[jambutty]

On the face of it, it might seem like a points deduction for diving in the penalty area would be the right approach. But isn’t a 3 points deduction the same as the team losing a match? If a team loses a match then by definition it means that some team has won. What about the team sinned against? What do they get out of it? Nothing!

Team “A” wins a match against team “B” by the odd goal, which was gained by being awarded a penalty after a diving incident. The team “B” manager lodges a complaint with the fourth official and the incident is pondered over by a panel of ‘experts’ during the next day or two. They decide that the team “A” player did dive and deduct 3 points from team “A”.

But for that penalty, team “B” would have drawn the match and gained a point for the draw but they still end up with nothing.

You can play around with all sorts of combinations of scores where a diving penalty is involved and in the main the sinned against team will also be the loser. That can’t be fair.

It’s all very well punishing the miscreants but the ‘victim’ should also have the wrong put right, if at all possible. That is the flaw in a points deduction. Both teams (the sinner and the sinned against) are adversely affected and that cannot be right or fair.

It could be argued that if a team is deducted points for a penalty area diving incident, any points deduction should then have those same points awarded to the other team. But that wouldn’t be fair either if the sinned against team lost the game, especially if that team lost by more than the odd goal scored from that ‘penalty’. If points are taken from one team and given to their opponents that is in effect reversing the actual result.

So on reflection deducting points is not the answer to the diving problem.

There is only one fair way of punishing a diver that I can see.
If the ref judges that a player has dived and thus no penalty is given, that player gets a yellow card for ‘simulation’ as they call it now. Of course there is the ‘grey’ area of a player losing his balance in avoiding accidentally kicking someone or slipping. That is for the referee to decide on the spot. That’s what he is there for.

If a penalty is awarded for a dive there can only be one of two outcomes. Either a goal is scored or it isn’t.
If no goal is scored from the penalty or an immediate follow up that is the end of the matter. Poetic justice for cheating!

However if a goal is scored from the penalty or an immediate follow up then the manager can lodge an appeal.
If the appeal is successful, the goal is wiped out and whatever the result after the goal deduction - it stands. Thus a team winning 4 – 1 would still win but only 3 – 1. In a draw scenario the other team would end up winning. A team losing 1 – 2 would lose 0 – 2. In all cases both team’s goal difference would be affected. The cheats to the bad and the sinned against to the good.
The diver gets a 5 matches ban.

It has been argued in an earlier post that supporters would go home not knowing what the end result might be. Well the same applies to a points deduction. So what is the problem?

However when it comes to the other side of the coin - that being what happens if a penalty is NOT awarded when TV replays show that it should have been, that is a whole new can of worms.

IF A JUDGMENT CAN BE MADE DURING THE GAME (and there is no real reason why it could not) then the sinned against team should be awarded that penalty at the end of the half.

If the governing body cannot or does not want to go to the expense of hiring 2 ex-referees and 1 ex-player for each match to act as the judgement panel, then the issue can only be resolved after the event – that is the next day, with a panel of say 3 ex-referees and 2 ex-players. If this ‘after the match panel’ decides that a penalty should have been awarded then considering that some 90% of all penalties end up as a goal, a goal should be awarded to that team and the match result adjusted accordingly.

In all cases it would be up to the manager of the wronged team to lodge an appeal about a penalty area incident and thus invoking the use of the ‘panel’. To prevent frivolous appeals, and there are bound to be some lodged in hope rather than a genuine opinion, an appeal that is turned down would attract a fine of half the match takings. This might just open manager’s eyes to see what is happening and not be selective about it.