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?

I can't see how some people are not seeing the difference here!

Matalawu did not dive

He went down like an essex girl at a footballer's 30th but contact was made so he did not dive! He over-acted!

We keep using football as the example so:

Rooney is running into the box. John Terry clips Rooney's ankle. Rooney flies through the air like Ashton scoring a try then rolls about holing onto the leg that wasn't clipped while tears roll down his face!

Result = Penalty to Rooney

Rooney was being a big girls blouse, but contact was made. He should be pitied for being a ponce but the end result is that a penalty is awared to Man U as Terry cheated, Rooney did not!

The other thing to happen would be:

Rooney runs into the box but is not quite at a good angle for scoring so throws himself to the floor with all the theatrics of before but Terry has not touched him!

Result = Free kick to Chelsea as Rooney has "dived" or carried out "simulation" as the footy types say! In this case, Rooney has cheated and not Terry!

In rugby, we have the joys of TMOs so we can go back and review the footage!

The ref can see if there was contact or not and penalise accordingly!

Matalawu at the weeked did not cheat. He did not dive. He just made a boob of himself, harmed his and his club's reputation

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

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.

That's my very point.  Every player that has ever been held back off the ball has done the holding back off the ball at other times himself in his career.  They are even coached to do so.  It's cultural.  

Acting up too is a cheating mechanism designed to at least get a penalty but also if a player got a yellow for 10 that too would be a bonus.  Over-acting out a fall or dive is in no way a lesser cheat than the holder.  

Some have argued otherwise here and I'm simply saying it is not so.  I admitted directly and instantly that the holder was cheating.  I would love refs to be more vigilant in those areas.  But I'd also demand that refs directly and openly reprimand players that openly over-act.

SF, you are clutching at straws, if anything is not written in the laws of the game then it is not cheating, that does not mean that it is not within the ethics of the game though.

ScarletSpiderman wrote: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.

On that second point it would work as long as people who get a nudge then throw themselves to the floor aren't defended.

It's cheating, Lord.  You are the clutcher.

Well said, Tigertattie.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote: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.

On that second point it would work as long as people who get a nudge then throw themselves to the floor aren't defended.

So it wouldn't work, as those players were fouled themselves.

It's the cheating that causes the gamesmanship that needs to be sorted, if there was no cheating, then no gamesmanship would be needed.

Now if player were going down with no reason, and diving without reason to get penalties and players sent off, now that is cheating, and that is what this topic is about, not players exaggerating that they are being fouled.

SecretFly wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

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.

That's my very point.  Every player that has ever been held back off the ball has done the holding back off the ball at other times himself in his career.  They are even coached to do so.  It's cultural.  

Acting up too is a cheating mechanism designed to at least get a penalty but also if a player got a yellow for 10 that too would be a bonus.  Over-acting out a fall or dive is in no way a lesser cheat than the holder.  

Some have argued otherwise here and I'm simply saying it is not so.  I admitted directly and instantly that the holder was cheating.  I would love refs to be more vigilant in those areas.  But I'd also demand that refs directly and openly reprimand players that openly over-act.

There are varying levels of cheating (and going down the extreme examples route now). For example if a player intentionally bumps into another player when chasing a loose ball it is cheating. And if a player were to kneel on the opposition fly halves chest and repeatedly punch him in the face that too is cheating. Yet it is obvious that the punching is a far worse form of cheating.

Likewise an enhanced fall, is a lesser form of cheating that a shove to the deck when chasing a kick etc.

SecretFly wrote:But I'd also demand that refs directly and openly reprimand players that openly over-act.

Yes I would go along with that as well, perhaps have a word, but that is all they should do, unless evidence shows that they went down for no reason, then they should be penalised.

LordDowlais wrote:It's the cheating that causes the gamesmanship that needs to be sorted, if there was no cheating, then no gamesmanship would be needed.

Now if player were going down with no reason, and diving without reason to get penalties and players sent off, now that is cheating, and that is what this topic is about, not players exaggerating that they are being fouled.

