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?

Cheating should have no place in the game, however, the present reality is that some cheating will go unnoticed. It's a complex game with many moving parts.

This discussion is about the act of diving. Not so much about other forms of cheating. Those things are covered effectively within the laws. Diving is not, and so the question is should it be? All seem to be in agreement that diving should be penalised against, although some views may differ on what level of sanctions to impose on those that do dive.

There has been a lot of finger pointing at Lutton in the form of 'whataboutery'. If a player commits a foul against another player then the offender should be penalised. If the player offended against takes a dive/Play acts, the penalty should be reversed, and a yellow card issued for diving. If the original offender committed an act worthy of a card then that player should still be issued with a card, even though the penalty has been reversed. Both players would then receive cards.

Part of this discuss is the fact that some acts of cheating are deemed more acceptable than others. The internet quivers with rage if someone even waves their arms a little but is quite on collapsed scrums (even though only one of those can result in serious injury and both are often attempts to get the opposition penalised for something they pententially didn't do)

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

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.

Everyone knows the refs ignore shirt pulling and you will not end up in the bin mostly.  

If all shirt pullers, and holder-oners after breakdowns, and lazy runners were put in a bin during one test case game, then truly that game would have to be called off as players do all that stuff without thinking or complaining mostly and the bin would be full.

HammerofThunor wrote:Part of this discuss is the fact that some acts of cheating are deemed more acceptable than others. The internet quivers with rage if someone even waves their arms a little but is quite on collapsed scrums (even though only one of those can result in serious injury and both are often attempts to get the opposition penalised for something they pententially didn't do)

It's the whole idea that rugby is a ..man's game... old values of hardness and physicality.  

Like boys in a playground.  Rough (often very rough) and tumble and absolutely no time for 'cry babies' that can't take the heat and rush to the headmaster's office 10 or 12 times a day to complain about being rough handled by the rough lads playing the rough and tumble games.

It's tradition.  Rugby is tough.  Rugby wants to be seen as tough.  Rugby hates cry babies running to the Headmaster.

clivemcl wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

clivemcl wrote:I think you might be on the wrong forum section. Are you both not looking for American football?

So, if as you say its perfectly lawful, is it only in the case of a chase? Or can you put your shoulder into other players anywhere in open play??

This is exactly the kind of dark arts acceptance that I can't stand.

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?

What a load of tripe.

It's fairly simple, Clive. If a player legally prevents another player from competing for the ball, it's fine. If not, it's not fine. A nudge is when two competing players come into contact, side by side, and competing against one another to reach the ball first. Whether it's a legal or not doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate. What matters is how the defeated player reacts. If he dives he cheats. There's no excuse for him. He should trust the officials to make the right call, and not influence the outcome himself.

It's going to be difficult to continue this strand with the others swinging their handbags on here, but I'll reply anyway.

I am not talking about two players shoulder to shoulder heading towards the ball. I'm talking about one player trying to 'steer' you off course with his shoulder, to make it easier for his team mate.

You know as well as I do that in every game there are tensof 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 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).

I think if two players are competing for the ball, running at pace side by side, then one will usually attempt to nudge the other off his run. I wouldn't have an issue with this, and neither would refs. It's different if a player is chasing the ball and an opponent comes in from an angle, knowing he will be beat for pace, and shoulders him off his run. That is a card offence. If the offended player realising that he can no longer compete for the ball then dives, he should also be penalised for his dive. He should have trusted the officials to penalise the offender. It doesn't matter so much that there's a chance no action may not be taken against the offender. What matters more is that players are not attempting to influence outcome by fooling officials into actions they may not have done otherwise. There is a process of complaint, and the offended player must abide by that process.

HammerofThunor wrote:Part of this discuss is the fact that some acts of cheating are deemed more acceptable than others. The internet quivers with rage if someone even waves their arms a little but is quite on collapsed scrums (even though only one of those can result in serious injury and both are often attempts to get the opposition penalised for something they pententially didn't do)

I don't think that's true. I don't think this discussion is so much about diving being any better or worse than other types of offences, but more that diving isn't really recognised as an offence at all. That's the debate. Should it be, and if so, how?

