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?

The thing for me as has been pointed out by others, simulation and exaggeration are two different things. Simulation needs to be stopped, that is going to ruin our game, conning the ref to milk pens. Now, exaggeration for me is different, although I do not like what Matawalu did, he WAS fouled, if he did not exaggerate it,the foul on him would have gone unpunished, it is almost the same as a scrum half waving and pointing out things to the ref at the rucks and scrums.

The only answer to stop the exaggeration, is to not cheat or commit fouls in the first place, certain sides/players are getting a bit of a reputation as of late for being niggly, stop the nonsense and the over exaggerating will stop.

But I do agree simulation needs to stop, full stop. But what Matawalu did on the weekend was not simulation.

Notch wrote: Two of my favourite players in NH rugby are going head to head, Al Kellock and Paul O'Connell. Each one is looking up to finish with silverware in their last ever game for their team, but what should be a celebration of both players careers and two excellent sides has been tarnished on one side because of some very unfortunate and unsportsmanlike actions.

I would ask you to clarify that comment.

Was the hands around the neck the unsportsmanlike conduct or Matawalu's "milking" of the incident?

Both were unsportsmanlike.

However with the game being played at such a high tempo it must be hard for the referees to keep up.

Matawalu. The off the ball incident was stupid and I don't defend it, although it must be said very little contact was made. But exaggerating the contact made and staying down to try and get a player sent off is unsportsmanlike whereas the other is just foul play. Foul play is frustrating to see, but simulation is different. For me, at least.

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

So action rather than actions...or were there more?

The reason I ask Notch is I actually felt both incidents were unsportsmanlike.

To be honest if I was the Ref I would have given the penalty to Glasgow and turned it into a Free Kick to Glasgow because of Matawalu's theatrics.

The ref's need to slam this one down hard or it will only get worse.

It was a penalty but the milking off the incident is bad.

I do feel for Glasgow here though. For many years Scottish teams have been criticized for not being "streetwise". Scottish teams are now starting to demonstrate streetwise behavior and now getting slated.

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

Well that all depends on how you interpret the laws which describe 'ungentlemanly conduct'. But whether he cheated or not is not the point for me. I agree the right decision was reached and the Ulster player was guilty of a penalty offence. That's not the reason I was disgusted by Matawalu. I said his actions were unsportsmanlike, not that they were cheating, because on several occasions he tried to influence the referee into showing a card by exaggerating any contact that was made and staying down even though he was unhurt. For me there is an essential difference between doing something stupid in the heat of the moment, or trying to gain an advantage at the breakdown through borderline illegal play, than there is actively feigning injury or exaggerating contact to try and get an opposition player sin-binned. The former actions are trying to gain an advantage and yes they are breaking the rules and should be dealt with. But the latter action really is disrespectful to your opponents in a way other forms of foul play are not.

This isn't about penalties begin awarded, because the right decision was reached with the penalties. This is about the fact that I have no respect for the way he conducted himself on the field and therefore it tarnishes how I perceive his team. It's not that I think Ulster were hard done by and Glasgow weren't deserving winners- we got what we deserved out of the game and Glasgow capitalised very well on some stupidity by us. For me, this is only about losing respect for how certain players behaved. I feel that Matawalus conduct was disrespectful to us and I certainly do not want to see him get a medal out of it at the weekend. However, I have no problem admitting that it was Ulsters indiscipline which cost us.

I also have no problem with Ulster players pointing out that Matawalus conduct was pretty shameful. For me, thats not being a bad loser. No-one is saying Glasgow didn't deserve to win. Just that he didn't play the game in the spirit of mutual respect.

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

Well that all depends on how you interpret the laws which describe 'ungentlemanly conduct'. But whether he cheated or not is not the point for me. I agree the right decision was reached and the Ulster player was guilty of a penalty offence. That's not the reason I was disgusted by Matawalu. I said his actions were unsportsmanlike, not that they were cheating, because on several occasions he tried to influence the referee into showing a card by exaggerating any contact that was made and staying down even though he was unhurt. For me there is an essential difference between doing something stupid in the heat of the moment, or trying to gain an advantage at the breakdown through borderline illegal play, than there is actively feigning injury or exaggerating contact to try and get an opposition player sin-binned. The latter action really is disrespectful to your opponents.