Exaggerating is to make an incident appear more vicious or violent than it was. That threatens a yellow or red. Cheating.
Call it Gamesmanship, not in the spirit, an exaggeration - call it what you will - we're talking about cheating.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote: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.

On that second point it would work as long as people who get a nudge then throw themselves to the floor aren't defended.

So it wouldn't work, as those players were fouled themselves.

It wouldn't work if any citing official thought that way no. Hopefully they would see it as trying to make things look worse and hand out an appropriate ban. 1 week or so?

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:But I'd also demand that refs directly and openly reprimand players that openly over-act.

Yes I would go along with that as well, perhaps have a word, but that is all they should do, unless evidence shows that they went down for no reason, then they should be penalised.

If the player acted up twice..................... in the one game - still only a chat?

If the player has a history of acting up and getting a chat let's say in four straight games one after another - still only a chat with the ref? "mind yourself, don't be a cod!"

SecretFly wrote:we're talking about cheating.

OK then, for the love of God I am trying to find a way of agreeing with you, please can you show me when Matawalu cheated in this specific incident, and I do not mean acting like a numbnut, I mean actual cheating.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote: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.

On that second point it would work as long as people who get a nudge then throw themselves to the floor aren't defended.

So it wouldn't work, as those players were fouled themselves.

It wouldn't work if any citing official thought that way no. Hopefully they would see it as trying to make things look worse and hand out an appropriate ban. 1 week or so?

Is the citing system likely to do the right thing though? It seems every week we have a 'Player X cited - what a joke' or 'Player X only got Y weeks ban' discussion on here, so I dread to think what they would be like with diving/shirt pulling.

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:But I'd also demand that refs directly and openly reprimand players that openly over-act.

Yes I would go along with that as well, perhaps have a word, but that is all they should do, unless evidence shows that they went down for no reason, then they should be penalised.

If the player acted up twice..................... in the one game - still only a chat?

If the player has a history of acting up and getting a chat let's say in four straight games one after another - still only a chat with the ref? "mind yourself, don't be a cod!"

But he has not done anything wrong, there is nothing in the laws to say what he did was wrong. Now if he went down like a sack of spuds without contact, then there would be a case to yellow card him and award the opposition a pen, but facts are, as you keep ignoring, Matawalu did not con anybody, he was fouled, yes he acted like a tool, and embarrassed himself and his club, but he was not deceiving anybody, he was actually being fouled.

Gamesmanship is cheating...!

Let's leave it there because we're never going to agree.  

But I know for a fact we'll be back here, when you'll want to throw the kitchen sink at an offending 'actor' that has done one of your teams or players a disservice.  But memory of this debate will have forced you to only call it was 'a little bit of necessary gamesmanship to get the ref's attention'

SecretFly wrote:Gamesmanship is cheating...!

Let's leave it there because we're never going to agree.  

But I know for a fact we'll be back here, when you'll want to throw the kitchen sink at an offending 'actor' that has done one of your teams or players a disservice.  But memory of this debate will have forced you to only call it was 'a little bit of necessary gamesmanship to get the ref's attention'

No I will not, I will always be up in arms when this type of gamesmanship is involved, but I would be more up in arms if my player caused the person being fouled to act that way. Neither of them are right doing what they did, but only one of them was cheating.

It worries me that I'm agreeing with LD here!

My steeet cred is plummetting!

LordDowlais wrote:

No I will not, I will always be up in arms when this type of gamesmanship is involved, but I would be more up in arms if my player caused the person being fouled to act that way. Neither of them are right doing what they did, but only one of them was cheating.

So Lord, you've never seen a Welsh player (Regional or International) hold an opposing player back and yet went on to enjoy the end result without ever mentioning the Welsh player and his dastardly deed?  

So the Welsh player would have only maddened you had the opposition player acted up and caught the ref's attention?

The poor eejit.  He's doing right by the team - by doing wrong - but he better hope the ref don't see him doing it or you'll be mad with him for getting caught!  

It's a tough life being a player.  So many masters.

HammerofThunor wrote:

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.

