All of a sudden there is a diving problem in the GAA

Armagh_paul

Well-Known Member
In the last few days on social media there have been a number of issues relating to diving that have cropped up. We have been victims of diving on multiple occasions over the years and we are certainly guilty of doing it ourselves. How this is only coming to the attention of the media now is mind boggling. It is not only this weekend this has happened, we experienced it against Galway last year and with a shocking frequency against Roscommon a few weeks ago. On a side point, this is something we are going to have to watch out for when we play Galway again as they were up to this crap at the weekend again.

How do we address the issue? Personally, I would like to see a similar approach that Ice Hockey uses but rather than stop the flow of the game, we have two video referees reviewing the evidence and the next break in play, the referee can go back to the player and punish them as they see fit. If a player is adjudged to have dived the punishments given could be the deduction of resulting points, yellow/red/black card depending on severity and for persistent simulation point deductions of increasing severity. Perhaps even introduce a 5 challenge system where managers can challenge an "unseen" illegal tackle/point etc, but if they use the challenges tactically to disrupt the flow of a game there could be consequences.
 

Big Jim

Well-Known Member
I mentioned a looooong time ago AP about things around this and in particular the feigned head injury.

I also came up with an almost certain way to cut it out or control it and it's so simple to implement. If a player, in the case of a "head injury" goes down clutching his nog, then he MUST leave the field for a minimum of say 2 minutes for assessment without a blood sub etc being introduced. In a genuine case a team will know immediately and can bring on a full sub at the next break in play. Almost every case of diving "involves a head injury" these days. If a phantom injury is spotted by any official, then they can report it to the ref and a black card can be issued for trying to gain an advantage by deceit. Nice and simple and no really complicated rule changes required, just an update.

Some will say don't tinker any more with rules or there's enough going on, or that'll slow down things too much. Yeah, maybe true, but then that means turning a blind eye to the obvious cheating. Do we really want to get to the point that the saft groundball multimillionaire shites are at where they whinge about having a broken fingernail. Almost always a Hurler will have blood streaming from him and he wants to play on.

The caveat is that we need to treat head injuries seriously because these are just ordinary folk taking part in an extremely athletic sport. Their safety has to be paramount. That's why I say they MUST leave the field for immediate assessment. One it punishes their team if it is a bluff and two it means they can get a proper check. If there's a second incident in the same game with a player then maybe 5 minutes to check them over. I'm not medical and don't know if a proper assessment can be done that quickly, but it seems at the moment a physio can run on and with 15-20 seconds they have the player ready to play on, even after a sniper has taken them out.

AND Breathe!!!
 

Armagh_paul

Well-Known Member
I mentioned a looooong time ago AP about things around this and in particular the feigned head injury.

I also came up with an almost certain way to cut it out or control it and it's so simple to implement. If a player, in the case of a "head injury" goes down clutching his nog, then he MUST leave the field for a minimum of say 2 minutes for assessment without a blood sub etc being introduced. In a genuine case a team will know immediately and can bring on a full sub at the next break in play. Almost every case of diving "involves a head injury" these days. If a phantom injury is spotted by any official, then they can report it to the ref and a black card can be issued for trying to gain an advantage by deceit. Nice and simple and no really complicated rule changes required, just an update.

Some will say don't tinker any more with rules or there's enough going on, or that'll slow down things too much. Yeah, maybe true, but then that means turning a blind eye to the obvious cheating. Do we really want to get to the point that the saft groundball multimillionaire shites are at where they whinge about having a broken fingernail. Almost always a Hurler will have blood streaming from him and he wants to play on.

The caveat is that we need to treat head injuries seriously because these are just ordinary folk taking part in an extremely athletic sport. Their safety has to be paramount. That's why I say they MUST leave the field for immediate assessment. One it punishes their team if it is a bluff and two it means they can get a proper check. If there's a second incident in the same game with a player then maybe 5 minutes to check them over. I'm not medical and don't know if a proper assessment can be done that quickly, but it seems at the moment a physio can run on and with 15-20 seconds they have the player ready to play on, even after a sniper has taken them out.

AND Breathe!!!
I have a problem with that and it stems from 2003 when the umpire fed the referee incorrect information to have Marsden sent off - at least suggested by the commentator. And another problem with it, and that was from when a Donegal player tried ploughing Forker's head into the ground last weekend - despite an official seeing it with his own two eyes, nothing was done but Donegal still got their free.