This isn't about penalties begin awarded, when the right decision was reached with the penalties. This is about the fact that I have no respect for the way he conducted himself on the field and therefore it tarnishes how I perceive his team. It's not that I think Ulster were hard done by and Glasgow weren't deserving winners- we got what we deserved out of the game and Glasgow capitalised very well on some stupidity by us. For me, this is only about losing respect for how certain players behaved. I feel that Matawalus conduct was disrespectful to us and I don't want to see him get a medal out of it at the weekend. However, I have no problem admitting that it was Ulsters indiscipline which cost us.

The same could be said about Biggar when he was demanding a Red Card against Finn Russel in the 6N. A lot of players are unduly trying to interfere with and influence refereeing decision.

I agree with everything you say, Hammer, but I have no sympathy for a player who dives out of some sense of injustice. For me to condone such an act would be for me to condone a player ignoring the law, taking the law into his own hands, and impose his own sense of justice. It's still cheating, and two wrongs don't make a right. That player should report any incident to his captain who in turn should make the official aware of any foul play.
If we are to condone an act of diving because it has an appearance of right justice, then it won't be long before players seek to milk penalties, have players carded, for no other reason than it gives their team a distinct advantage over the other. Players can position their bodies in such a way, and react in such a way, as to appear to have been fouled. This is already happening, and the concern is that this type of cheating will become more of an issue if it is not addressed by IRB shortly.

LordDowlais wrote:The thing for me as has been pointed out by others, simulation and exaggeration are two different things. Simulation needs to be stopped, that is going to ruin our game, conning the ref to milk pens. Now, exaggeration for me is different, although I do not like what Matawalu did, he WAS fouled, if he did not exaggerate it,the foul on him would have gone unpunished, it is almost the same as a scrum half waving and pointing out things to the ref at the rucks and scrums.

The only answer to stop the exaggeration, is to not cheat or commit fouls in the first place, certain sides/players are getting a bit of a reputation as of late for being niggly, stop the nonsense and the over exaggerating will stop.

But I do agree simulation needs to stop, full stop. But what Matawalu did on the weekend was not simulation.

aaaaaand there's one of the thankfully very few who will continue to defend this pathetic practice.

Hypothetical scenario for you all:

A grubber has been kicked through. You chase back as a defender. There are two attackers chasing to ground the ball over the line.

One attacker goes for the ball, the other attacker runs slightly towards the corner flag shoulder to shoulder with you.

Oh... and you are leading by 4 points, and its the 79th minute of a cup final.

The test in this case should be one thing and one thing only - whoever is fastest should dominate.

The other attacker whose only interest is restricting you and slowing you, or directing you.

His shoulder barges yours, your chance of winning the race is now gone.

Do you go down??


Seriously be honest with yourself. Do you go down?


You know you weren't being allowed to compete on speed. You know your chance of getting to the ball first is now gone.

Do you hope the ref might see you shoulder on shoulder struggle?

Or do you go down??

Be honest.

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

He clearly cheated.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
The same could be said about Biggar when he was demanding a Red Card against Finn Russel in the 6N. A lot of players are unduly trying to interfere with and influence refereeing decision.

And it fecking grinds my gears man. You're never going to stamp out foul play entirely, and you're never going to stamp out rule-breaking (especially when the rules are so complex) but heat of the moment offences are one thing. Trying to get players sent off is just... conduct unbecoming. Like fans booing kicks or refereeing decisions, waving imaginary cards, exaggerating contact and feigning injury- all of that, for me, is just disrespectful. Thats the issue. There's no respect shown to your opponent there. Thats different to foul play imo. Foul play comes from trying to gain an advantage in the heat of the moment, but you can shake hands at full time. Rolling around on the ground pretending to be injured... I wouldn't be shaking hands with that player at full time.

clivemcl wrote:You know you weren't being allowed to compete on speed. You know your chance of getting to the ball first is now gone.

Do you hope the ref might see you shoulder on shoulder struggle?

Or do you go down??

Be honest.

No, it's not in my nature. All of that shoulder on shoulder stuff is part of the game, natural competition, two players jostling while trying to win the chase. The player running the blocking line is trying to push you off- competitive instinct is pushing past him. Rugby isn't just about speed, but character and strength. Do you have the character and strength to try and outmuscle the other guy and give everything to try and get to the ball first even if the chase is hopeless? It's exactly the problem. You can either give up the fight and try to con the ref or you can fight back and try to outmuscle the guy running into you. What you choose to do here says a lot about you, and a lot about the nature you compete with.

