Is There a Misconception Regarding Diving?

Many of you by now will have seen Sebastian Larsson's supposed "dive" in the recent match between Sunderland and Wolves. In case you haven't seen it, here it is:



Larsson's actions have been deemed a disgraceful act of simulation and many people have criticized him in the aftermath of the game. The question I want to ask though is whether or not you believe that Larsson's actions were wrong. I for one do not believe he does anything wrong here. I think the Wolves player has stuck out a leg and Larsson's merely done his best to avoid it. He does launch himself but if he doesn't, then he risks making contact with the defender's leg and possibly injure himself.

What is your opinion on the matter?

How did he react after going down?

Jelavic9|RFC wrote:How did he react after going down?

He stayed down and a penalty was awarded. I know it's outside the box and a penalty should have never been given but that's beyond the point.

No, because he was looking for a penalty, he could have got out of the way much less dramatically if he was looking to avoid injury.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Jelavic9|RFC wrote:How did he react after going down?

He stayed down and a penalty was awarded. I know it's outside the box and a penalty should have never been given but that's beyond the point.

Did he throw his arms up, scream at the referee, i.e. make a big claim for it?

Jelavic9|RFC wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

He stayed down and a penalty was awarded. I know it's outside the box and a penalty should have never been given but that's beyond the point.

Did he throw his arms up, scream at the referee, i.e. make a big claim for it?

Why does that matter at all?

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Jelavic9|RFC wrote:

Did he throw his arms up, scream at the referee, i.e. make a big claim for it?

Why does that matter at all?

Because then he wasn't avoiding injury, he was blatantly diving.

Sean wrote:No, because he was looking for a penalty, he could have got out of the way much less dramatically if he was looking to avoid injury.

But he also wants to earn the penalty. There's no shame in that. If you're fouled then you deserve the set-piece. And I don't think it was too dramatic anyway. When you're moving with such momentum, it's difficult to control how your "dive" looks.

Jelavic9|RFC wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Why does that matter at all?

Because then he wasn't avoiding injury, he was blatantly diving.

But he wasn't just avoiding injury. He was as good as fouled really. It was a stupid challenge from the defender. Whether or not he touched Larsson is unimportant. That's a foul in my book.

I sort of agree, I think this is a hazy area.

For me the question is not whether it's a dive or not...it's whether it was foul or not. A player diving out of the way of a poorly timed/deliberate foul should not mean it's not a foul.

Sometimes players have to dive. If they don't then they won't get a penalty even when it was a clear foul.....

Yea, I know what you're saying, but I think this is a bad example, this was too obvious a dive, but imo theres nothing wrong with exaggerating contact in the box to get a penalty. The refs never going to give it unless you go down.

Look how long he stays in the air

I can sort of see your point in certain cases, but I'd say that in this instance it's simulation. He could easily have continued with the ball imo.

Plus, what if he injures himself falling?

I think it's a foul.

MickStupp wrote:Look how long he stays in the air

I can sort of see your point in certain cases, but I'd say that in this instance it's simulation. He could easily have continued with the ball imo.

Plus, what if he injures himself falling?

I don't think the fact that he continued with the ball that that was a terrible challenge by the defender though. Also, there's no guarantee that he could have continued with the ball if he hadn't dived. He could have just banged into the defenders leg, injured himself and ended up with the same outcome.

No.

Whilst we're on the topic of referees......does anyone else think that Cahill should have been sent off, and David Luiz not?

Cahill = Parker was running through at high speed....only defender was Zat Knight who was in line and standing still i.e. a slow player like him would never catch Parker. To add to that....Defoe was right there so IMO it would not only have been a clear goal scoring chance...but 2v1. Harsh considering there was no intent but.....that's not Spurs fault. If I were losing and a player fouled my team's striker like that I'd be furious if it was just a yellow.

Luiz = Hard to say when you see the video.....I think Ba wasn't going to get to the ball anyway and it'd just go through to Cech.

Lux wrote:Whilst we're on the topic of referees......does anyone else think that Cahill should have been sent off, and David Luiz not?

Cahill- No.

Luiz- Yes.

It was quite obvious.

VivaRonaldo wrote:

Lux wrote:Whilst we're on the topic of referees......does anyone else think that Cahill should have been sent off, and David Luiz not?

Cahill- No.

Luiz- Yes.

It was quite obvious.

Meh I feel the opposite, though I would understand why someone would want Luiz sent off. Think Cahill was definitely red though.

Luiz stopped Ba having the opportunity to get the ball. It's irrelevant whether Ba would have got the ball, he should be given the chance. And in this case it was so close that it is obviously denying Ba the chance of getting the ball for a goal scoring opportunity.

Ba would've got the ball, and I don't think Cahill should've been sent off.

With regards to Larsson, that's the 1st time I've seen it and to me the gif makes it look like he is trying to dive into a swimming pool. To me that's a dive and nothing else, he could've kept the ball and gone round the defender. Plus, it should show people that getting a penalty is NOT a guaranteed goal.