Should the IRB introduce a new law specific to diving/play acting, or perhaps issue a new directive based on existing law? There are existing laws for all the others.

Some folks on here seem to be suggesting that refs and touch judges are doing all they can to spot cheating in the form of pulling/blocking/holding. That is quite frankly delusional.

Ok, I agree, it's maybe two topics worthy of individual threads. But they are linked. One probably wouldn't exist if there was significantly less of the other.

Truth be told though - we've had people argue about the most minute detail of technicalities of ref calls on here. How on earth are we too expect refs or TMOs to effectively judge if somebody is genuinely hurt or milking it.

Lets face facts, it wont be brought into law simply because its to a large degree impossible to determine how fake something is.

simulation without contact on the other hand should be dealt with severely. And to my mind, it would be anyway under the current rulebook as it stands.

SecretFly wrote:

Everyone knows the refs ignore shirt pulling and you will not end up in the bin mostly.  

If all shirt pullers, and holder-oners after breakdowns, and lazy runners were put in a bin during one test case game, then truly that game would have to be called off as players do all that stuff without thinking or complaining mostly and the bin would be full.

I do believe though, if it was announced at this point in the calendar year - if it was sent out to all clubs 'refs have been instructed to be ruthless on cheating this coming season'. If you want to win games with 15 men, make sure to tell your players to shape up and play by the rules.

I mean if there was fair and stern warning, there should even be a huge reduction in the first game of the season, and after a few binnings and lost games, the rest would fall in line also.

Then we get on with seeing which team is best at playing rugby.

There is no law that forbids eye gouging. It comes under the "act contrary...etc". That easily covers diving. The issue is that refs don't apply it because it's very difficult to know for sure. Given the amount of stuff they KNOW is against the laws they let go 'to let the game flow', why would (or should) they focus on diving?

I was very disappointed that Huget wasn't penalised at the minimum for his simulation (given that it was reviewed by the TMO and they both decided the Bath player didn't make contact with the face, which means he MUST have been putting it on). Perhaps, because why had already given a penalty away with the high tackle he felt he didn't need to do anything. But then ref was Irish and they're all corrupt

As Notch stated, and as I posted earlier, it's possible that diving could come under 'ungentlemanly conduct'. I do know one Scarlets player was penalised under this law for shouting at Andrew Trimble in an attempt to put him off a kick. It's my view that using any existing law isn't sufficient in dealing with diving/play acting, and the reason I believe this is because I believe in order to prevent diving becoming a blight on the game, as it is in football, I think stronger measures are required.

It is different to the instances you mention because those you mention are already being dealt with under existing laws. You can argue that diving may be cited under an existing law, but the fact is that it isn't. Hence the debate. I also believe that diving should be completely unacceptable in rugby, and treated in the same manner as those that merit a yellow card. Not ignored as though diving had no impact on the game.

Indeed, we all know that Irish ref's, assistants, TMO's, players, coaching staff, camera crew and fans are all corrupt, and all orchestrated by IRFU mafia  

SA tea ladies are mostly fair and honest though.

QED.

Munchkin wrote:As Notch stated, and as I posted earlier, it's possible that diving could come under 'ungentlemanly conduct'. I do know one Scarlets player was penalised under this law for shouting at Andrew Trimble in an attempt to put him off a kick. It's my view that using any existing law isn't sufficient in dealing with diving/play acting, and the reason I believe this is because I believe in order to prevent diving becoming a blight on the game, as it is in football, I think stronger measures are required.

It is different to the instances you mention because those you mention are already being dealt with under existing laws. You can argue that diving may be cited under an existing law, but the fact is that it isn't. Hence the debate. I also believe that diving should be completely unacceptable in rugby, and treated in the same manner as those that merit a yellow card. Not ignored as though diving had no impact on the game.

