Three wise men have cheats in their sights
OUMAR Niasse knows full well he dived to win a penalty for Everton in the 22 draw at Crystal Palace. So does Scott Dann, the defender whose gentle bump sent the striker springing away like the Buckaroo mule. So does Anthony Taylor, the referee who was deceived. So, for that matter, does everyone who’s ever turned out for the Dog & Duck on a soggy Sunday.
Can it ever be conclusively proved? No. But that doesn’t matter. Because the FA’s new regulations on retrospective punishment for simulation rely on subjectivity, not objectivity. And that is very significant.
Diving is too nuanced an issue and its exponents too skilful to be judged solely on a contact/no contact basis.
Take, for instance, the case of Raheem Sterling in Tottenham’s 2-2 draw at the Etihad in January. Through on goal when he took a shove in the back from Kyle Walker, Sterling stuttered, stumbled, then fluffed his shot.
Feelings
By definition, the contact wasn’t strong enough to send him sprawling. But the City winger was so blatantly disadvantaged that nobody would ever have deemed it a dive if he’d hit the deck.
Indeed, team-mate Yaya Toure expressed the feelings of every pundit and every ex-player after the match.
“Raheem is too honest,” said the Ivorian. “If you have a bit of experience like me, you’d maybe dive in that situation. That’s what you have to do.”
Sterling’s case – reflected in incidents across England every week – was about convincing a referee to award a penalty he should have given anyway. It is a dive, but it’s a justifiable dive.
That is very different to deceiving a referee, either to win a penalty you haven’t earned or, even worse, get an opponent unfairly dismissed.
Such was the case earlier this month when Bristol City’s Bailey Wright became the first Championship player sanctioned
under the new rules. The Aussie centre-back collapsed clutching his face following a clash with Fulham’s Aboubakar Kamara, resulting in a red card for the Frenchman. Replays, however, showed Wright had actually been shoved in the shoulder. The review panel handed him a two-game ban.
City cited huge surprise at the judgement, adding in a statement: “This is a clear case in which there has been genuine contact between two players, which has caused Bailey to fall to the ground involuntarily.”
It missed the point. The ‘contact’ is irrelevant. The context is all important. And the footage, alongside Wright’s written submission that he jarred his back and neck, proved the defender had no business holding his face.
These cases demonstrate exactly why a simple contact/no contact dichotomy is no basis for judging simulation. They also show why a panel is necessary. At full speed and deprived of VAR, a referee cannot know if he has been conned, especially if he’s facing a skilled dark artist. Jack Lester, the current Chesterfield boss, was so adept at finding stray legs even Neil Warnock once hailed him the finest diver of his generation.
Experience
Yet the FA’s three-man panel can watch myriad replays and draw on decades of experience at the coalface. Though any decision must be unanimous,
the chances of deceiving them are slim. Managers regularly bemoan a lack of ‘clarity’ in football’s law book. In terms of offside and deliberate handball, they have a point. But in this case, clarity is the enemy.
Without black-and-white rules to cower behind, even the most skilful con artist knows his tricks are transparent.