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?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: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".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI7KkIEWIJ0#t=1m10s

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.

Should all Initial Offences be always legitimately followed by Nonsense?

Initial Offences is what Irish, English, Welsh, Scottish, South African, New Zealand etc etc players do now and will engage in well into the future.  If you say that Matawalu incident will bring about a serious reflection of the merits of blocking then you're guilty of naïve idealism.

It ain't going to happen.  And neither will you want it to happen as a player blocking in off-the-ball shenanigans is a player doing his coached duty.  They are coached to do it.  You won't want it ended.  And you'll want to turn a blind eye to it in future games.  You won't want to see guys going down like sacks of spuds if its your players doing their 'duty'.

So we're back to it. If refs catch the blockers then they should be carded. If refs see Matawalu types over-acting then they should card them. Kill two birds with one stone. Card the lot of them.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: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".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI7KkIEWIJ0#t=1m10s

Yellows to both of them...or rather red to the headbutter and yellow to the spud bag.

Munchkin wrote:

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.

But Matawalu did not cheat, there is nothing in the laws about over exaggerating, there is about holding players back off the ball though and that is what happened.

Ill try once more: if an exaggeration leads to an incorrect card, is that cheating and should it go unpunished?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

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?

No I would not be happy if George got up a few minutes later and carried on playing after he got Hartley sent off, and I would hope he gets the same treatment as Matawalu is getting on here, but I would be more furious with Hartley for putting himself in that position in the first place, it happened a few years ago, in a game I was actually at in Gloucester, that is why I remember it so clearly, Oliver Azam went down like a sack of spuds and held his face whilst rolling on the floor when Tom James leant his head into him after Azam kicked him from behind. A red card for James and Azam was playing five minutes later, yes I was peeved with Azam, but I was more furious with Tom James for putting himself in that position.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

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.

But Matawalu did not cheat, there is nothing in the laws about over exaggerating, there is about holding players back off the ball though and that is what happened.

You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

I'm thinking you're holding unto this straw of how you define cheating as without this straw your argument sinks. Although I think it has already.

Here's an earlier response from me:

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.

Munchkin wrote: He behaved in such a way as to fool the officials

Ok so what did he fool the officials with ?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

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?

No I would not be happy if George got up a few minutes later and carried on playing after he got Hartley sent off, and I would hope he gets the same treatment as Matawalu is getting on here, but I would be more furious with Hartley for putting himself in that position in the first place, it happened a few years ago, in a game I was actually at in Gloucester, that is why I remember it so clearly, Oliver Azam went down like a sack of spuds and held his face whilst rolling on the floor when Tom James leant his head into him after Azam kicked him from behind. A red card for James and Azam was playing five minutes later, yes I was peeved with Azam, but I was more furious with Tom James for putting himself in that position.

Cheats prosper then!

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote: He behaved in such a way as to fool the officials

Ok so what did he fool the officials with ?

His actions. Isn't that obvious?

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote: He behaved in such a way as to fool the officials

Ok so what did he fool the officials with ?

His actions. Isn't that obvious?

Yes, I know this but what was his aim, what was he trying to make them believe happened, that did not really happen ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote: He behaved in such a way as to fool the officials

Ok so what did he fool the officials with ?

His actions. Isn't that obvious?

Yes, I know this but what was his aim, what was he trying to make them believe happened, that did not really happen ?

He didn't allow the officials to call Lutton out on his pull. If the officials failed to respond to what Matawalu believed was a foul, if he did believe it, then there is a process of compliant. Instead of either trusting the officials to penalise Lutton, or engage in the process of complaint, his first thought was to dive/exaggerate his reaction, and in doing so he deceived the officials into taking action. He basically lied. He made a mockery of the officail process as laid down by law. He cheated to get his own way.