Of course this scenario is a far cry from the more clear cut feigning we saw on Friday

clivemcl wrote:Hypothetical scenario for you all:

A grubber has been kicked through. You chase back as a defender. There are two attackers chasing to ground the ball over the line.

One attacker goes for the ball, the other attacker runs slightly towards the corner flag shoulder to shoulder with you.

Oh... and you are leading by 4 points, and its the 79th minute of a cup final.

The test in this case should be one thing and one thing only - whoever is fastest should dominate.

The other attacker whose only interest is restricting you and slowing you, or directing you.

His shoulder barges yours, your chance of winning the race is now gone.

Do you go down??


Seriously be honest with yourself. Do you go down?


You know you weren't being allowed to compete on speed. You know your chance of getting to the ball first is now gone.

Do you hope the ref might see you shoulder on shoulder struggle?

Or do you go down??

Be honest.

A player can legally nudge another player in that scenario. A player who isn't strong enough to deal with that nudge, whether legal or not, would be wrong to take a dive. If the player was illegally prevented from competing for the ball then that player has to trust the officials to penalise his opposition.

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

But holding someone back, around the neck, off the ball, is fine?

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.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

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

But holding someone back, around the neck, off the ball, is fine?

Glaws got a guy red carded for a similar offence in the Euro Challenge final against Edinburgh.

Not saying the Ulser guy should have been red carded. However consistency from the referees is getting worse not better.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

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

But holding someone back, around the neck, off the ball, is fine?

A penalty for the high tackle and a yellow for Oscar class acting?

Or...

A yellow for off the ball high tackle and a yellow for Oscar class acting?

Maybe that's the problem in the ref's minds - it's usually an either/or with them.  It can be yellow for both though.  Would that make people admit that cheating has many forms and that two people could be cheating at one time?  It's not always either/or.

BTW - when I mention 'Oscar' - I do of course mean Over-acting...both in role and in 'Thank you' speeches

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

He clearly cheated.

You show me where he cheated then ? For me what Matawalu did,was no different to a scrum half waving his arms about and pointing things out to the ref during the ruck or scrum, he made the ref AWARE that he himself was being cheated.

clivemcl wrote:Hypothetical scenario for you all:

A grubber has been kicked through. You chase back as a defender. There are two attackers chasing to ground the ball over the line.

One attacker goes for the ball, the other attacker runs slightly towards the corner flag shoulder to shoulder with you.

Oh... and you are leading by 4 points, and its the 79th minute of a cup final.

The test in this case should be one thing and one thing only - whoever is fastest should dominate.

The other attacker whose only interest is restricting you and slowing you, or directing you.

His shoulder barges yours, your chance of winning the race is now gone.

Do you go down??


Seriously be honest with yourself. Do you go down?


You know you weren't being allowed to compete on speed. You know your chance of getting to the ball first is now gone.

Do you hope the ref might see you shoulder on shoulder struggle?

Or do you go down??

Be honest.

If it was a hard enough nudge to knock me off balance and therefore knock me over then I'd obviously have no choice. Other than that I'd be trying like mad to knock him off his feet so I could make my best effort to get to the ball.

Mind you to be honest back in the day, I'd have elbowed him straight on the nose but I was always coached to be a dirty player. Backrows generally were in my day

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.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

He clearly cheated.

You show me where he cheated then ? For me what Matawalu did,was no different to a scrum half waving his arms about and pointing things out to the ref during the ruck or scrum, he made the ref AWARE that he himself was being cheated.

Go look for it yourself. He cheated. Your example of a scrum half fails, and it fails because the scrum half can only point to what he believes are illegal acts, and in doing this he is not breaking the law himself. A player who dives is not necessarily attempting to highlight an illegal act, but rather create what looks like an illegal act by play acting. Even in the case of a player who dives to highlight an illegal act, the player who dives is disregarding the law while attempting to impose his own sense of justice. It's still cheating because the diving player is still creating a false reality.

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

He clearly cheated.

You show me where he cheated then ? For me what Matawalu did,was no different to a scrum half waving his arms about and pointing things out to the ref during the ruck or scrum, he made the ref AWARE that he himself was being cheated.