 
Last edited:

Big Jim

Well-Known Member
Yeah there's also the stone wall black card, but those are things that unless every single play or tackle or pass or score or decision are pulled and checked are always gonna happen. There is no perfect solution to every single situation or incident, but all I suggest is a simple idea based around the feigning head injury which leads to so much of the diving.

To do what it would take just to get around the incidents you referred to means stopping [and there's no way around that] to check and verify. Otherwise you end up with a score form a player that should have been punished/removed or whatever in the time taken to check by another video referee or 3, AND that is assuming THEY noticed or cared enough. If it is noticed a minute or two later, how far back can a judge go to rule on something? Was it a reaction to something the other player did? Far too many permutations for an easy "one size fits all" I think.

It's not an easy thing to do without wholesale rule changes. That then is where even I say, "too much intereference!" Human nature being what it is, means mistakes will happen and a lot of things will be missed
 

Armagh_paul

Well-Known Member
I get that they won't be able to pick up on everything but that video example was right in front of the linesman. My main point is the officials cannot call a point or a foul when it is directly in front of them, I wouldn't trust them to pull up any feigning of head injuries and diving.
 

Big Jim

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah I completely agree. Most officials I wouldn't trust to notice or pull up at a traffic light, but that's why I say that if a player has to go down holding his head, then he MUST leave the field for proper assessment without replacement. Make it for 5 minutes and properly punish if it's a con. If it's for real, then a sub must be made. That bit is easy!
 

Armagh_paul

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah I completely agree. Most officials I wouldn't trust to notice or pull up at a traffic light, but that's why I say that if a player has to go down holding his head, then he MUST leave the field for proper assessment without replacement. Make it for 5 minutes and properly punish if it's a con. If it's for real, then a sub must be made. That bit is easy!
I agree, if you think you have a head injury and can walk GTF off the pitch and let play continue. However, it is difficult to punish. Retrospective bans mean s*it to the team who might have lost by a point because of it.
 

JoeH

Well-Known Member
We'll see a clamp down during the next few games but we now see the power of social media. They decide to focus on something, concentrate for a while and then another topic is used.
Those that rely on social media for sound bites, boosting their followers and so on are dangerous. We seen that last year after the Galway game.
 

PatMustard

Well-Known Member
Managers will find ways around it.

What if the goalkeeper goes down holding his head? Take him off and have no keeper?

What about genuine head injuries? Moving a player might result in further or more serious injury.

If you bring in a rule where only head injuries go off, then teams will lie down with shoulder, arm, leg, foot injuries , where they stay on the field, and have treatment there.
 

Big Jim

Well-Known Member
Managers will find ways around it.

What if the goalkeeper goes down holding his head? Take him off and have no keeper?

What about genuine head injuries? Moving a player might result in further or more serious injury.

If you bring in a rule where only head injuries go off, then teams will lie down with shoulder, arm, leg, foot injuries , where they stay on the field, and have treatment there.
Yeah but relatively those issues are easily taken into account Pat.

If a keeper goes down holding his head then the head injury assessment must 100% be the same so if that means he leaves the field then that's what it means. I've already said that to cover off a genuine case then the team can make their substitution right away, but that becomes a full sub and not a blood sub. If he is feigning the injury then he's the one disadvantaging his team.

Obviously in the case of a serious head injury, that's already facilitated with medical assistance and the player being removed from the playing field and immediately replaced. That's not what I'm talking about nor is the OP. It's this case of going down to stop play and as soon as play stops the "serious" injury immediately disappears and the player jumps up and carries on. It's to cut that out my idea would be applicable.

A shoulder, arm, leg, or foot injury etc could be dealt with in the same way. It has to be. Cheating is cheating and has to be stopped. We do it and it's infuriating even when I watch the lads I admire playing, doing this nonsense.

In the ground ball game the medical attention is called on and the player has to leave the field if they are attended to. Cards are issued if the ref believes a player goes to ground to con him or the officials. Mistakes are made with it, but that's the human element that we fear. That would bring us back to having to stop for every single thing and a game would then run for hours.

Mind you, this is all pie in the sky talk among friends as the powers that be will not listen to keyboard talk on a forum.
 

Bringyourboots

Active Member
OK so generally genuine players are injured competing for the ball or being tackled whilst in possession. It can't be much to expect that the ref is actually watching those situations and in most cases would observe a head injury occurring and if needed stop the game. If play has moved on the player can attended to by the physio and checked by the ref at the next break in play.

