|
|
Canales Daily: Pay the Piper
The penalty any diving player earns today may cost three or more in the future. Is risking the wrath of the referees really worth it?
Dec 4, 2008 11:43:03 PM
By Andrea Canales
The furious coach was so upset that he spat out his words with venom.
"That was the worst call - I have ever seen."
In fact, it wasn't a call at all. Late in the game, the referee had ignored what looked to most every person in the stadium to be an obvious penalty that would have given the attacking team a chance to tie the match.
Most of the reporters soon left the fuming coach to conduct interviews with other players, but I still had a question.
"Coach," I ventured, "Do you think the penalty your team was given in the first half was legitimate?"
A flicker of recognition crossed the coach's face as he recalled that incident. A quick counterattack had left the referee running far behind the play when a player seemed to fall over at a mere defensive touch. The penalty was awarded.
The coach looked uncomfortable. He'd gone from indignant to unsure in a flash. "It was a bit soft, maybe," he admitted.
In Major League Soccer, referees who retire to the rooms set aside for them during halftime have the electronic equipment at their disposal to review tape of their own calls in the first half. It was a plausible theory that the referee involved had done just that. Angered at the forward's deception in the first half, he had then been unwilling to call even a legitimate penalty on a different player from the same squad in the second half.
I brought the theory up to the coach, and a new emotion crossed his face. This time, it was understanding, underscored by frustration.
"I would hope that wouldn't happen," he said with resignation. "I would hope a referee wouldn't feel the need for a make-up call."
Thing is, I'm sure the referee was hoping when he gave the benefit of the doubt to the forward in the first half that a soccer player wouldn't attempt to deceive his way to an advantage. History has shown that human nature is not that pure and idealistic.
I still think of that specific incident years later - actually, it often crosses my mind when I see players try to game the officials with dives in the penalty area.
Truth is, I'm not sure that divers are ultimately benefiting from their deceptions. It's a gain if it works in the short-term, sure, but the final payment comes later.
Everyone has seen it. A player goes down easily or without even a touch. Once the television replays the incident countless times the player's reputation is set. A referee isn't likely to just be skeptical the next time a player goes down. He might even reach for a card.
More often, the referee decides to ignore everything short of the player getting maimed. Even worse, once defenders realize that they are up against a player with a diving reputation, the idea of "in for a penny, in for a pound" comes into play. They might as well tackle brutally if that player is going to fall over at the slightest touch anyway. Invariably, they also play games with the referee, protesting innocence even on obvious fouls because the referee might be so biased against the player with the diver label that it could work.
Why then, do so many players resort to a tactic that can backfire so badly? Besides the appeal of getting away with something, that element of being a bit of a rogue appeals to a lot of players. Most of all, it's the random reward nature of diving that can actually become addictive to some players. It becomes a game within the game for them to best the system and the referee.
In the end, though, the referee and the unforgiving tape replay hold the ultimate cards, which is the ability to look closely at what really happened and then mete out their own form of justice.
Another well-known phrase comes to mind on the situation.
"Those who dance, must pay the piper." Acts have consequences, and players who don't realize that are more foolish than even the most dunderheaded referee.
If a dive calculated to help one's team leads to a referee looking the other way on a legitimate call, does the team really come out ahead?
In its own flawed way, the game sets up verdicts on those type of actions and often in a more concrete way than merely earning the scorn of fans.
Those who dive, must pay the price.
Andrea Canales is Chief Editor of Goal.com USA
The furious coach was so upset that he spat out his words with venom.
"That was the worst call - I have ever seen."
In fact, it wasn't a call at all. Late in the game, the referee had ignored what looked to most every person in the stadium to be an obvious penalty that would have given the attacking team a chance to tie the match.
Most of the reporters soon left the fuming coach to conduct interviews with other players, but I still had a question.
"Coach," I ventured, "Do you think the penalty your team was given in the first half was legitimate?"
A flicker of recognition crossed the coach's face as he recalled that incident. A quick counterattack had left the referee running far behind the play when a player seemed to fall over at a mere defensive touch. The penalty was awarded.
The coach looked uncomfortable. He'd gone from indignant to unsure in a flash. "It was a bit soft, maybe," he admitted.
In Major League Soccer, referees who retire to the rooms set aside for them during halftime have the electronic equipment at their disposal to review tape of their own calls in the first half. It was a plausible theory that the referee involved had done just that. Angered at the forward's deception in the first half, he had then been unwilling to call even a legitimate penalty on a different player from the same squad in the second half.
I brought the theory up to the coach, and a new emotion crossed his face. This time, it was understanding, underscored by frustration.
"I would hope that wouldn't happen," he said with resignation. "I would hope a referee wouldn't feel the need for a make-up call."
Thing is, I'm sure the referee was hoping when he gave the benefit of the doubt to the forward in the first half that a soccer player wouldn't attempt to deceive his way to an advantage. History has shown that human nature is not that pure and idealistic.
I still think of that specific incident years later - actually, it often crosses my mind when I see players try to game the officials with dives in the penalty area.
Truth is, I'm not sure that divers are ultimately benefiting from their deceptions. It's a gain if it works in the short-term, sure, but the final payment comes later.
Everyone has seen it. A player goes down easily or without even a touch. Once the television replays the incident countless times the player's reputation is set. A referee isn't likely to just be skeptical the next time a player goes down. He might even reach for a card.
More often, the referee decides to ignore everything short of the player getting maimed. Even worse, once defenders realize that they are up against a player with a diving reputation, the idea of "in for a penny, in for a pound" comes into play. They might as well tackle brutally if that player is going to fall over at the slightest touch anyway. Invariably, they also play games with the referee, protesting innocence even on obvious fouls because the referee might be so biased against the player with the diver label that it could work.
Why then, do so many players resort to a tactic that can backfire so badly? Besides the appeal of getting away with something, that element of being a bit of a rogue appeals to a lot of players. Most of all, it's the random reward nature of diving that can actually become addictive to some players. It becomes a game within the game for them to best the system and the referee.
In the end, though, the referee and the unforgiving tape replay hold the ultimate cards, which is the ability to look closely at what really happened and then mete out their own form of justice.
Another well-known phrase comes to mind on the situation.
"Those who dance, must pay the piper." Acts have consequences, and players who don't realize that are more foolish than even the most dunderheaded referee.
If a dive calculated to help one's team leads to a referee looking the other way on a legitimate call, does the team really come out ahead?
In its own flawed way, the game sets up verdicts on those type of actions and often in a more concrete way than merely earning the scorn of fans.
Those who dive, must pay the price.
Andrea Canales is Chief Editor of Goal.com USA
Inside Goal.Com
-
RIGG: Anelka struggling against the current in Shanghai
Nicolas Anelka went against the grain when he moved to Shanghai. Now he's finding that coaching and gelling tactically is like swimming against the tide.
-
ROGERS: Bradley should command a bidding war among Serie A teams
Chievo is currently shopping the American midfielder and several Italian clubs have shown interest.
-
ISOLA: Neymar-led Brazil should be considered the 2014 WC favorite
Neymar was brilliant as Brazil easily handled the United States with early World Cup preparations officially underway.
-
LATHAM: Mexico using summer friendlies to build depth
With World Cup qualifying to begin in June, Mexico is using three U.S.-hosted friendlies to build squad depth.
-
McCARTHY: Harrisburg springs its wildest Open Cup upset to date
The City Islanders fought back from three goals down with nine minutes to play and won the game on penalty kicks in a stunning game on a wild night for the U.S. Open Cup.