Go look for it yourself. He cheated. Your example of a scrum half fails, and it fails because the scrum half can only point too what he believes are illegal acts, and in doing this he is not breaking the law himself. A player who dives is not necessarily attempting to highlight an illegal act, but rather create what looks like an illegal act by play acting. Even in the case of a player who dives to highlight an illegal act, the player who dives is disregarding the law while attempting to impose his own sense of justice. It's still cheating because the diving player is still creating a false reality.

So what you are saying is, it was OK for the Ulster player to hold Matawalu back off the ball ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

He clearly cheated.

You show me where he cheated then ? For me what Matawalu did,was no different to a scrum half waving his arms about and pointing things out to the ref during the ruck or scrum, he made the ref AWARE that he himself was being cheated.

Go look for it yourself. He cheated. Your example of a scrum half fails, and it fails because the scrum half can only point too what he believes are illegal acts, and in doing this he is not breaking the law himself. A player who dives is not necessarily attempting to highlight an illegal act, but rather create what looks like an illegal act by play acting. Even in the case of a player who dives to highlight an illegal act, the player who dives is disregarding the law while attempting to impose his own sense of justice. It's still cheating because the diving player is still creating a false reality.

So what you are saying is, it was OK for the Ulster player to hold Matawalu back off the ball ?

Another classic LD arguement, use something that nobody has stated against them.
Who looks the bigger fool I ask you?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Matawalu.

But Matawalu did NOT cheat.

He clearly cheated.

You show me where he cheated then ? For me what Matawalu did,was no different to a scrum half waving his arms about and pointing things out to the ref during the ruck or scrum, he made the ref AWARE that he himself was being cheated.

Go look for it yourself. He cheated. Your example of a scrum half fails, and it fails because the scrum half can only point too what he believes are illegal acts, and in doing this he is not breaking the law himself. A player who dives is not necessarily attempting to highlight an illegal act, but rather create what looks like an illegal act by play acting. Even in the case of a player who dives to highlight an illegal act, the player who dives is disregarding the law while attempting to impose his own sense of justice. It's still cheating because the diving player is still creating a false reality.

So what you are saying is, it was OK for the Ulster player to hold Matawalu back off the ball ?

Am I typing in Chinese? Don't superimpose your own imaginings unto what I type. No, I am not saying that at all. Clearly not. Read through the discussion, LD. You need to catch up on what has actually been said before adding comment.

LordDowlais wrote:

So what you are saying is, it was OK for the Ulster player to hold Matawalu back off the ball ?

Em...nope. But will we look at all games that happened in the last two weeks and see how many off the ball tugs we can see?

It happens. I wish it didn't. But refs even ignore them when looking straight at it happening. Players don't even complain about any of them as they know that they've done a handful themselves in the very same game and intend doing some more if required. You can blatantly see in most games players in hold-back tussles as the game moves on without them...refs not caring... 'don't come near me moaning about it - don't want to hear it'.

Munchkin wrote:Even in the case of a player who dives to highlight an illegal act, the player who dives is disregarding the law while attempting to impose his own sense of justice.

Well what does this mean then ?

Munchkin wrote:It's still cheating because the diving player is still creating a false reality.

How is it creating a false sense of reality, Matawalu was being held back, you cannot deny that. OK his exaggeration was very tw@ttish, but he was being held back, off the ball. If he had not done what he did, the Ulster player would have got away with holding him back. Would that have been fair ?

I must admit that what Niko did made me cringe when I was watching it. He is a guy who has some previous in this type of thing so I don't think we should be too upset that he is leaving in the summer. The theatrical fall was bad but staying down for so long after was much worse.

I don't think that many Glasgow fans would (or could) have complained that much if Clancy awarded then reversed the penalty.

I was looking round the Ulster forum yesterday and some of the stuff there is comically stupid. There are some saying the SRU are systematically using the citing process to cheat, with Ulster being the main target/victim and others saying that Glasgow are the worst example of 'football behaviour' creeping into rugby. If there is anything more 'football behaviour' than milking any slight contact then it is surely bad mouthing a team who have just beaten you on twitter.

On the 'all cheating is the same' issue, I don't agree. I think what Niko did is worse than a 9 pointing at folk in the scrum, although I wouldn't call either cheating. I don't know why I think it is worse, which suggests I could well be wrong, but it just is.

Would be delighted if Toonie dropped him for Saturday, but I'm not sure we have anyone else fit.

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

So what you are saying is, it was OK for the Ulster player to hold Matawalu back off the ball ?

Em...nope.  But will we look at all games that happened in the last two weeks and see how many off the ball tugs we can see?