Now, what about answering my question:

You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

What i still can not get is how do people KNOW he dived

The picture shows he was grabbed around the throat while running at full pelt

Legs fly out when that happens - physics you know

He landed flat on his face - watch it - that is what happens

he might have been winded

YOU AND I DO NOT KNOW - but you are managing to be a jury and executioner on this


but the hysterical outpouring on this and other sites is embarrassing - as it just smacks of sour grapes

Should there not be thread on every game about the front row who go down on one knee and need a trainer just before every scrum - that is CHEATING as they are FAKING according to the criteria here

What about scrum halfs pushing each other at each scrum _CHEATS THE LOT OF THEM

What about players that carry on when they know they have knocked on - but it is missed - another hysterical outpouring needed

I think most are agreed it was a dive. Do you really think we are being hysterical?

I would like to get away from using Matawalu as an example, even though it is both recent and relevant. It does tend to muddy the waters though, and make reasoned debate on the act of diving/play acting that bit more difficult.
The debate shouldn't be about defending Matawalu, or Lutton for that matter. It should be about diving/play acting and how we think it best dealt with in rugby union.

Munchkin wrote:You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

What I see as diving and what you see as diving are two completely different things, I see diving as someone going to ground without any contact, you see diving as somebody who has been impeded and over exaggerating.

If you go to ground without contact you are a cheater, if somebody is cheating you and you exaggerate it, you are not cheating you are acting like a pansy to get the refs attention, two different things.

Munchkin wrote:He didn't allow the officials to call Lutton out on his pull. If the officials failed to respond to what Matawalu believed was a foul, if he did believe it, then there is a process of compliant. Instead of either trusting the officials to penalise Lutton, or engage in the process of complaint, his first thought was to dive/exaggerate his reaction, and in doing so he deceived the officials into taking action. He basically lied. He made a mockery of the officail process as laid down by law. He cheated to get his own way.

So he conned the refs into making the right decision.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

What I see as diving and what you see as diving are two completely different things, I see diving as someone going to ground without any contact, you see diving as somebody who has been impeded and over exaggerating.

If you go to ground without contact you are a cheater, if somebody is cheating you and you exaggerate it, you are not cheating you are acting like a pansy to get the refs attention, two different things.

You are not answering the question. Here is your comment:

"But Matawalu did not cheat, there is nothing in the laws about over exaggerating, there is about holding players back off the ball though and that is what happened."

The bit in bold is what my question is based on. So:

You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

And also increasing the chance of an unfair card. Not all pulls etc are considered fouls let this spread it will. Trying to deceive the ref into thinking something is worse than it is is wrong.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:He didn't allow the officials to call Lutton out on his pull. If the officials failed to respond to what Matawalu believed was a foul, if he did believe it, then there is a process of compliant. Instead of either trusting the officials to penalise Lutton, or engage in the process of complaint, his first thought was to dive/exaggerate his reaction, and in doing so he deceived the officials into taking action. He basically lied. He made a mockery of the officail process as laid down by law. He cheated to get his own way.

So he conned the refs into making the right decision.

First of all, this is more about how diving can be dealt with in rugby union. Not so much about who is more right than wrong in the Lutton/Matawalu incident. Next, players have been wrongly carded in the past because officials were fooled into making the wrong decisions by being fooled by a dive. Next, even if you are right and the officials were fooled into making the right decision, the very act of fooling is cheating. This has been my argument to you. Two wrongs don't make a right. One person cheating does not cancel out anothers.

P.s and lastly, Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury. You yourself have stated that a card wouldn't have been deserved, and so if Lutton had have been carded, then according to your own judgement Matawalu's actions would have fooled the officials into making the wrong decision.....

The whole idea that if there is contact then it can't be a dive, is something exclusive to soccer and a red herring in this debate. Rugby is a contact sport whereas soccer isn't, so diving needs to be defined differently in rugby. A player can effect a theatrical dive with legal contact just as much as with illegal contact in rugby.

What concerns me with Matawalu is how he will be received on Saturday. The vast majority of fans who saw the incident consider him a cheat and there will no doubt be a number of boos when he takes to the pitch. Hopefully it won't be too bad but that footballesque behaviour is something to be abhorred and kept out of the game - especially on a showpiece occasion.