Indeed, we all know that Irish ref's, assistants, TMO's, players, coaching staff, camera crew and fans are all corrupt, and all orchestrated by IRFU mafia  

Huget is the only person I know of, but what difference would a specific law make? Why do you think they're not being done now? I don't think it's because there is no specific law (as I said, eye contact is done no problem). It's (IMO) because it's so difficult to know with any sort of surety. So you have one way to go. Make the law say that players must fight to keep their feet which could (almost certainly would) have two consequences. 1) More minor obstruction because it will be easier to get away with it. 2) Players who genuinely lose balance and fall over with little contact will be penalised. One plus is it'll be one more subjective thing to berate refs with online, so forums will do ok out it.

The waters seemed to have been muddied a little now on this debate, diving or play acting, without contact is a big no no. But what we need to realise is, the Matawalu incident and other instances in other games, there was contact, so they were being fouled. Why should the fouler be allowed to get away with cheating because the person being fouled is exaggerating to make the ref aware that he is being fouled ?

Easy answer is, eradicate foul play altogether, then there would be no need for exaggeration.

How can you quantify falling over v diving in a rugby law?
A lot of the 'diving' or merely intentional going off the feet could easily fly under the radar as many times it takes very little to shift someone's centre of gravity enough to make them fall. The Matawalu kind of dive is blatantly obvious as it's carried out with girlish theatrics. When a person goes off their feet they don't usually have time to do jazz hands and a mock look of despair as they'll be on their back before they know what's happened.

Anyway, we don't need a law for referees to use their own judgement aided with the big screens and access to replays. They're paid to make decisions but these days have had much of the burden lifted with the overuse of TMOs etc. Hand back power to the refs and maybe give them back their nuts at the same time because many seem to have lost them.

There's LD yet again standing alone in support of diving. The mind boggles.

Pete330v2 wrote:There's LD yet again standing alone in support of diving. The mind boggles.

Where am I supporting diving ? Please get over yourself.

Pete330v2 wrote:How can you quantify falling over v diving in a rugby law?
A lot of the 'diving' or merely intentional going off the feet could easily fly under the radar as many times it takes very little to shift someone's centre of gravity enough to make them fall. The Matawalu kind of dive is blatantly obvious as it's carried out with girlish theatrics. When a person goes off their feet they don't usually have time to do jazz hands and a mock look of despair as they'll be on their back before they know what's happened.

Anyway, we don't need a law for referees to use their own judgement aided with the big screens and access to replays. They're paid to make decisions but these days have had much of the burden lifted with the overuse of TMOs etc. Hand back power to the refs and maybe give them back their nuts at the same time because many seem to have lost them.

You are a very, very bitter and sore loser. Get over it. If the Ulster player was stupid enough to put his arm around Matawalu's neck and hold him back then he deserves every thing he got, he left the team down and the supporters down. You should focus your bitterness towards your teams behaviour throughout this season, disgusting.

Also, if we went with your last paragraph full of rubbish, Ospreys would be playing in the final now and not Munster, thank God for TMO's at least they can put things right.

It's not about the initial foul though is it? It's a topic about the diving afterwards. It's not really something you want creeping in as it takes over as in football.

"Also, if we went with your last paragraph full of rubbish, Ospreys would be playing in the final now and not Munster, thank God for TMO's at least they can put things right.."

More utter tripe spouting from the LD font.
If there wasn't a TMO to refer to and no ability to bring play back Owens would have blown the knock on. He saw it which was obvious but because he had the option to go back and refer to the replay he used it and let play go on. Refs do make mistakes but with the use of video replays and TMOs they still get it wrong and have less of an excuse ro.

Also, I am not a sore and bitter loser, don't judge others by your own standards. As I've stated many times if you care to read back, I like the Glasgow team and still do. Lutton was a complete idiot and deserved to be penalised and lost the match for Ulster along with the lack of use of the bench. However, excusing that kind of dive with full theatrics as exaggeration is disgusting and the kind of attitude that thankfully is very scarce in rugby circles yet widespread in soccer so perhaps you're on the wrong forum.