Huget received a warning for feigning injury rather than a dive. Granted they are closely linked, but the wording of EPCR wasn't specific to diving. I would like to see a law in place that allows officials to cite players specifically for diving. I don't want to see it placed under any present law that means officials can make it up as they go along. I do think that's an issue with some of the current laws not being specific enough.

Taken from rugbydump:

"That is pathetic. Personally I think that the powers that be, the disciplinary committee, should look at that and they should act on it because we do not want to see players taking dives. Just a little push in the chest and he grabs his face.. That is pathetic," said (Ben) Kay.

European Professional Club Rugby agreed with the general media and fan sentiment. They issued a formal warning to Huget this week. EPCR said that the warning followed an "act contrary to good sportsmanship in that he (Huget) deliberately feigned an injury in contravention of Law 10.4(m)."

So EPCR basically called Huget a naughty boy, and told him not to do it again. At least they did that much, but it's not enough.

Here's a few recent examples of diving taken from a short Telegraph article in response to the RPA calling a meeting in January to find solutions to the issue of diving:

- Damian Traille
At the start of the Top 14 season in 2013, Damian Traille got Julien Bardy sent to the sin bin with an outrageous bit of play-of acting during Biarritz's defeat by Clermont in August 2013.

- Simaika Mikaele
During the Marist American Samoa 7s Cup semi-final between villages Vaiala and Vailele, Simaika Mikaele makes a mockery of the image of Samoan rugby players as hard men after a pathetic fight ends him with rolling around on the floor.

- Bryan Habana
The Toulon winger was forced into a public apology after a dive on the biggest stage in European club rugby. A chip and chase resulted in a bit of contact from Owen Farrell, and Habana collapsed like a deck of cards.

- Yoann Huget
A cracking game between Toulouse and Bath as the Champions Cup group stages reaches fever pitch, until a touch from Horacio Agulla takes Huget down and farcical scenes ensue.

Diving

more discussion on rugbydump about Huget with more examples of diving player: MoreDiving

Earlier I had posted that at the least I would like to see IRB acting against players diving, and using existing laws. I would much prefer IRB make a law specific to diving because I believe doing so will further highlight how serious an issue diving is, while at the same time underscore the level of resolve IRB have in dealing with diving. Not that IRB are in fact taking the issue seriously.

Wasn't that 7s one a bit tongue in cheek? If I remember correctly the red even laughed at him

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Gamesmanship is cheating...!

Let's leave it there because we're never going to agree.  

But I know for a fact we'll be back here, when you'll want to throw the kitchen sink at an offending 'actor' that has done one of your teams or players a disservice.  But memory of this debate will have forced you to only call it was 'a little bit of necessary gamesmanship to get the ref's attention'

No I will not, I will always be up in arms when this type of gamesmanship is involved, but I would be more up in arms if my player caused the person being fouled to act that way. Neither of them are right doing what they did, but only one of them was cheating.

Not sure I agree that Lutton was cheating. If he was aware that his action was wrong, and if he was hoping not to get caught out then he was cheating. I think there is room to believe that he acted on instinct. Not surprising considering players rarely get penalised for tugging a player back. Whatever the reason, he shouldn't have behaved as he did, and there can be no complaints. What Matawalu did was outright cheating. It was an obvious deception with the intent of fooling officials into taking action against Lutton.
We know in rugby union that penalties are reversed for other types of offences. The argument here is that penalties should also be reversed for those who dive/play act. I am not claiming that the penalty should have been reversed in the Matawalu/Lutton incident, because as far as I can tell there is no precedent to do so. I do argue that action should be taken by IRB to ensure that similar incidents are penalised in future, and I would argue penalised by reversing the original penalty, as well as issuing the diving player with a yellow card. If the original offence merited a card then both players should receive a card.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Wasn't that 7s one a bit tongue in cheek?  If I remember correctly the red even laughed at him

Everyone laughed because it was such a poor attempt at a dive, I think. I would doubt a player would want to set himself for such ridicule, but I don't honestly know. I suppose if he was 'just having a laugh' you would have to ask why he felt free to do so? Because he knows a penalty for diving is highly unlikely? So players feel free to dive as they don't believe they will be penalised? It doesn't really matter though. There's plenty of examples that are obviously genuine.