Surely the best way to deal with such a situation is for the citing commissioner to cite the incident and let it be tested before the normal panel?

The Great Aukster wrote:The whole idea that if there is contact then it can't be a dive, is something exclusive to soccer and a red herring in this debate. Rugby is a contact sport whereas soccer isn't, so diving needs to be defined differently in rugby. A player can effect a theatrical dive with legal contact just as much as with illegal contact in rugby.

What concerns me with Matawalu is how he will be received on Saturday. The vast majority of fans who saw the incident consider him a cheat and there will no doubt be a number of boos when he takes to the pitch. Hopefully it won't be too bad but that footballesque behaviour is something to be abhorred and kept out of the game - especially on a showpiece occasion.

Let's be honest here. The part in bold is inaccurate. Sure cheat is the word most will use, but it doesn't fit. Why you ask? Well because the game is full of cheaters - but we don't mind these cheaters, especially if they are good at it, in our team, and don't get caught.

So it's not simply that he's a cheat. In reality - most people feel that his reaction was not becoming of a proper masculine male.

In layman's terms, people are disgusted by him being such a 'nancy'.

The rugby refs along with it's players and spectators left the stable door ajar, and the horse of cheating has long since bolted. What's more, nobody can be bothered to go and find the damn horse again...

The evidence from that various rugby media like Scrum V, Against the Head, BBC NI, social media, and fora like this one is that they decry Matawalu as a cheat, so I'd be interested to see your evidence that the part in bold is inaccurate?

I feel I have already done so Aukster. But I will try to be clearer.

If it was simply cheating in general which you found so disgusting, you would be annoyed long before now (which I have been). My claim is that those getting annoyed now only in this example of cheating, are getting annoyed more because the actions of Matawalu are deemed to be less manly than our sport has a reputation for.

You think he's a big girls blouse, or whatever other way you prefer to phrase it.

But stop saying you've had enough of 'cheating'. Because it isn't true. The vast majority of posters on this thread have agreed that some cheating is just to be expected and do not hold it in the same disdain.

If you think he's a 'nancy' just say it - none of this pretend respect of the laws bullsh1t.

Yeah, calling a player a Nancy when guilty of diving might induce players to think twice.  So there is merit in renaming the act.

But it's also a needless insult I suppose.  All players that play in this modern game that can be oh-so-physical kinda demand the respect of being hard men putting their bodies and health on the line each weekend.

So 'Cheat' is a more manly term that should equally cause players to think twice.  It mightn't change divers but I think 'Cheat' should sting as much as 'Nancy' to a proud player who wants the respect of his peers.

Cheating happens from the first minute to the last in virtually all games - yes;  - but like I said much earlier - it's a code of manliness that we're discussing.  
Rugby regards itself as a hard sport where players can take a hit (and many of them are women!).  If certain players want to begin to pretend that they can't take the hits then that makes many of us wince.  Yes a genuine hard hit that floors a player is a hard hit and there is no shame in being knocked senseless.  But when it's a bluff, it's just wrong.  Too many players have played it hard and had hard careers to turn the game now over to the glory of play-actors.

So you think this was an example of cheating, but you disagree with others focusing on this example whilst ignoring all the others?

I don't think it was an example of a player being a nancy. It was simply an act of cheating.

I think our priorities are wrong if we are splitting cheating into two columns - a nancy column, and a 'great if you can get away with it' column.

If it really is the game of honour, and a true test of skill, where the ref is fully respected, then there should be equal disdain for all who set foot outside of what is lawful.

I'm quite clearly in the minority here - but I honestly find the idea of shirt pulling just as distasteful as diving.

And yea, I've heard the argument that one is an attempt to get a player carded. But the problem here is the fact that refs are increasingly penalising the outcome rather than the action. Which is wrong.

Refs being affected by the seriousness of an injury only further encourages rolling around in a frenzy. Refs at fault there.

