko does not have to 'milk it', because Niko is confident in the ability of the officials to accurately spot, and accordingly punished all incidents of unsportsmanlike cheating.

One thing not being dealt with sternly enough is Dylan Hartley who looks set for another ban this time for head butting, theres just no teaching some people

Not at all relevant to the thread.

My view is that play acting should start resulting in straight red cards and attach heavy fines to incidents that are missed by the ref or effective bans. I've no time for this in rugby. The day we start seeing similar behaviour from our sports professionals as currently displayed in wendyball, I'll be turning away from rugby. The whole point of the sport is that its a hard but fair game. Cheating should have no place in the game and unless strong messages are brought in now to stop this kind of behaviour we will see this kind of stuff being replicated by the youngsters of tomorrow. To be honest I'd have no issues with club sanctions or other such incentives just to make sure coaches are not tempted to introduce these sort of things to gain advantages.

To be fair I also think in general we are already getting to much back chat from players to refs asking for yellow cards in big games. In my eyes there is not need for that either and if the International board wants to protect its refs it should bring in rule to combat this. If you ask for a yellow card, you get one. It being the player asking for it spending 10 minutes in the bin. That would be at least one rule that couldn't be interpreted by refs any other way. It would also save guard the officials from constant remarks about how to do their jobs.

clivemcl wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

So Lutton had nothing to gain by grabbing Niko's shirt. Why did he do it then? Presumably if he had nothing to gain it was an instinctive reaction that most people who have ever played the game experience at some stage in their playing career. Was it out of the ordinary compared to the rest of the shirt holding by both sides during the game (including by Matawalu) - categorically not.

Instinct or not - tackling without a ball is worthy of being penalised. As is tackling around the neck.

The Great Aukster wrote:

The difference was simply that Niko pretended he had been felled. He didn't tell his captain or the referee or assistant but instead feigned injury to get the crowd to (successfully) bully the referee. It's interesting that all the rugby pundits have condemned Niko's act as basically anti-rugby. True rugby men who have played the game and understood what it is and stands for have condemned Matawalu.

I'm well and truly fed up with this rhetoric. Its a bloody myth. A myth spouted by people who want to claim they are superior. But it is a baseless claim!

What does the game stand for? Breaking the laws as long as you can get away with it? How very honourable? Shoulder barging player because he's probably faster than you - how very honourable!

Its like the guys who come on here talking about the 'good old days' don't have an ounce of wit. saying things like "I'd have just got up and knocked him out, that would be that. We'd shake hands and have a pint after". All well and good if you think invited cards upon yourself is a good way to get your team a win.

Fine maybe you don't have respect for guys like Jiffy, Martyn Williams, Denis Hickie, Steven Ferris etc. I don't think they are trying to be "superior", just trying to point out that they don't want to see theatrics in rugby.
The game isn't honourable and never has been - even it's founder was a rule breaker! If you don't like physical contact put your two guys on a track and start them with a gun, then you'll see who's fastest - not everyone who likes rugby likes athletics though.

clivemcl wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Nigel Owens is lauded as being one of the best refs because he lets the game flow - aka not stopping it for every minor infringement. For those who support Matawalu's actions are you prepared to have the game descend into a three hour series of stoppages and restarts for every infringement (with TMO adjudication)?

That is the real question this incident raises.

I AM PREPARED.

For fecks sake - the point of any law and the penalty that come's with it is that its meant to be a bleedin deterrent!

If the consequences are high enough, and the laws enforced enough, it would not take too long for the game we love to be rid of it's shirt pulling, holding in rucks, and blocking.

And listen guys - it's win-win. If there are NO incidents of shirt pulling and blocking, there will be no occasions where players like Niko will feel it's in their best interests to 'milk it'.

Expecting a referee to see what all 30 players are doing for every second of a game is naive in the extreme. In case you hadn't noticed the referees are already struggling just trying to manage the real game changing infringements rather than penalise those that have no material bearing on the game. If a shirt tug has a material affect then it is hoped that the referee will pick it up. The shirt tug that Lutton did on Matawalu gave Niko the opportunity to incense the home crowd and so bully the referee. His actions bought a penalty that otherwise wouldn't have been given, because it was frankly innocuous and since the ball was dead would have gone unpunished. So what Matawalu did was bring the incident to the attention of the referee. Where he let himself and rugby down was feigning injury to try to get Lutton carded. It was clear when the medic came on that she asked him if he was hurt and he told her he wasn't. That to me is trying to con the crowd and the officials on a par with bloodgate so that his team could gain an advantage.