All of you deserve a red card for keeping this going!

Not me because I'm protected by Messiah Complex 6.4.2B

Some posters seem under the misapprehension that the Laws define cheating.
Actually it's the referee that decides.
The difference between one player releasing the ball in a ruck and another being pinged for holding on is a nanosecond and that is the preserve of the ref to decide which one is cheating and which one isn't. It varies from game to game and referee to referee.

Matawalu purposely tried to con the referee into sending Lutton off. Clancy could see there was nothing in the challenge so he didn't produce a card. However he could just as easily produced a card to Matawalu for ungentlemanly conduct under the Law because that is his decision to make. The fact that he didn't, doesn't mean that Niko didn't 'cheat', just that Clancy choose to not penalise him - in the same way he chooses not to penalise all those other cheats that have no bearing on the game.

For all the posters who think matawalu didn't take a dive, have a look at the incident again for god's sake.
There's a set of laws that nobody can break, the laws of physics and there is nothing in there to say that a moving object when touched will suddenly leap into the air. I mean a purposeful jump with arched back, head thrown up in mock despair and jazz hands raised up in case all the other histrionics haven't attracted enoug attention.

Unless the laws of physics have taken a massive shift then Matawalu dived. He took a purposeful dive that the Lutton contact couldn't possibly have manufactured. He took a big hissy-sissy fit and dived.

Was he cheating? Nope. It's not an offence.
Is there a rugby law against sissy diving? Nope.
Is he a disgrace who should apologise? Damn right
Should we enforce laws to stop this? Nope. Let players do it if they wish and be ridiculed, shamed and made a deserved laughing stock every time. That's enough to keep any professional rugby player from doing it.

Nobody is saying that Matawalu did not go down easy, what people are saying is that he was cheated in the first place, if the first incident did not happen then what came next would not have happened either.

Pete330v2 wrote:Was he cheating? Nope. It's not an offence.
Is there a rugby law against sissy diving? Nope.
Is he a disgrace who should apologise? Damn right
Should we enforce laws to stop this? Nope. Let players do it if they wish and be ridiculed, shamed and made a deserved laughing stock every time. That's enough to keep any professional rugby player from doing it.

This part I can agree with.

Pete330v2 wrote:For all the posters who think matawalu didn't take a dive, have a look at the incident again for god's sake.
There's a set of laws that nobody can break, the laws of physics and there is nothing in there to say that a moving object when touched will suddenly leap into the air. I mean a purposeful jump with arched back, head thrown up in mock despair and jazz hands raised up in case all the other histrionics haven't attracted enoug attention.

Unless the laws of physics have taken a massive shift then Matawalu dived. He took a purposeful dive that the Lutton contact couldn't possibly have manufactured. He took a big hissy-sissy fit and dived.

Was he cheating? Nope. It's not an offence.
Is there a rugby law against sissy diving? Nope.
Is he a disgrace who should apologise? Damn right
Should we enforce laws to stop this? Nope. Let players do it if they wish and be ridiculed, shamed and made a deserved laughing stock every time. That's enough to keep any professional rugby player from doing it.

It's interesting that on what side one there are those who seem to be saying that the law is sufficient to deal with the issue of diving, and on the other there are those, like me, who are saying the law is not. If the law at present is sufficient then why are we arguing over what is cheating and what isn't? I say it's cheating for two reasons; one is that although the law lacks clarity, it is still possible to cite a player for diving, and so it is possible to describe diving as cheating. The other reason I would describe diving as cheating is that even if there isn't a law specific to cheating, or even if there is no law at all with regards to diving, then it's still possible to describe diving as cheating for no other reason than it is cheating, Law or no law. It is also against the spirit the game should be played in.

Munchkin wrote:It is also against the spirit the game should be played in.

Yes it is, also diving IS cheating, exaggerating is not.