It happens.  I wish it didn't.  But refs even ignore them when looking straight at it happening.  Players don't even complain about any of them as they know that they've done a handful themselves in the very same game and intend doing some more if required.  You can blatantly see in most games players in hold-back tussles as the game moves on without them...refs not caring... 'don't come near me moaning about it - don't want to hear it'.

Yes, but holding back is cheating, and that is what we are talking about right ? Cheating ?

I wouldn't pay much heed to that forum Weegie. It's embarrassing at best on there at the best of times.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

So what you are saying is, it was OK for the Ulster player to hold Matawalu back off the ball ?

Em...nope.  But will we look at all games that happened in the last two weeks and see how many off the ball tugs we can see?

It happens.  I wish it didn't.  But refs even ignore them when looking straight at it happening.  Players don't even complain about any of them as they know that they've done a handful themselves in the very same game and intend doing some more if required.  You can blatantly see in most games players in hold-back tussles as the game moves on without them...refs not caring... 'don't come near me moaning about it - don't want to hear it'.

Yes, but holding back is cheating, and that is what we are talking about right ? Cheating ?

Yes. Now is Matawalu's over-acting Cheating? Given that other players endure AND Impose holding back techniques as often as chain smokers light up? Coaches actively coach it into their sides. So is Matawalu Cheating by over-acting when confronted with it?

Munchkin wrote:I agree with everything you say, Hammer, but I have no sympathy for a player who dives out of some sense of injustice. For me to condone such an act would be for me to condone a player ignoring the law, taking the law into his own hands, and impose his own sense of justice. It's still cheating, and two wrongs don't make a right. That player should report any incident to his captain who in turn should make the official aware of any foul play.

What diving are we talking about here? I see three different types:
1) Contact was enough to knock you over so you flap you're arms about and make sure it's seen
2) Contact was enough to effect you negatively but not enough to knock you down so you go down to make sure it's seen
3) No or marginal contact that had no effect on you but you go down to pretend there was.

I think we all agree 3) needs to be stamped out of the game, hard. And it's the easiest to do as you can see there was no contact (or in Huget's case, he was pushed in the chest and went down clutching his face). Is 1) that bad? You been knocked over all can attention to it by the ref. You go down because you were made to go down, but do it with a shout and a curse. I think we all think this is reasonable (perhaps not). I think the grey area is 2). This is the one where it's a choice between which cheater you prefer to get away with it. But it's also difficult to identify exactly as cheating. How do you know it was an act or not? Enough to penalise/ban someone? Very difficult to prove. To me this is an inevitable response to the obstruction cheating that goes on in every game. The funny thing about that is it's almost necessary to score tries now because the defence set after the cheating at the breakdown to slow the ruck ball down (hands in the ruck, rolling the wrong way 'accidentally', rolling round the side to put a foot in, grabbing the scrum half, etc, etc).

Note, I'm separating feigning injury from this. One, because it's virtually impossible to identify (other than by the attending medic, and even then). Two, because I think we all agree this is abhorrent.

If we are to condone an act of diving because it has an appearance of right justice, then it won't be long before players seek to milk penalties, have players carded, for no other reason than it gives their team a distinct advantage over the other. Players can position their bodies in such a way, and react in such a way, as to appear to have been fouled. This is already happening, and the concern is that this type of cheating will become more of an issue if it is not addressed by IRB shortly.

I totally agree with the first bit, but to me the solution is to cut down the illegal play that exaggerators feed off. However, the unions (and presumably World Rugby) respond to strikes and impacts based on whether a player goes down.

Huget got a retrospective yellow card for his dive against Bath but the reffing team still bottled it, even though they decided on the pitch that the Bath player hadn't struck him in the face (or did they penalise Huget?). And that was probably the most obvious case of diving that I've seen in rugby (even football fined Rivaldo for something just as obvious [although only £1000]). These ones need to be ruthlessly stamped out. World rugby need to issue a statement saying that if players dive or feign contact in a different area they will receive a red card and a ban of XXX weeks. But the problem with the other ones is it is entirely subjective whether someone dived or not and these need to be robust decisions, otherwise you'll soon have someone taking it to the European court for loss of earnings because someone thought he dived. you have dynamics experts brought in to show how contact in this way and result in such a fall and psychologists explaining the panic inherent when you are unexpectedly overbalanced. And lots of professionals (non-sporting) will make lots of money out of it.