I have to admit I think diving is much worse than shirt pulling, Clive. I get where you're coming from. I just don't see it that way. A player can only get himself into trouble for pulling another players shirt. The sole aim of a diver is to get his opponent into trouble, and possibly carded. That's much worse for me. I wouldn't rank it as high an offence as gouging because the act of gouging could possibly blind someone, but I do think diving ranks alongside other yellow card offences.
I think for me it's not so much I ignore the other forms of cheating. It's more that diving isn't really acted upon when all the others are. Or at least they are a lot of the time, and we understand more clearly that there are laws against this type of behaviour.
Yes, ref's are penalising the outcome, and yes, it does encourage players to play act more than they would otherwise, but divers are still hoping to influence officials to wrongly cite players under existing laws whether or not those officials penalise on outcome.

clivemcl wrote:I think our priorities are wrong if we are splitting cheating into two columns - a nancy column, and a 'great if you can get away with it' column.

If it really is the game of honour, and a true test of skill, where the ref is fully respected, then there should be equal disdain for all who set foot outside of what is lawful.

I'm quite clearly in the minority here - but I honestly find the idea of shirt pulling just as distasteful as diving.

And yea, I've heard the argument that one is an attempt to get a player carded. But the problem here is the fact that refs are increasingly penalising the outcome rather than the action. Which is wrong.

Refs being affected by the seriousness of an injury only further encourages rolling around in a frenzy. Refs at fault there.

I do too.  But as always in these debates, someone says something like that but the 'AS' part seldom really rings true.

IF the shirt pulling is as distasteful AS diving, then the conclusion is that Diving is distasteful - period.  And that's what this thread is about.  We've had threads on taking men out in the air, we've had them on gouging, we've had them on stamping.  And yes, we all have opinions but why can't everyone agree if we agree?

'Why pick on Diving only?', might be the constant question.  Because that's the topic due to the event that took place.  Next week will be something else.  But for now, diving is the issue.

You have my agreement Secretfly et al!

Diving should be dealth with more than it is. No doubt. That said, I do think it is a slight grey area when asking a ref to determine if somebody actually got hurt as much as they seem to have been.

If a replay shows no actual contact - easy peasy - but in cases of contact, it may not be quite so simple for a ref to judge "no way that could have hurt!", and confidently go to his pocket.

clivemcl wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The whole idea that if there is contact then it can't be a dive, is something exclusive to soccer and a red herring in this debate. Rugby is a contact sport whereas soccer isn't, so diving needs to be defined differently in rugby. A player can effect a theatrical dive with legal contact just as much as with illegal contact in rugby.

What concerns me with Matawalu is how he will be received on Saturday. The vast majority of fans who saw the incident consider him a cheat and there will no doubt be a number of boos when he takes to the pitch. Hopefully it won't be too bad but that footballesque behaviour is something to be abhorred and kept out of the game - especially on a showpiece occasion.

Let's be honest here. The part in bold is inaccurate. Sure cheat is the word most will use, but it doesn't fit. Why you ask? Well because the game is full of cheaters - but we don't mind these cheaters, especially if they are good at it, in our team, and don't get caught.

The Great Aukster wrote:The evidence from that various rugby media like Scrum V, Against the Head, BBC NI, social media, and fora like this one is that they decry Matawalu as a cheat, so I'd be interested to see your evidence that the part in bold is inaccurate?

clivemcl wrote:I feel I have already done so Aukster. But I will try to be clearer.

If it was simply cheating in general which you found so disgusting, you would be annoyed long before now (which I have been). My claim is that those getting annoyed now only in this example of cheating, are getting annoyed more because the actions of Matawalu are deemed to be less manly than our sport has a reputation for.

You think he's a big girls blouse, or whatever other way you prefer to phrase it.

But stop saying you've had enough of 'cheating'. Because it isn't true. The vast majority of posters on this thread have agreed that some cheating is just to be expected and do not hold it in the same disdain.

If you think he's a 'nancy' just say it - none of this pretend respect of the laws bullsh1t.