If you read what I have said throughout this debate I have said that Matawalu's behaviour was no good. But that would not suit your agenda now would it ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not about the initial foul though is it? It's a topic about the diving afterwards. It's not really something you want creeping in as it takes over as in football.

I am replying to the people who are saying Matawalu cheated, he did not cheat.

Diving is something totally different, a dive is what somebody does to con the ref, Matawalu was not conning anybody, it was a pen, case closed.

It was a pen. There was 'simulation' if you want to use the football reference, diving to me. Is it strictly cheating, probably not; is it something I want to see, definately not.

You are consistently defending Matawalu in his primadonna antics (see above). Arching your back whilst throwing yourself in the air with added jazz hands is an intentional dive. It belongs on the soccer pitches. Fans of this kind of behaviour belong in the soccer stands. You should try it, it might be more to your taste because your attitude towards rugby ethics stinks.

But rugby ethics is swamped with the idea that if you get away with it's not cheating. It's the same thing that gets repeated time and time again on here, and other boards, and by commentators/ex top players. THAT attitude is why diving will be more and more prevalent.

The fact that so many people are more interested in castigating the tiny handful of potential divers instead of the vast amount of systematic cheating already in the game, for fear of ruining the spectacle, is why rugby is doomed. The shortsightedness will doom us all.

For F**K's sake.

Cheating doesn't need a Rugby specific rule to Call it, Lord.  I'm not going to be ringing up Nigel Owens to ask him whether or not I was cheated if I buy new double glazing windows from a travelling salesman and they never show
Cheating is Cheating.  Everyone knows when they've been cheated.

I'm not asking you to confirm for me that Matawalu was cheating when he acted up - I'm telling you he was.  I'll decide what I consider his act to be not the Official Rugby Rule Book.  The discussion is about perceptions of diving/over-reacting - not rule books.

And because I'm Irish - that opinion professed by me is now duly Law and immutable by either you or your excuses, excuses friends

HammerofThunor wrote:

The fact that so many people are more interested in castigating the tiny handful of potential divers instead of the vast amount of systematic cheating already in the game, for fear of ruining the spectacle, is why rugby is doomed. The shortsightedness will doom us all.

Cheated and got away with it.
That's fine by me. Over to Lord to confirm even that much.

Sanctions (cards/penalties reversed) have little to do with this one at this point... just calling a spade a spade seems to be the difficult area.

HammerofThunor wrote:But rugby ethics is swamped with the idea that if you get away with it's not cheating. It's the same thing that gets repeated time and time again on here, and other boards, and by commentators/ex top players. THAT attitude is why diving will be more and more prevalent.

The fact that so many people are more interested in castigating the tiny handful of potential divers instead of the vast amount of systematic cheating already in the game, for fear of ruining the spectacle, is why rugby is doomed. The shortsightedness will doom us all.

The thread is called Diving. If it was called holding people in rucks I'd be saying that should be got rid of and not mentioning diving at all.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:But rugby ethics is swamped with the idea that if you get away with it's not cheating. It's the same thing that gets repeated time and time again on here, and other boards, and by commentators/ex top players. THAT attitude is why diving will be more and more prevalent.

The fact that so many people are more interested in castigating the tiny handful of potential divers instead of the vast amount of systematic cheating already in the game, for fear of ruining the spectacle, is why rugby is doomed. The shortsightedness will doom us all.

The thread is called Diving. If it was called holding people in rucks I'd be saying that should be got rid of and not mentioning diving at all.

The thing is this diving is occurring in due to situations that could/would normally go unnoticed, so it is relevant to the thread. Also these are the things that used to be dealt with by a little bit of handbags in the past, before the citing commissioners started picking up on them and issuing bans. So given a choice of making a dramatized fall from a tackle off the ball, or turning around and slapping the culprit (then getting banned), it seems diving is the more sensible option.

Diving .... and going down like a bullet hit you.