And just to be clear, the reason they don't do anything about most of it in football isn't because they don't care. It's because it's so difficult to prove one way or the other.

SecretFly wrote:Yes. Now is Matawalu's over-acting Cheating? Given that other players endure AND Impose holding back techniques as often as chain smokers light up? Coaches actively coach it into their sides. So is Matawalu Cheating by over-acting when confronted with it?

What has the amount of times it happens got to do with anything ?

Ask yourself these questions:-

Was the Ulster player cheating ? Yes.

Was Matawalu cheating ? No.

Was Matawalu's behaviour acceptable ? No. He behaved like a bell end. But he still did not cheat.

So what resulted was correct, Ulster penalised for cheating. If Matawalu had caused the Ulster player to be sent off for his over reacting then I would have some sympathy, but he was not, the proper outcome prevailed.

Weegie Wizard wrote:

I was looking round the Ulster forum yesterday and some of the stuff there is comically stupid. There are some saying the SRU are systematically using the citing process to cheat, with Ulster being the main target/victim and others saying that Glasgow are the worst example of 'football behaviour' creeping into rugby. If there is anything more 'football behaviour' than milking any slight contact then it is surely bad mouthing a team who have just beaten you on twitter.

We all certainly know the feeling of 'comically stupid' in terms of 'bad mouthing' a team, teams, refs or indeed Nation on Twitter or even here on 606.  But I guess the safety word is 'Some'. Not All, but Some.

That usually let's us all breathe a sigh of relief and move on to the next battle.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Even in the case of a player who dives to highlight an illegal act, the player who dives is disregarding the law while attempting to impose his own sense of justice.

Well what does this mean then ?

Munchkin wrote:It's still cheating because the diving player is still creating a false reality.

How is it creating a false sense of reality, Matawalu was being held back, you cannot deny that. OK his exaggeration was very tw@ttish, but he was being held back, off the ball. If he had not done what he did, the Ulster player would have got away with holding him back. Would that have been fair ?

The first shouldn't really need no further explanation...

The second, how do you know the Ulster player would have gotten away with holding him back? If it looked like no action was going to be taken then Matawalu could have appealed to the official, via his captain. Did Matawalu allow that officials to flag the incident? No he didn't. He tried to impose his own sense of justice on proceedings by play acting. Play acting is a deception whether it's an exaggeration or not, and it's a deception to fool the officials. It's a lie. It's a cheat and it was the third attempt by Matawalu on the day. The two previous ones acted out against Gilroy.

Hammer. You have put that perfectly, I agree with you 100%.

Munchkin wrote:The second, how do you know the Ulster player would have gotten away with holding him back? If it looked like no action was going to be taken then Matawalu could have appealed to the official, via his captain. Did Matawalu allow that officials to flag the incident? No he didn't. He tried to impose his own sense of justice on proceedings by play acting. Play acting is a deception whether it's an exaggeration or not, and it's a deception to fool the officials. It's a lie. It's a cheat and it was the third attempt by Matawalu on the day. The two previous ones acted out against Gilroy.

But he did not con anybody, he was held back, and that is not allowed, the result was a penalty, which was the correct call, not a con, not a cheat, but a correct pen awarded regardless of prattish behaviour.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Yes. Now is Matawalu's over-acting Cheating? Given that other players endure AND Impose holding back techniques as often as chain smokers light up? Coaches actively coach it into their sides. So is Matawalu Cheating by over-acting when confronted with it?

What has the amount of times it happens got to do with anything ?

Ask yourself these questions:-

Was the Ulster player cheating ? Yes.

Was Matawalu cheating ? No.

Was Matawalu's behaviour acceptable ? No. He behaved like a bell end. But he still did not cheat.

So what resulted was correct, Ulster penalised for cheating. If Matawalu had caused the Ulster player to be sent off for his over reacting then I would have some sympathy, but he was not, the proper outcome prevailed.

Gamesmanship is Cheating...just like Holding Back is Gamesmanship... Getting away with a sneaky edge to turn an incident in your favour.  Acting is Gamesmanship is Cheating.

I say Holding back is Cheating.  I agree with you. I've spoken often enough about it in the past. I don't contradict myself just to win an argument. Holding Back is cheating. Wish there was a way to stamp it out. (Refs doing their job would be a start but 'slowing down the game' might be the cry of the displeased followers)

Now stop always going against the grain and running counter to logic just because you don't want to be seen to agree.