Obviously you are prepared to watch three hour games with loads of scrum restarts and a cacophony of whistling in between to ensure there is nothing missed - nothing except excitement that is. I am not.

Welshmushroom wrote:My view is that play acting should start resulting in straight red cards and attach heavy fines to incidents that are missed by the ref or effective bans.  I've no time for this in rugby.  The day we start seeing similar behaviour from our sports professionals as currently displayed in wendyball, I'll be turning away from rugby.  The whole point of the sport is that its a hard but fair game.  Cheating should have no place in the game and unless strong messages are brought in now to stop this kind of behaviour we will see this kind of stuff being replicated by the youngsters of tomorrow.  To be honest I'd have no issues with club sanctions or other such incentives just to make sure coaches are not tempted to introduce these sort of things to gain advantages.  

To be fair I also think in general we are already getting to much back chat from players to refs asking for yellow cards in big games.  In my eyes there is not need for that either and if the International board wants to protect its refs it should bring in rule to combat this.  If you ask for a yellow card, you get one.  It being the player asking for it spending 10 minutes in the bin.  That would be at least one rule that couldn't be interpreted by refs any other way.  It would also save guard the officials from constant remarks about how to do their jobs.  

+1

Surely given the amount of media coverage these days though, play acting would be easy to sort out even if a ref didn't see it. Game could just be reviewed and sanctions afterwards much with the current citing commissions. Wouldn't that work?

As far as minor incidents go I don't think they happen enough to warrant being singled out outside of the refs scope. Everyone knows if you get caught shirt pulling by the ref you will end up in the bin. Its no different when teams intentionally kill the ball to stop try scoring chances. Teams do tactically decide to do these things but to me there are sanctions in place to deal with these kind of things.

However play acting isn't covered which is why I believe this kind of behaviour needs an different protocol that totally takes the need for refs to catch it all the time away. Teams should face direct fines or point sanctions, which would be more than enough of a statement and would more than likely stamp this kind of thing out within a season. If the ref does catch it, just straight red card them. Either scenario is fine for the purpose of stopping this coming into rugby.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:My view is that play acting should start resulting in straight red cards and attach heavy fines to incidents that are missed by the ref or effective bans.  I've no time for this in rugby.  The day we start seeing similar behaviour from our sports professionals as currently displayed in wendyball, I'll be turning away from rugby.  The whole point of the sport is that its a hard but fair game.  Cheating should have no place in the game and unless strong messages are brought in now to stop this kind of behaviour we will see this kind of stuff being replicated by the youngsters of tomorrow.  To be honest I'd have no issues with club sanctions or other such incentives just to make sure coaches are not tempted to introduce these sort of things to gain advantages.  

To be fair I also think in general we are already getting to much back chat from players to refs asking for yellow cards in big games.  In my eyes there is not need for that either and if the International board wants to protect its refs it should bring in rule to combat this.  If you ask for a yellow card, you get one.  It being the player asking for it spending 10 minutes in the bin.  That would be at least one rule that couldn't be interpreted by refs any other way.  It would also save guard the officials from constant remarks about how to do their jobs.  

+1  

How can you +1 "Cheating should have no place in the game" after saying refs should let loads go because you don't what to watch where players are penalised for breaking the rules? They're mutual sclusive things.

For me the refs have a hard enough job. 30 players on the field, a pair of eyes and if your lucky a have descent set of lines men. Bottom line is from a game perspective not everything will be spotted on a rugby pitch by officials in a match. TMO's get used for enough critical stuff like try checking and build up play. They shouldn't expand this into their job roles because it will complicate things even further.

Instead, where clear offences of cheating occur such as diving and unsportsmanlike conduct, just have the matches reviewed after the game and then hammer those side with 10 point deductions for next season or 100K fines (higher if they are international matches), and additional fines and sanctions for players. I'm sure that would completely eradicate it from the game altogether.

Welshmushroom wrote:Everyone knows if you get caught shirt pulling by the ref you will end up in the bin.

Lutton wasn't sin-binned.