There is of course also the fake injuries that all of a sudden need to be seen to when the team are puffed.
There is also the numerous re-sets for Scrums when the ref is puffed.
There is also violent assaults on non-playing streakers by revved up players.
There is also noisy f**king mascots banging drums and things and putting off their own side as much as the opposition
There is also slow walks to lineouts when you're winning and there is only five minutes on the clock.

It's all f**king cheating... maybe not in yonder Rule Book Bible but cheating and/or dangerous play with the poor streakers...

But this - this is about Diving.

So what are we saying ?

It is ok to hold somebody back and cheat as long as the ref does not see it, but you are not allowed to make the ref aware that you are being cheated by exaggerating it.

Is this what you are saying ?

No. Fouls are bad M'kay. But diving is also bad.

Pete330v2 wrote:"Also, if we went with your last paragraph full of rubbish, Ospreys would be playing in the final now and not Munster, thank God for TMO's at least they can put things right.."

More utter tripe spouting from the LD font.
If there wasn't a TMO to refer to and no ability to bring play back Owens would have blown the knock on. He saw it which was obvious but because he had the option to go back and refer to the replay he used it and let play go on. Refs do make mistakes but with the use of video replays and TMOs they still get it wrong and have less of an excuse ro.

Also, I am not a sore and bitter loser, don't judge others by your own standards. As I've stated many times if you care to read back, I like the Glasgow team and still do. Lutton was a complete idiot and deserved to be penalised and lost the match for Ulster along with the lack of use of the bench. However, excusing that kind of dive with full theatrics as exaggeration is disgusting and the kind of attitude that thankfully is very scarce in rugby circles yet widespread in soccer so perhaps you're on the wrong forum.

You just said lutton lost the game for Ulster. This is a sore loser by any measure.  
The game is over 80 mins not 1 second

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. Fouls are bad M'kay. But diving is also bad.

Yes but there is a difference in going down because you are being fouled and going down without being touched.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:So given a choice of making a dramatized fall from a tackle off the ball, or turning around and slapping the culprit (then getting banned), it seems diving is the more sensible option.

So one guy sees it work and decides to give it a go himself in the next game.  And that opposition team, that suffered the consequences and see that it works and isn't pinged, they decide that if you can't beat 'em join 'em?  And before you know it, within a one or two year timeframe, nobody is even mentioning the highly obvious acting that goes on all through a game because it's become a culture.  Neither fans, refs nor players think twice about doing it or when seeing it?

Maybe some of us are just conditioned to the antics in football - after all, so much of that criminally badly acted stuff passes over without a whimper from refs or commentators or fans.  The refs absolutely know the player has done an impressive triple somersault after simply being tapped on the ankle but the culture demands that he blows for an angry free.  The fans require it coz their lad could have been badly hurt in that tumble!!!
Everyone knows they're looking at antics but "it's part of the gyme, innit.  All players know what they're getting into when you touch a lad on the ankle in that position.  He's going to go down, ain't he? - and the Lad, Ronaldo, he's ever so good at fooling refs, he is.  It's an art form, innit.  You gotta respect it at one level, in all fairness."

LordDowlais wrote:So what are we saying ?

It is ok to hold somebody back and cheat as long as the ref does not see it, but you are not allowed to make the ref aware that you are being cheated by exaggerating it.

Is this what you are saying ?

We're saying Matawalu cheated.  That's all you need say.  Then we'll all be on the same hymn sheet.  The holder-upper is a cheat and the over-acter is a cheat.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. Fouls are bad M'kay. But diving is also bad.

Yes but there is a difference in going down because you are being fouled and going down without being touched.

Yes there is. Both should be eradicated though.

Fly, or the other way around. The ref notices that there is a lot of skulduggery going on after a grubber kick has been put in. So as the players are running he keeps his eye out for the trip, obstruction etc. Then these things get pinged, and people notice it is not worth trying to slow the chaser down, as it will lead to a pen. Then a dive would be very obviously a dive (as in no contact, and just a jump to the deck), instead of contact between players leading to one being knocked over when they could possibly have stayed on their feet.