My assertion is that the "majority of fans who saw the incident consider him a cheat".
You then disagree by saying "The part in bold is inaccurate", but then immediately contradict yourself by agreeing with "Sure cheat is the word most will use".

Given the ambiguity in this I then asked for your evidence (not opinion) as to why the majority wouldn't consider Matawalu a cheat - ie what part of that was inaccurate. You say you already have but I haven't found this (at least on this thread) so all I'm asking is to point it out.

Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

Does it really matter whether diving is explicitly covered in the Laws or not right now?
We certainly seem agreed we want to get rid of it, so what do we do going forwards?
If clearly no contact, then a yellow?
If a judgement call after some contact, up to the referee's discretion?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

....When he did the Pirouette with quarter twist and gun-shot drop...

Special player

doctor_grey wrote:Does it really matter whether diving is explicitly covered in the Laws or not right now?
We certainly seem agreed we want to get rid of it, so what do we do going forwards?  
If clearly no contact, then a yellow?
If a judgement call after some contact, up to the referee's discretion?

This.

[quote="Luckless Pedestrian"][quote="Munchkin"]Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.[/quote]

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?[/quote]

Wind your horns in, numpty. I have watched the clips several times, and based on the evidence I viewed, I concluded that Matawalu feigned injury to fool officials into carding Lutton. You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough.

gun shot Jackie Chan schmaltz drops red.

doctor_grey wrote:Does it really matter whether diving is explicitly covered in the Laws or not right now?
We certainly seem agreed we want to get rid of it, so what do we do going forwards?  
If clearly no contact, then a yellow?
If a judgement call after some contact, up to the referee's discretion?

I think it matters because with current laws nothing is happening to counter diving.

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

What I see as diving and what you see as diving are two completely different things, I see diving as someone going to ground without any contact, you see diving as somebody who has been impeded and over exaggerating.

If you go to ground without contact you are a cheater, if somebody is cheating you and you exaggerate it, you are not cheating you are acting like a pansy to get the refs attention, two different things.

You are not answering the question. Here is your comment:

"But Matawalu did not cheat, there is nothing in the laws about over exaggerating, there is about holding players back off the ball though and that is what happened."

The bit in bold is what my question is based on. So:

You can equally say there is nothing in the laws about diving.....yet you say diving is cheating.....why?

So, LD, are you going to answer this question?

Munchkin wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

Wind your horns in, numpty. I have watched the clips several times, and based on the evidence I viewed, I concluded that Matawalu feigned injury to fool officials into carding Lutton. You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough.

How can you actually claim it was intentionally to get a card? I can accept it was to get a pen, but to get a card?

Also the evidence viewed doesn't even 100% prove that it was over-egged. If Lutton had pulled with the arm that he had around Niko, then it would have caused him to go down in a similar way to the way he did go.

You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough, unless you can get a confession from him and then I will apologise.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

Wind your horns in, numpty. I have watched the clips several times, and based on the evidence I viewed, I concluded that Matawalu feigned injury to fool officials into carding Lutton. You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough.

How can you actually claim it was intentionally to get a card?  I can accept it was to get a pen, but to get a card?

Also the evidence viewed doesn't even 100% prove that it was over-egged.  If Lutton had pulled with the arm that he had around Niko, then it would have caused him to go down in a similar way to the way he did go.

You don't agree? Fine.  You don't like it? Tough, unless you can get a confession from him and then I will apologise.

He dived to get the penalty. He feigned injury to have Lutton carded. Why else would he feign injury?

Not over egged? Try viewing with both your eyes next time, Scarlets. Very few would claim that Matawalu didn't play act. Not even the Warriors fans!

P.s It's my opinion that Matawalu attempted to have Lutton carded. I believe it's a more than reasonable deduction. You don't agree, then fine, you don't agree.

Munchkin wrote:So, LD, are you going to answer this question?

I have answered it yesterday, I am not going over old ground again just to suit you.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:So, LD, are you going to answer this question?

I have answered it yesterday, I am not going over old ground again just to suit you.