We must separate the two. Diving is going down like a sack of spuds without anybody touching you. Exaggerating is when you are being fouled and you act like a pleb to get the ref to notice it, there is a BIG difference. One case you are cheating, the other case you are not. But none of that behaviour is within the spirit of the game.

Exaggertating contact could sway a ref to a yellow or a red though couldn't it? How many times have you heard not enough contact or hasn't impeded the player enough, exagerating may sway that to the felled players side. Does it become cheating then?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Exaggertating contact could sway a ref to a yellow or a red though couldn't it? How many times have you heard not enough contact or hasn't impeded the player enough, exagerating may sway that to the felled players  side. Does it become cheating then?

I would like to think that the exaggeration would lead to the ref going to the TMO and then coming to the outcome that it is either a pen or not. That is what we have the TMO for. In football they do not have a TMO so exaggeration does get people sent off, but at least we have the TMO in rugby and they can look at it again to see how much exaggeration was involved before the ref makes his decision.

I think generally most people would describe the actions of Matawalu as a dive. Not just against Lutton but also against Gilroy.
Ok, you don't see it as a dive, however, it is still cheating. It is cheating because he basically lied through his actions. He behaved in such a way as to fool the officials. There's no other reason to behave like that. He didn't need to behave that way. It was unnatural for him to do so, and in doing so he likely wanted Lutton carded for an offence that didn't merit a card. Now you might argue it did merit a card, but that would be beside the point. The point being that he set out to deceive. He cheated.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Exaggertating contact could sway a ref to a yellow or a red though couldn't it? How many times have you heard not enough contact or hasn't impeded the player enough, exagerating may sway that to the felled players  side. Does it become cheating then?

Exaggerating could sway a ref. But that said it is standard practice for captains in the modern game to talk to the ref about he number of pens the opponents are conceding in a certain area, which is pretty much the same. It is something I personally am not too keen on, however it is definitely something that makes a good captain worth their weight in gold, POC, Ryan Jones and AWJ are very good at doing it too.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:It is also against the spirit the game should be played in.

Yes it is, also diving IS cheating, exaggerating is not.

We must separate the two. Diving is going down like a sack of spuds without anybody touching you. Exaggerating is when you are being fouled and you act like a pleb to get the ref to notice it, there is a BIG difference. One case you are cheating, the other case you are not. But none of that behaviour is within the spirit of the game.

So theoretically a finger on a shoulder is the difference between cheatingly going down like a sack of spuds and legally acting like a pleb?  Contact - however brief and inconsequential - decides between Cheating in going down like a sack of spuds or merely being an 'innocent' pleb by going down like a sack of spuds?

You're no Nigel Owens in reffing terms Lord!  I think you're a classic Over-Officious Clancyite game Slower-Upper with all those pedantic meanings over meanings on top of interpretations.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Exaggertating contact could sway a ref to a yellow or a red though couldn't it? How many times have you heard not enough contact or hasn't impeded the player enough, exagerating may sway that to the felled players  side. Does it become cheating then?

I would like to think that the exaggeration would lead to the ref going to the TMO and then coming to the outcome that it is either a pen or not. That is what we have the TMO for. In football they do not have a TMO so exaggeration does get people sent off, but at least we have the TMO in rugby and they can look at it again to see how much exaggeration was involved before the ref makes his decision.

Applying that to the Hartley 'headbutt' though, personally I think there's nothing in that head to head George made nothing of it really but tempers flared. If George had gone down or staggered puts a different spin on it? Any hard contact I'd be calling for his head.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Exaggertating contact could sway a ref to a yellow or a red though couldn't it? How many times have you heard not enough contact or hasn't impeded the player enough, exagerating may sway that to the felled players  side. Does it become cheating then?

I would like to think that the exaggeration would lead to the ref going to the TMO and then coming to the outcome that it is either a pen or not. That is what we have the TMO for. In football they do not have a TMO so exaggeration does get people sent off, but at least we have the TMO in rugby and they can look at it again to see how much exaggeration was involved before the ref makes his decision.

Applying that to the Hartley 'headbutt' though, personally I think there's nothing in that head to head George made nothing of it really but tempers flared. If George had gone down or staggered puts a different spin on it? Any hard contact I'd be calling for his head.