Yes, gents, this is aboout Diving.  I know it is neither common in our sport nor is it the worst thing.  However, it does seem to becoming more frequent and when it does happen it reflects poorly on Rugby, and by extension on ourselves as Rugby folk.  This thread is also not about Matawalu nor Bryan Hhabana.  It is simply about the act of diving in our sport and what we want to do about it.  

As knowledgeable Rugby people (myself excluded), we are aware of infringments at the breakdown, more offsides, screwing around in the scrum, and so on.  But to the larger audience, it creates a negative impression.  Besides we well and truly don't like it.  So let's deal.....

SecretFly wrote:We're saying Matawalu cheated. That's all you need say. Then we'll all be on the same hymn sheet. The holder-upper is a cheat and the over-acter is a cheat.

Again, I will ask, show me where it says in the laws that Matawalu cheated and you will have me agreeing with you, the only person who cheated, in that particular incident was the Ulster player.

Now, do I condone Matawalu's antics ? No I do not. his behaviour is not within what I call the ethics of our game, but to rid us of those antics, we first need to get rid of the initial "cheat". It is the cheat that is ruining our game, not the gamesmanship that goes with it.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly, or the other way around.  The ref notices that there is a lot of skulduggery going on after a grubber kick has been put in.  So as the players are running he keeps his eye out for the trip, obstruction etc.  Then these things get pinged, and people notice it is not worth trying to slow the chaser down, as it will lead to a pen.  Then a dive would be very obviously a dive (as in no contact, and just a jump to the deck), instead of contact between players leading to one being knocked over when they could possibly have stayed on their feet.

That theory doesn't work though - does it?  In football.  The fancy dives still take place under the noses of experienced refs who mostly turn a blind eye because it's culture.  AND - the trippers still trip, knowing that the divers still dive, and knowing that a card will come their way if the diver 'fools' the ref into thinking the trip was more violent than it was.

The theory doesn't work - the trippers still trip and the divers still dive even though the refs all know that both 'cheat'.  



Maybe we are all asking the wrong questions here anyway.  Maybe we should just cut to the chase and simply ask is it more that some of us would accept a degree of acting that might get an opponent taken off the field with a yellow or red?

Do some of us actually think it would an acceptable degree of bluff in modern high professional games with so much money riding on them - just like football?

Fly, in that case banning diving will not work either, as football had a clamp down on it and it didn't work.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We're saying Matawalu cheated.  That's all you need say.  Then we'll all be on the same hymn sheet.  The holder-upper is a cheat and the over-acter is a cheat.

Again, I will ask, show me where it says in the laws that Matawalu cheated and you will have me agreeing with you, the only person who cheated, in that particular incident was the Ulster player.

Now, do I condone Matawalu's antics ? No I do not. his behaviour is not within what I call the ethics of our game, but to rid us of those antics, we first need to get rid of the initial "cheat". It is the cheat that is ruining our game, not the gamesmanship that goes with it.

I told you - A rule book doesn't decide a 'Cheat'. A cheat also pretends injury when his team need a breather or the opposition is in a rhythm he wants to halt. That's cheating - is there a specific rule in your rule book that states so? I doubt it. It's still a cheat.

You want to use any term or word to agree with us but simply refuse to use the word 'cheat' to do it. That's all this is, Lord.

Football never had a clamp down as too many people said any contact at all despite being the lightest touch meant that the player hadn't dived.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly, in that case banning diving will not work either, as football had a clamp down on it and it didn't work.

I'm not looking for a ban. I'm simply looking for an acknowledgement that the holder-backer cheated AND the over-reactor cheated. Both tried to control the moment with subterfuge and deception.

SecretFly wrote:I told you - A rule book doesn't decide a 'Cheat'

Apparently not, you have made yourself judge, jury and executioner all at once on this topic, what is the point of the laws at all if YOU are going to decide what is cheating and what isn't.