No you didn't and you know you didn't. You're being dishonest, LD, and the reason you won't answer is because you know you have been caught out.

Munchkin wrote:He dived to get the penalty.

He did not dive, for the umpteenth time, he was pulled back, yes he made it worst with his acting, but he was still pulled back. A dive would have been if Matawalu went down without Lutton touching him.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:He dived to get the penalty.

He did not dive, for the umpteenth time, he was pulled back, yes he made it worst with his acting, but he was still pulled back. A dive would have been if Matawalu went down without Lutton touching him.

You don't view it as diving, LD. I can accept that. I view it as diving, and you telling me otherwise isn't going to convince me you are right. Accept it, LD

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:So, LD, are you going to answer this question?

I have answered it yesterday, I am not going over old ground again just to suit you.

No you didn't and you know you didn't. You're being dishonest, LD, and the reason you won't answer is because you know you have been caught out.

Ah, FFS, ok I will answer you for the LAST time. A dive is when somebody goes to ground when there is NO CONTACT. That should result in a pen against the actor and a card for the actor.

Exaggerating being fouled is different, even though you are acting outside the "ethics" of the game, you are still being fouled. So the person doing the foul should be reprimanded to how the ref sees fit. If the ref wants to have a word with the player about is nonsense then fine.

Ok, that is the last time I am saying this to you so please take my answer and disagree all you want, but I will not answer again.

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Matawalu was looking to get Lutton carded by feigning injury.

Was he? Oh right, I'm glad that's an established fact now. When did he tell you?

Wind your horns in, numpty. I have watched the clips several times, and based on the evidence I viewed, I concluded that Matawalu feigned injury to fool officials into carding Lutton. You don't agree? Fine. You don't like it? Tough.

How can you actually claim it was intentionally to get a card?  I can accept it was to get a pen, but to get a card?

Also the evidence viewed doesn't even 100% prove that it was over-egged.  If Lutton had pulled with the arm that he had around Niko, then it would have caused him to go down in a similar way to the way he did go.

You don't agree? Fine.  You don't like it? Tough, unless you can get a confession from him and then I will apologise.

He dived to get the penalty. He feigned injury to have Lutton carded. Why else would he feign injury?

Not over egged? Try viewing with both your eyes next time, Scarlets. Very few would claim that Matawalu didn't play act. Not even the Warriors fans!

P.s It's my opinion that Matawalu attempted to have Lutton carded. I believe it's a more than reasonable deduction. You don't agree, then fine, you don't agree.

Yes because me being neutral would mean I would be one-eyed on the subject, where as I would assume an Ulster fan would possibly not be in such a fortunate position to be looking at it binocularly. But it is good to see your keeping your cool on this one, and not just jumping on the opinons of others that vary from your own.

If you look at the footage, Lutton's arm is definitely in contact with Niko's chest/collar area. The shot is from behind, so it is unable to see if it is an open hand, a closed hand that is not holding onto the shirt/player, or a closed hand gripping the shirt/player. So without seeing another angle to see what Lutton's hand was doing, it is not possible to say if there was a pull, which would cause the player to go down, or if there was a very over-exaggerated fall.

Also seeing as there has been no citing for either player over this I would also say that, regardless of what people on internet forums, journos, and ex-players are saying, the powers that be do seem to think that either a) there is no issue to be dealt with, b) there is no evidence to actually prove there was an issue, or c) that they can't be bothered to do anything.

When a player is down there are numerous reasons for them to stay down, tiredness, annoyance, laziness, injury etc. To just jumpt

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:So, LD, are you going to answer this question?

I have answered it yesterday, I am not going over old ground again just to suit you.

No you didn't and you know you didn't. You're being dishonest, LD, and the reason you won't answer is because you know you have been caught out.

Send him to the naughty step with Matawalu then.

I'd consider a dive going to ground when you could have stayed on your feet. You're choosing to go to ground. Refs make decisions with varying degrees of contact, impact to play, outcome to player. Throwing yourself to the floor (diving in my eyes) is trying to buy pens and cards.