Correct. As I say a bit of in-game rutting from Hartley but nothing of a serious nature at all. But there was contact and had the other player dropped - like a sack of spuds - Hartley was in even more serious trouble.

Munchkin wrote:I think generally most people would describe the actions of Matawalu as a dive. Not just against Lutton but also against Gilroy.
Ok, you don't see it as a dive, however, it is still cheating. It is cheating because he basically lied through his actions. He behaved in such a way as to fool the officials. There's no other reason to behave like that. He didn't need to behave that way. It was unnatural for him to do so, and in doing so he likely wanted Lutton carded for an offence that didn't merit a card. Now you might argue it did merit a card, but that would be beside the point. The point being that he set out to deceive. He cheated.

Lutton cheated though, he put his arm around Matawalu's neck off the ball and impeded him, Matawalu was not conning anybody, HE WAS BEING FOULED. It did not merit a card, nobody has said this, what it did merit was a pen, and because of the TMO we all saw how much Matawlu milked it, that is why nobody is up in arms about no card given. It does not matter how prattish Matawalu is, it's a pen, plain and simple, Lutton should not have done what he did, if he had not done it, Ulster would be in the final now.

http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/

This article has the GIF that replays over and over and over.....a bit like this conversation

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Exaggertating contact could sway a ref to a yellow or a red though couldn't it? How many times have you heard not enough contact or hasn't impeded the player enough, exagerating may sway that to the felled players  side. Does it become cheating then?

I would like to think that the exaggeration would lead to the ref going to the TMO and then coming to the outcome that it is either a pen or not. That is what we have the TMO for. In football they do not have a TMO so exaggeration does get people sent off, but at least we have the TMO in rugby and they can look at it again to see how much exaggeration was involved before the ref makes his decision.

Applying that to the Hartley 'headbutt' though, personally I think there's nothing in that head to head George made nothing of it really but tempers flared. If George had gone down or staggered puts a different spin on it? Any hard contact I'd be calling for his head.

Correct.  As I say a bit of in-game rutting from Hartley but nothing of a serious nature at all.  But there was contact and had the other player dropped - like a sack of spuds - Hartley was in even more serious trouble.

Yes and it would have been his own fault for doing it in the first place, take out the initial cheat, and then the gamesmanship/exaggeration would go as well.

It baffles me! It really does!

Why oh why do we persist with this idea that a foul needs to be punished based on the severity of the outcome?

Tennis, you hit the ball wide by an inch, you lose the point! Hit it out by 3 ft and you still lose the 1 point! Your opposing tennis player cannot scream at the ref (umpire) "come on mate, that was out by miles, you should give a 2 point penatly for that"

If you punch someone in the face and they are a tough son of a gun and there is no damage, should you get a lesser penalty than someone who punches someone in the face and bursts open their nose?

Both players punched someone in the face! Both players should be red carded!

110% stonewall infringement by Ulster player. A fitting end to sum up this season's Ulster campaign if we're honest.

Pete330v2 wrote:http://www.the42.ie/niko-matawalu-dive-pro12-ulster-glasgow-2122111-May2015/

This article has the GIF that replays over and over and over.....a bit like this conversation

Being a bit pedantic here but that shows Lutton made contact and Niko went down. A reverse angle would show if the contact involved a grab/pull which would have spun Niko or not.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I think generally most people would describe the actions of Matawalu as a dive. Not just against Lutton but also against Gilroy.
Ok, you don't see it as a dive, however, it is still cheating. It is cheating because he basically lied through his actions. He behaved in such a way as to fool the officials. There's no other reason to behave like that. He didn't need to behave that way. It was unnatural for him to do so, and in doing so he likely wanted Lutton carded for an offence that didn't merit a card. Now you might argue it did merit a card, but that would be beside the point. The point being that he set out to deceive. He cheated.

