Robben- time to take action?

[Mowgli37]

Thought he made a right meal of it if I am honest with you. He could have stayed on his feet. I said on a thread last week, that it's part of the game and that if it England did it, everyone would accept it. However after seeing how well Mexico played they certainly didn't deserve to go out yesterday. It pissed me. Hope it comes back to bite Holland in the next round now.

I wouldn't, it would leave a very bad taste in my mouth. I'd rather we continued trying to win fairly than cheating our way to success.

 

[Mackenzie]

Robben - time to take action?

 

[pasty]

Defenders should be granted a 5 second period of immunity, whereby if they know they have not touched the diver, they should be free to smack them in the chops.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

If anyone had any doubts about the integrity of Robben, this match proved that he has none. Apart from blatant diving in the first half, he then high hurdled a defender's trailing leg as he raced into the box. Why didn't he go down? Because he thought he was going to score. The penalty was a dive. You've only got to see how far he pushed the ball past the defender before the dying swan routine. He had no intention of trying to retain the ball, he was just playing for the pen.
FIFA aren't interested in putting a stop to diving. They argue it is too ingrained, too much part of culture. Too difficult to stamp out.
The only answer is take penalty kicks out of the game ( apart from shoot-outs ) for twelve months and defenders get a straight red for an illegal challenge in the box. The offending side has been punished and in most penalty instances the attacking side aren't in a goalscoring position anyway. The challenges are invariably out wide.
Then and only then will you see players staying on their feet and using the skill that they are supposed to possess to score goals.

 

[Easy 10]

It's ruining the game (regardless of whether this particular case was a dive or not). Some players must be spending hours practising this - almost certainly being filmed by club officials so they can review and refine their 'technique', otherwise they wouldn't be so good at it.

It's got to be time for 4th Officials to be consulted - all the BS spouted about 'interrupting the flow of the game' etc is nonsense. Replays can be instantaneous and 4th officials view relayed to the ref. Straight red for anyone found to be diving - would eradicate it from the game in no time.

Love how rugby has embraced the TMO and made it work.

Its not "nonsense", it really isn't.

As others have mentioned, you can see from this thread alone that there still isn't a consensus on that penalty incident. You're assuming that a replay of an incident will lead to a straighforward decision on whether it was a foul or not - its not that simple. Whether you use video replays or not, it STILL always boils down to an interpretation. When a ref gives a decision in real-time on an incident, whether its right or wrong, you have to allow for the fact that he's only had one look at it at full speed. But start introducing video reviews, and everyone will expect a spot-on decision every time, and if the ref apparently calls THAT wrong, then god help him. Not everyone agrees, even after seeing a replay multiple times from numerous angles. You're not resolving anything, you're just opening up a whole new can of worms.

Also, when exactly do you stop the game to review the incident ? Bear in mind the ball hadn't gone dead when Robben won that penalty, so is the ref supposed to blow for a video review when he goes down, or should he wait for the ball to go out of play before he reviews it ? What if Mexico had broke up to the other end and scored ? Does the ref then put that goal on "hold" while he looks at whether he should have given Robben a penalty beforehand ? Pretty good way of maybe getting a goal chalked off, if you're asking the ref to look at a foul in the build-up.

Chaos.

 

[pasty]

Now he has admitted diving, he should be given a retrospective card

 

[Kevlar]

part of the problem is refs will NEVER rice a foul if the player stays on his feet
so you have people going to win a free kick when that think they are fouled
as well as simulating a foul

 

[Iggle Piggle]

There's some short memories on this thread amongst the 'I wouldn't want to see that at the Albion brigade'.

Anyone remember that season we got about a penalty every game and Murray and Barnes were constantly on the floor? Barnes in particular was one of the worst exponents of it in the Championship in recent years let alone the team. For all of the binfests on here about him, very few were about his inability to stay on his feet after the slightest of touches something that was particularly prevalent under Gus.

Robben maybe one of the worst at it but he was clipped for the one that was given and could easily have gone down in the 2nd half when he stayed on his feet. Lets face it, We've seen Lua Lua do similar.

 

[dazzer6666]

Its not "nonsense", it really isn't.

As others have mentioned, you can see from this thread alone that there still isn't a consensus on that penalty incident. You're assuming that a replay of an incident will lead to a straighforward decision on whether it was a foul or not - its not that simple. Whether you use video replays or not, it STILL always boils down to an interpretation. When a ref gives a decision in real-time on an incident, whether its right or wrong, you have to allow for the fact that he's only had one look at it at full speed. But start introducing video reviews, and everyone will expect a spot-on decision every time, and if the ref apparently calls THAT wrong, then god help him. Not everyone agrees, even after seeing a replay multiple times from numerous angles. You're not resolving anything, you're just opening up a whole new can of worms.

Also, when exactly do you stop the game to review the incident ? Bear in mind the ball hadn't gone dead when Robben won that penalty, so is the ref supposed to blow for a video review when he goes down, or should he wait for the ball to go out of play before he reviews it ? What if Mexico had broke up to the other end and scored ? Does the ref then put that goal on "hold" while he looks at whether he should have given Robben a penalty beforehand ? Pretty good way of maybe getting a goal chalked off, if you're asking the ref to look at a foul in the build-up.

Chaos.

Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting a 'review' per cricket rules, only the on-field ref can call for a replay (like in rugby) - agree being able to ask the ref for a review ould be a nightmare. Also agree it wouldn't elimate questionable decisions (it hasn't in rugby either), but it would significantly improve the % that are got right, and more importantly improve the culture

I'd at least like to see it tested.

 

[Easy 10]

Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting a 'review' per cricket rules, only the on-field ref can call for a replay (like in rugby) - agree being able to ask the ref for a review ould be a nightmare. Also agree it wouldn't elimate questionable decisions (it hasn't in rugby either), but it would significantly improve the % that are got right, and more importantly improve the culture

I'd at least like to see it tested.

The problem you will have though is that once the facility is in place, referees will inevitably come under pressure to use it more and more. Any incident he's not sure of, he'll go to the replay. And once its there, you think players and managers won't be screaming at the ref to look at an incident again ?

You already see in cricket umpires and "leaning" on the technology more and more just to be sure in their own minds. I've seen some pretty obvious run-out decisions that have gone for referral first, when really the call could and should have been made on the field without the need for a TV review. But because its there, they use it.

I just cannot see a way of introducing a video review system in football that doesn't fundamentally alter the game as we know it. You need a whole RAFT of new rules introduced in order to somehow accomodate it. Its too high a price to pay IMO.

 

[Arrid]

Part of the problem is 'what constitutes a foul'. If that Robben penalty is a foul (and I think contact is at the very least questionable) then the game should be stopped almost every time two bodies touch or collide. In my mind that sort of contact is too soft to be deemed a foul. Football by its very nature is a contact sport. With the constant development of cameras, close-up, replays every contact has been over analysed by so called, pundits & commentators to the point where the slightest contact has them calling foul.

 

[BBassic]

Thought the pen was the right decision. Slow mo showed that the defender trod on his foot; the fact that he went down like a girl made it look more like a dive.

There was an attempted tackle in the box about 10 mins before the equaliser that Robben had to jump out of and meant he had a worse angle to shoot from. In that case it would have been easier for him to take contact and get a stonewall penalty.

This. The penalty was a penalty but his swan dive made him look a right arse.

 

[Questions]

I cannot understand all this vilification of Robben undeniably it was a trip which means a direct free kick or penalty if in the box so the right decision by the ref. If and I say IF he dived to emphasise the fact he had been tripped, this is totally immaterial and does not make the trip right.

The only culprit was the defender making a reckless and unnecessary challenge in the box.

Reckless BG ? That wasn't reckless. He didn't get the ball, so what. If you think the only culprit was the defender then you'll get ripped apart on this thread mate.

Although........ Maybe they should change the wording to stop diving as 'simulation or exaggeration.'
Contact on a player is not necessarily a foul.

 

[fat old seagull]

Robben was fouled for the penalty and exaggerates. It was a penalty. He's one of the outstanding players of the World Cup. Deal with it.

You should have gone to Specsavers mate. I can understand in the heat of the moment and in motion, with other players restricting their view refs get it wrong occasionally. But how in hindsight anyone can see that as a penalty is beyond me. But you are entitled to your views, I respect that.

 

[Frampler]

He dived for the penalty. But he was clearly hacked down in the box at the end of the first half and nothing was given. These things tend to even themselves out: the players who dive most often are unlikely to win as many penalties and free kicks when they are actually fouled because they have sown the seeds of doubt in the minds of referees.

What we don't need is more TV interference. It will ruin football, and can never deliver the holy grail of 100% accuracy.

 

[maltaseagull]

Thought the pen was the right decision. Slow mo showed that the defender trod on his foot; the fact that he went down like a girl made it look more like a dive.

There was an attempted tackle in the box about 10 mins before the equaliser that Robben had to jump out of and meant he had a worse angle to shoot from. In that case it would have been easier for him to take contact and get a stonewall penalty.

I agree that he should have gone down under the tackle before the goal. But he admitted to diving on another occasion after the match. I think this is becoming so common it is spoiling the game as is the constant feigning injury. A player feels a hand anywhere near his head and goes down as if he has been punched on the nose. I think that this should be a yellow card if the replay shows it to be false.

 

[Easy 10]

What we don't need is more TV interference. It will ruin football, and can never deliver the holy grail of 100% accuracy.

Amen to that.

 

[Sheebo]

If it was a foul, but the foul is only given if he dives to the floor, is it wrong to dive? Surely we should be blaming the ref in that case as he should be consistent with a decision and not swayed depending on if a player hits the floor or not.

Yes of course it's wrong to dive. Yes refs are more likely to give it if someone hits the floor as it suggests bigger impact. But this is a whole new matter as footballers constantly go down when they could stay on feet...

 

[BensGrandad]

Reckless BG ? That wasn't reckless. He didn't get the ball, so what. If you think the only culprit was the defender then you'll get ripped apart on this thread mate.

Although........ Maybe they should change the wording to stop diving as 'simulation or exaggeration.'
Contact on a player is not necessarily a foul.

At the time and position on the tackle it could be deemed as reckless because defenders generally know better than to dangle a leg out in the box, which is always likely to trip up a player. So I would say it was a reckless and risky tackle.

 

[smeg]

Nobody cares, I'd rather we won 20 penalties a season through dives and win matches we shouldn't than play fair and LOSE

yep, agreed