Taking a breather, or walking slow to a line out is not cheating, as it is not in the laws. Now if you were to say that what Matawalu did was not in the ethics of our game, then I would agree with you 100%, but he was the one being cheated.

This thread is about theatrical, over the top, soccer player diving, the like of which we witnessed from Matuwalu. It's about un-rugby like play, ungentlemanly conduct, not the other penalisable offences that sometimes go under the umbrella term of 'the dark arts'. There's one voice on here that's constantly standing up for this kind of thing, the over-exaggeration of being taken down so as to highlight what's going on to the officials. One voice that just simply doesn't get it. Thankfully only one voice.

Diving in this way isn't cheating, it's simply not rugby. Shouting at a place-kicker in an attempt to put him off falls into the same category Mr Ashton

Rugby is a physical game and in the latest case, the Matawalu one, there was very little physicality in the challenge by Ricky Lutton. He made a grab at Niko which was stupid and penalisable but it most certainly wasn't physical or dangerous. Nobody has a problem with the penalty being given. The vast majority have a problem with players making these arms in the air, over-theatrical dives as is the way in soccer. Habana's dive was memorably shameful and to his credit he manned up and apologised. Niko seems to think he did OK.

I noticed the GIF attached to this article (http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/) which shows the Matawalu dive. Note how little physicality is involved from Lutton. Anyone that thinks it's a dangerous, physical 'tackle' needs to watch a less upsetting sport IMO.
Note also the much more physical off the ball tackle on Craig Gilroy in the background. Does this make some of the softer posters whince much ??

So, just to get my head straight here.

1) It is bad that dramatic over egging when cheated happens, and even though it raises the refs attention to a deeper underlying cheating, it will continue and the refs will not deal with the underlying issue leading to the 'diving' as they will just look at both as cheating. So it is the diving that needs to be dealt with, as in Football the refs turn a blind eye.

2) Football tried to clamp down on diving, however they find it hard to prove who is diving due to the slightest physical contact being a reasonable excuse for the player going down. So clamping down on the diving will not work.

So what is the answer then? Everyone getting all up tight on the tinterweb when their team fall victim of foul play (diving, technical or thuggery), and getting upset when their team get caught for carrying out acts of foul play (diving, technical or thuggery), and the whole double standards going full circle over and over.

SecretFly wrote:Both tried to control the moment with subterfuge and deception.

No they did not. Matawalu did not pretend that Lutton put his hand around his neck and held him back, Lutton actually DID do that. So no deception by Matawalu.

SecretFly wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly, in that case banning diving will not work either, as football had a clamp down on it and it didn't work.

I'm not looking for a ban.  I'm simply looking for an acknowledgement that the holder-backer cheated AND the over-reactor cheated.  Both tried to control the moment with subterfuge and deception.

Oh yes they both cheated. The same as the player who advanced from an offside position, or the player who caught a forward pass and continued playing. To be fair if you went through any game with a fine tooth comb I doubt you would find a single player who didn't cheat in some for or other.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I told you - A rule book doesn't decide a 'Cheat'

Apparently not, you have made yourself judge, jury and executioner all at once on this topic, what is the point of the laws at all if YOU are going to decide what is cheating and what isn't.

Taking a breather, or walking slow to a line out is not cheating, as it is not in the laws. Now if you were to say that what Matawalu did was not in the ethics of our game, then I would agree with you 100%, but he was the one being cheated.

If a good ref thinks it's becoming too prominent a tactic he hoists a card. It's cheating. The ref just has to wait and be sure he's certain it's happening. It's called time wasting. It's cheating.

SecretFly wrote:If a good ref thinks it's becoming too prominent a tactic he hoists a card. It's cheating. The ref just has to wait and be sure he's certain it's happening. It's called time wasting. It's cheating.

I have never seen a card being issued for slow walking to a line out, never. If you could show me otherwise I will concede. I have seen refs telling players to hurry up, but never anything more.