Matawalu is also Cheating when he acts up - Yes?  Bear in mind that there is a WC coming and you might want to be on the opposite side of this fence if one of your players gets a card because some cute hoor over-acts.  Is Matawalu's actions in the spirit of the game?  Another chance for you.

LordDowlais wrote:Hammer. You have put that perfectly, I agree with you 100%.

I feel a little

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I agree with everything you say, Hammer, but I have no sympathy for a player who dives out of some sense of injustice. For me to condone such an act would be for me to condone a player ignoring the law, taking the law into his own hands, and impose his own sense of justice. It's still cheating, and two wrongs don't make a right. That player should report any incident to his captain who in turn should make the official aware of any foul play.

What diving are we talking about here? I see three different types:
1) Contact was enough to knock you over so you flap you're arms about and make sure it's seen
2) Contact was enough to effect you negatively but not enough to knock you down so you go down to make sure it's seen
3) No or marginal contact that had no effect on you but you go down to pretend there was.

I think we all agree 3) needs to be stamped out of the game, hard. And it's the easiest to do as you can see there was no contact (or in Huget's case, he was pushed in the chest and went down clutching his face). Is 1) that bad? You been knocked over all can attention to it by the ref. You go down because you were made to go down, but do it with a shout and a curse. I think we all think this is reasonable (perhaps not). I think the grey area is 2).  This is the one where it's a choice between which cheater you prefer to get away with it.  But it's also difficult to identify exactly as cheating.  How do you know it was an act or not? Enough to penalise/ban someone? Very difficult to prove. To me this is an inevitable response to the obstruction cheating that goes on in every game.  The funny thing about that is it's almost necessary to score tries now because the defence set after the cheating at the breakdown to slow the ruck ball down (hands in the ruck, rolling the wrong way 'accidentally', rolling round the side to put a foot in, grabbing the scrum half, etc, etc).

Note, I'm separating feigning injury from this. One, because it's virtually impossible to identify (other than by the attending medic, and even then). Two, because I think we all agree this is abhorrent.

If we are to condone an act of diving because it has an appearance of right justice, then it won't be long before players seek to milk penalties, have players carded, for no other reason than it gives their team a distinct advantage over the other. Players can position their bodies in such a way, and react in such a way, as to appear to have been fouled. This is already happening, and the concern is that this type of cheating will become more of an issue if it is not addressed by IRB shortly.

I totally agree with the first bit, but to me the solution is to cut down the illegal play that exaggerators feed off.  However, the unions (and presumably World Rugby) respond to strikes and impacts based on whether a player goes down.  

Huget got a retrospective yellow card for his dive against Bath but the reffing team still bottled it, even though they decided on the pitch that the Bath player hadn't struck him in the face (or did they penalise Huget?). And that was probably the most obvious case of diving that I've seen in rugby (even football fined Rivaldo for something just as obvious [although only £1000]).  These ones need to be ruthlessly stamped out.  World rugby need to issue a statement saying that if players dive or feign contact in a different area they will receive a red card and a ban of XXX weeks.  But the problem with the other ones is it is entirely subjective whether someone dived or not and these need to be robust decisions, otherwise you'll soon have someone taking it to the European court for loss of earnings because someone thought he dived.  you have dynamics experts brought in to show how contact in this way and result in such a fall and psychologists explaining the panic inherent when you are unexpectedly overbalanced.  And lots of professionals (non-sporting) will make lots of money out of it.

And just to be clear, the reason they don't do anything about most of it in football isn't because they don't care. It's because it's so difficult to prove one way or the other.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

SecretFly wrote:Now stop always going against the grain and running counter to logic just because you don't want to be seen to agree.

I am not going against the grain though, is Hammer going against the grain as well ? Perhaps we should all bow down and listen to what the Irish overlords on here tell us,and do not dare to disagree.

SecretFly wrote:Matawalu is also Cheating when he acts up - Yes?  Bear in mind that there is a WC coming and you might want to be on the opposite side of this fence if one of your players gets a card because some cute hoor over-acts.  Is Matawalu's actions in the spirit of the game?  Another chance for you.

No his actions are not in the spirit of the game. I do not like them.

