Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Soccer cheats and why they do it

There are many reasons cited why Americans don't like to watch soccer. Admittedly, Americans like to watch soccer a lot more than they used to, as decent attendances in Major League Soccer The creation of two soccer-only television channels, Fox Soccer Channel and Gol TV, show that there's some interest in the sport out there. But the sport is not yet as popular in the US as it is in much of the rest of the world.

The main reason most Americans think they don't like soccer is because there's supposedly not enough scoring. Strange, though, that a 1-0 baseball game is lauded as a pitchers' duel that true fans appreciate. Even a 14-7 NFL football game, really only 2-1 in terms of touchdowns, is praised as a defensive struggle. But 1-0 and 2-1 soccer games are derided as borefests.

However, one reason cited by many Americans for not liking soccer IS worth commenting on. Diving, or simulation as it's officially referred to, is a true blight on the sport. This commentary at Matchnight rightly refers to diving as cheating.

The author properly mentions other forms of cheating, particularly diving's evil twin: shirt-pulling.

As a youth coach, I tell my kids that if they dive, I'll yank them out of the game immediately. It's not only cheap, but it's counterproductive. If you dive and don't get the call, you're taking yourself out of the play. Fortunately, I've never had to act on this threat.

(My other biggest pet peeve, besides bad sportsmanship, is when defenders stop and wave their hands in the air like fools appealing for an offside call. Again, players should do their jobs and let the refs do theirs. I actually did bench one of my players last week for doing it.)

But while I'm not one to eagerly jump on the 'it's all the ref's fault' bandwagon, some blame for this scourge has to be placed with the officials. One of the dirty little secrets of diving is that sometimes it's the only way to get a deserved call. Sometimes, it's an illegitimate method to get a legitimate call. That's why it's done.

When you see a defender foul a forward, if the forward merely stumbles, he probably won't get the legitimate call. If the forward flops to the ground theatrically (but not too theatrically), he's far more likely to get the call. The refs assume that if the attacking player merely stumbles, then whatever happened must not have been a foul. In essence, this is the mentality that encourages diving.

I remember watching a Kansas City-Metrostars Major League Soccer game earlier this year. A through-ball was played to a KC forward. The Metros defender pushed the KC forward. The KC forward stumbled but stayed on his feet and the ball went out of bounds for a goal kick. Amazingly, the referee awarded a penalty kick anyway for KC. This was the right and proper call according to the rules, but one that is almost never made in the absence of a player flopping to the ground like he was gunned down with an AK-47.

The Matchnight column referred to a far more pathetic incident. In a Columbus-New England match, NE's Marshall Leonard elbowed a Columbus player Mario Rodriguez. It was clearly a yellow card offense on Leonard's part. However, while Rodriguez was elbowed just above the belly button, he collapsed to the ground clutching his THROAT. Leonard was properly given a caution, but Rodriguez was unjustly spared the yellow card he merited for his shameless display.

Two years ago, Metrostars' midfielder Amado Guevara infamously collapsed to the ground clutching his face after an opposing player (who was on the bench) inexplicably snapped Guevara in the back with a towel. He was widely condemned and has been mostly a good boy ever since.

The Matchnight columnist noted some of the absurdities surrounding the pronouncements coming from FIFA, the international soccer federation.

It's hard not to laugh at FIFA's 'Fair Play' posturing when they introduce farcical new guidelines, as at the current U20 World Cup in Holland, whereby players are pompously booked for toe-poking the ball a couple of inches after a free kick has been given. Sure, it's not good, but it's hardly the greatest problem soccer's facing right now. Meanwhile a player like Rodriguez can get away scot-free with trying to have an opponent sent off. Even if he's not penalized during the game, the MLS Disciplinary Committee could finally defy its past record and show some spine by retroactively fining and cautioning him (and all others who do the same) for blatantly bringing the game into disrepute.

'Simulation' will only be eliminated if referees start calling legitimate fouls when players don't dive.

1 comment:

  1. I think it is a cost benefit analysis problem. It is hard to create good opportunities to score in soccer and free kicks (and especially penalty shots) are the highest probability chances for goals. So, the benefit of falling down in the box and getting a free shot from the stripe greatly outweighs the cost of simply losing possession of the ball (unless you get a card for diving). When games are decided on such closer margins and there is such pressure to win, that is when you get diving (and Hand of God goals).

    I used to tell my players that most penalties were simple and sometimes unintentional violations of the rules. Unsportsmanlike conduct was the one exception because it was a violation of honor, a stain on the very principles that brought us together in competition. (And yes, I did this speech in my best Al Pacino voice.)

    ReplyDelete