Lutton cheated though, he put his arm around Matawalu's neck off the ball and impeded him, Matawalu was not conning anybody, HE WAS BEING FOULED. It did not merit a card, nobody has said this, what it did merit was a pen, and because of the TMO we all saw how much Matawlu milked it, that is why nobody is up in arms about no card given. It does not matter how prattish Matawalu is, it's a pen, plain and simple, Lutton should not have done what he did, if he had not done it, Ulster would be in the final now.

You claim Lutton cheated, and let's say I agree. Ok, Lutton cheated, but Lutton cheating doesn't magically cancel out Matawalu's cheating. If Lutton cheated then they both cheated.

Your own description of 'miking it' describes cheating. He milked the injury and he also faked the impact of Lutton tugging him back. He cheated. There is no other way to describe this unless you honestly believe that lying is not cheating? I doubt you do.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Exaggertating contact could sway a ref to a yellow or a red though couldn't it? How many times have you heard not enough contact or hasn't impeded the player enough, exagerating may sway that to the felled players  side. Does it become cheating then?

I would like to think that the exaggeration would lead to the ref going to the TMO and then coming to the outcome that it is either a pen or not. That is what we have the TMO for. In football they do not have a TMO so exaggeration does get people sent off, but at least we have the TMO in rugby and they can look at it again to see how much exaggeration was involved before the ref makes his decision.

Applying that to the Hartley 'headbutt' though, personally I think there's nothing in that head to head George made nothing of it really but tempers flared. If George had gone down or staggered puts a different spin on it? Any hard contact I'd be calling for his head.

Correct.  As I say a bit of in-game rutting from Hartley but nothing of a serious nature at all.  But there was contact and had the other player dropped - like a sack of spuds - Hartley was in even more serious trouble.

Yes and it would have been his own fault for doing it in the first place, take out the initial cheat, and then the gamesmanship/exaggeration would go as well.

So it would be fine in your opinion had George done that? Clearly (in my eyes) the 'headbutt' wasn't a red card offence but if George had trciked the ref into thinking it was harder Hartley would have deserved it even though his challenge without the reaction wouldn't have deserved it? I realise some will differ with me over the example and the severity but you get my point hopefully?

Munchkin wrote:Your own description of 'miking it' describes cheating. He milked the injury and he also faked the impact of Lutton tugging him back. He cheated. There is no other way to describe this unless you honestly believe that lying is not cheating? I doubt you do.

But Lutton should have never done it in the first place, when I first saw it on Friday night my initial thought was a pen for Glasgow. That has not changed, the only person who cheated was Lutton, he should have kept his hands off him, why do you not see this ?

Anyone notice that it's always the fairy boy backs that do the diving?

You wouldn't catch a card carrying member of the front row union ever "diving".

No 7&1/2 wrote:I realise some will differ with me over the example and the severity but you get my point hopefully?

Yes I do get your point, but what I am saying is, that if the initial offence had not taken place, then there would be no need for the nonsense that follows.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I realise some will differ with me over the example and the severity but you get my point hopefully?

Yes I do get your point, but what I am saying is, that if the initial offence had not taken place, then there would be no need for the nonsense that follows.

Yes I understand that but: would you be fine if George had trciked the ref into thinking it was harder Hartley would have deserved it even though his challenge without the reaction wouldn't have deserved it?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Your own description of 'miking it' describes cheating. He milked the injury and he also faked the impact of Lutton tugging him back. He cheated. There is no other way to describe this unless you honestly believe that lying is not cheating? I doubt you do.

But Lutton should have never done it in the first place, when I first saw it on Friday night my initial thought was a pen for Glasgow. That has not changed, the only person who cheated was Lutton, he should have kept his hands off him, why do you not see this ?

Don't agree. Why do you think penalties are reversed? Cheating is cheating is cheating is cheating, LD. If one person cheats another, and that other cheats in return, they have both cheated. If you lie to me, and I lie to you in response, the fact that you lied to me first does not change the fact that I lied as well. I would have still lied. It doesn't matter who lied first. Both lied.

Imagine in a court of law the defendant is accused of cheating. His response is to claim that although he did cheat he didn't really because he was cheated on first, thus cancelling out his own cheat. How do you think the court would view that claim? I think with ridicule.