This is not what we are talking about here though is it ? If Matawalu went down without any contact, or caused somebody to get sent off because of exaggeration then I would be with you. But he was being cheated, if the refs were doing their jobs properly then perhaps Matawalu would not feel the need to exaggerate being infringed upon, the linesman was only a yard or two away, but that is another argument. The crux is, the Ulster player was cheating, to gain an advantage, thus he should be punished, the last time I checked exaggeration was not in the laws, so Matawalu was not cheating, he was being held back and made damn sure the ref knew it as well.

The problem you have is Paul O'Connel, Sam Warburton, Richie McCaw chating in every single game they play and hide behind calling it "the dark arts".

Diving/Simulation/Exaggeration are simply a different form of these dark arts. The fact that Glasgow are becoming more streetwise will be condemned by opponents and praised by their supporters.

Players will cheat, Notch appears to be an idealist and that is to be commended but the bulk of players will play fair to win but if they can't you can be damn sure they will bend and break the rules if it gets them the results they want.

Cheating is a risk in itself because eventually the law of averages suggests you will get caught at some point.

For as long as rugby includes a Law on ungentlemanly conduct, the cynical actions of diving, simulating injuries and waving imaginary cards around are all against the Laws and should be suitably punished. For me, all of these are much more cheating than normal 'run of play' offences, where players are often looking to the limits of what a ref will allow them.

One of the issues with football is that no actions were taken to stamp down on these types of cynical cheating as they were coming into the game in the 70s and 80s, and it got to the point of being endemic (at least at the top of the professional game) long ago.

I agree with the earlier comments suggesting some sort of IRB directive at the start of the new season would be worthwhile, including guidance on the citing of players for these types of gamesmanship / cheating. Time for the authorities to get their retaliation in first, before the 'win at all costs' mentality too strongly impacts rugby.

Back to the 'Irish' angle, Lord?

Pity.


He Cheated.  

And I'll remember you said that he didn't.  Because if acting takes off in rugby like it's infected football then you'll suffer the consequences one day.  And of course on that occasion, the offender will have 'Cheated', but on any other occasion he'll have just acted in a way 'that is not in the spirit of the game' or acted in a way that might have been worse had the Ulster man got a yellow (so the yellow would have decided whether you regarded it as cheating or not?)

As a great old Irish sports presenter often said: We'll leave it there so.

It happened to Wales in the seveties against New Zealand when Andy Hayden jumped out of the line out and feigned injury to win a match winning penalty, this is simulation, and things like that need stamping out.

Exaggeration on the other hand is something the refs need to deal with, firstly they need to be reffing the game properly so that players do not need to bring things to the attention of the referees, by over exaggerating a situation, secondly, and most importantly players should not try and gain advantage by being clever and subtly cheating in the first place. If the Ulster player just let Matawalu go on Friday night,then Ulster would be in the final now, but he didn't and we all know the ending.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The problem you have is Paul O'Connel, Sam Warburton, Richie McCaw chating in every single game they play and hide behind calling it "the dark arts".

Dark Arts is Cheating.  

And more than that Irishman, Welshman and New Zealander does it.

So we're back to it again.  Nobody is protesting innocence for Cheating - merely that Cheating happens.  Now, Matawalu's is also cheating and committing a bit of a Dark Art in Broad Daylight as it were.  All I seek to do is to get those that don't want to admit so to say it is Cheating.

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

SecretFly wrote:Back to the 'Irish' angle, Lord?

Pity.


He Cheated.  

And I'll remember you said that he didn't.  Because if acting takes off in rugby like it's infected football then you'll suffer the consequences one day.  And of course on that occasion, the offender will have 'Cheated', but on any other occasion he'll have just acted in a way 'that is not in the spirit of the game' or acted in a way that might have been worse had the Ulster man got a yellow (so the yellow would have decided whether you regarded it as cheating or not?)

As a great old Irish sports presenter often said: We'll leave it there so.

It would never have been a yellow,it was not that dirty, it was a pen and that is it. I remember Oliver Azam,playing for Gloucester in a HC game I went to, he got Tom James sent off for a headbutt, but Tom James hardly touched him, and even though Azam was back playing within five minutes, you would have sworn he was knocked out sparko. Now,Tom James done himself no favours by leaning his head towards him, but Azam went down like a sack of spuds and got Tom James sent off, it was Tom James's own fault, he should not have put himself in that position.


As for the Irish angle,when you and your mates stop coming on here and acting like the messiah's of all rugby, and trying to tell me what to do, then I will not use the "Irish angle".

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

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

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).