-
So what is it that people have a problem with Robben about exactly?
Is it the fact that he dives or the fact that he dives in such an exaggerated manner that bothers us? Or is it simply that he dives and plays for club teams that we don't like?
After all, every footballer will dive (or exaggerate a reaction)in the right circumstances. Vieira, for instance, used to scream like he'd been shot whenever he wanted a free kick. Pires dived, Eduardo dived, Eboue dived to get us that free kick in the CL final - everyone dives.
The issue is not diving, the issue is refereeing. Players will do whatever is necessary (and - more importantly - whatever they are allowed to get away with) to win an advantage. Expecting them to do otherwise is naive and ridiculous. It is up to the officials to police it better - even through use of video replay if necessary. However, to vilify individual players for doing at a decisive moment what they all do as a matter of course is ludicrous.
-
I don't think they do all do it as a matter of course. Of course all players will
seek to gain an unfair advantage but it takes a different mentality to claim a throw in you know was not yours and to dive. In short, the latter makes you more of a ***** than the former and therefore the more you dive the bigger the ***** you are.
Ergo, Robben is pretty much the biggest ***** in football.
-
He doesn't play for Arsenal.
-
Many players dive. Robben dives in every game, he has made a career out of it. He celebrates the
fruits of his cheating, he pretends he's an honest guy. He paled for Chelsea. He plays with Van Rapist.
-
What it is is that he's good.
-
Is it not the fact that he is a massive massive c**t
on the pitch anyway. I'm more irritated by his constantly cutting inside and shooting than his diving tbh
-
My problem with him is that I have to see the replay to see if he dived or not
-
Re: So what is it that people have a problem with Robben about exactly?
-
I see no moral difference between those things.
The only difference lies in their respective consequences. The latter is a much better reason to cheat than the former as you can get a penalty or an opponent sent off for it. That may be morally reprehensible, but it is of much greater value for your team (who are your first responsibility). Equally, though, this reward contains a much higher risk - no-one ever got a yellow card for claiming a throw in, after all. This shouldering of risk makes the diver if anything more noble than the claimer of throw-ins.
-
It is a question of degree. Because he cheats in every game (not every diver does this) it can be
successfully argued that cheating is an intrinsic part of his game.
-
I think it's the paucity/obviousness of his efforts that really grate
I've no problem with players diving but he does almost seem like he deliberately sets out to do it rather than go round a man.
My daughter hates him and calls him 'Badman Baldy', I'll ask her when I get back later
-
and usually a *****.
At this championship I quite like him tough. :cloud9:
-
He also has a face you'd never tire of punching
-
Bit like this one:
-
Claiming throwons has never brought the game into disrepute. Like ridicules appeals in cricket.
Most players do the odd dive now and again. Those who do it constantly like Robben, Gerard and Suarez are in a different category.
-
Ooooh!
-
Yep, and not to forget the biggest diving cheat of them all: Busquets.
-
Presumably then you feel match-fixing is no less moral than claiming a throw in?
The greater the influence that an act of cheating has on a match, the more the integrity of the sport is eroded. If you willfully and frequently erode the integrity of your sport with no apparent regard, that makes you a ***** :shrug:
-
You seem to believe there's actually some integrity left in football
-
I would argue that cheating is an intrinsic part of football, though.
From shirt pulling and shoving in the box, through shielding the ball into touch by obstructing a an opponent, to claiming throw ins you know aren't yours and all the myriad tricks of the trade, cheating is nodded at and even encouraged in the game. So what makes diving different?
-
Of course there is. Without sounding like a homo, 95% of this world cup
has shown there is still plenty to love about football :hide:
-
Re: Ooooh!
-
I would trust Pob more to be in charge of the education system than this loon
-
What brings the game into disrepute, then, is the failure of the refs to punish such repeat
offenders when we as fans know they are doing it all the time, surely? It is the fact that they get away with it time and again that encourages them to carry on doing it. The refs are there to enforce the laws of the game. If those laws are being repeatedly and obviously flouted by certain known individuals, it is their fault.
-
Loon and an ideologue. Dangerous man.
-
No. Match-fixing negates the sport as a contest whereas diving is an intrinsic part of that contest.
The two are not comparable. And I'm left utterly cold by discussions of integrity, since I believe cheating is integral to football.
-
Oh FFS B, not more tedious, pseudo intellectual discourse about football. He's a big
rubber-faced, ugly dutch *****. Isn't that enough?
-
That's right, I think. Looked at squarely, the integrity lies in the game, not the rules.
-
But it is a very,very hard aspect of the game to regulate because of the blurred lines between
what is a dive and what is exaggerating contact and what is forcing contact, etc etc, and this alone puts a greater onus on players not to do it. Or at least, they are free to do it, but if they do, we are free to consider them a *****.
-
Yesterday was a good example
Robben actually deserved at least 1, maybe 2 penalties earlier on, but the dive got rewarded. :shrug: Football needs video reffing as soon as possible to get some lost reliability back.
-
Good ole Herb.Always gets to the crux of the matter
-
Doesn't that presume that all opponents are of equal ability though?
Yet we know this is not the case, so in what way does it negate a great innings or a great goal, for instance?
-
-
To be honest, though, it's only the widespread televising of games that causes these issues.
Without all the replays and camera angles, we'd simply have to do what we used to do and take the ref's word for it whether we liked it or not. I doubt diving is any more prevalent now than in the past - it's just more easily identified after the event.
-
" I believe cheating is integral to football".....what does that mean?
If footballers didn't cheat, the game would die?
Interestingly, self-regulation is shown to work perfectly well in school playgrounds the world over, where the players themselves have to referee the games. Of course, this system works because if you claim a ball that clearly went over your jumper (i.e. the 'post') was a goal then you know your opponents will do the same the next time they hit the 'post'.
-
No, but it wouldn't be football as we recognise it.
-
There are sports where cheating is effectively impossible (Tennis?) that seem to still be quite
-
No, but there is a sliding scale. A hundred against Bangladesh is not worth as much as one against
-
This sounds like the Suarez defence of
'what makes biting so different from all the other, perhaps more dangerous fouls'?
It is a taboo, a crossed line of cheatiness. We can spend as long as you like analysing why, but that's what it boils down to.
-
It is hardly a part of football to be encouraged, so when someone makes it an important part of his.
game, and goes unpunished, the game suffers. Successful cheating spawns a host of imitators.
Again, there is a reason why punishment for repeat offenders - "three strikes and you're out" and the like - exists. The idea that if someone is committing crimes regularly the punishment has to become more severe to discourage it.