Most of the cheat head injuries seem to be appealed for when the ball has been turned over to stall a breakaway attack and the ref hasn't even given a foul. If a player needs to come off for an assessment I've no issues with a temp sub but they should remain off the pitch for say 10 mins. As a player or manager would you want to miss 10 mins of a critical game?
 

Armagh_paul

Well-Known Member
OK so generally genuine players are injured competing for the ball or being tackled whilst in possession. It can't be much to expect that the ref is actually watching those situations and in most cases would observe a head injury occurring and if needed stop the game. If play has moved on the player can attended to by the physio and checked by the ref at the next break in play.

Most of the cheat head injuries seem to be appealed for when the ball has been turned over to stall a breakaway attack and the ref hasn't even given a foul. If a player needs to come off for an assessment I've no issues with a temp sub but they should remain off the pitch for say 10 mins. As a player or manager would you want to miss 10 mins of a critical game?

I would be exploiting that right away if I was a manager.

In our situation I think Campbell is gassed after about 50 minutes of football, I noticed this is the point where he starts making mistakes. Campbell could pretend to be injured and come off for ten minutes and I would throw on a fresh player for 10 minutes while he is having a breather.

However, it brings me back to a previous point, the time wasting and attempts to disrupt play are a smaller worry in relation to the cost of such acts to multiple county teams. We have experienced it a lot recently and it has cost us games in the past. Whilst many of us have expressed some downright hatred for other counties and a dislike for how tactics have gone, the amount of cheating that goes on today just to get the upper hand is a disgrace to 139 years of our beloved sport. If you are going to play football then play it the way it is supposed to be otherwise p*** off and go and disgrace some other sport that isn't ours.
 
Last edited:

Bringyourboots

Active Member
I would be exploiting that right away if I was a manager.

In our situation I think Campbell is gassed after about 50 minutes of football, I noticed this is the point where he starts making mistakes. Campbell could pretend to be injured and come off for ten minutes and I would throw on a fresh player for 10 minutes while he is having a breather.

However, it brings me back to a previous point, the time wasting and attempts to disrupt play are a smaller worry in relation to the cost of such acts to multiple county teams. We have experienced it a lot recently and it has cost us games in the past. Whilst many of us have expressed some downright hatred for other counties and a dislike for how tactics have gone, the amount of cheating that goes on today just to get the upper hand is a disgrace to 139 years of our beloved sport. If you are going to play football then play it the way it is supposed to be otherwise p*** off and go and disgrace some other sport that isn't ours.
Ah I hate it when you're right. Your point proves two things though:

One I'm too naive to be a manager and two there's no easy way to police this.

With the amount of tv coverage maybe retrospective bans....but then the barrister's would just get them off.

The other thing you're right about is about playing the game as it's supposed to be. Would we cry if we "cheated" our way to another AI? Would it just be justice for the Marsden incident? No matter it's a sad indictment we even have to talk about it being part of the game.
 

Armagh_paul

Well-Known Member
Ah I hate it when you're right. Your point proves two things though:

One I'm too naive to be a manager and two there's no easy way to police this.

With the amount of tv coverage maybe retrospective bans....but then the barrister's would just get them off.

The other thing you're right about is about playing the game as it's supposed to be. Would we cry if we "cheated" our way to another AI? Would it just be justice for the Marsden incident? No matter it's a sad indictment we even have to talk about it being part of the game.

I hate retrospective bans with a passion. Could you imagine last year a Galway player diving and as a result got the winning point of the game and scoring it. The said player gets a ban against Derry - That benefits Derry, not us. This is why I would prefer it was dealt with during the game and I don't think the punishment should match the crime so to speak, I think it should go beyond that. It is not likely but if a panel of referees were to adjudge a team of cheating they should be docked points from the in-game scoreboard. I bet anyone considering cheating would think more than twice about doing it.
 

Bringyourboots

Active Member
I hate retrospective bans with a passion. Could you imagine last year a Galway player diving and as a result got the winning point of the game and scoring it. The said player gets a ban against Derry - That benefits Derry, not us. This is why I would prefer it was dealt with during the game and I don't think the punishment should match the crime so to speak, I think it should go beyond that. It is not likely but if a panel of referees were to adjudge a team of cheating they should be docked points from the in-game scoreboard. I bet anyone considering cheating would think more than twice about doing it.
I get your point but I can't see it being managed in game. We struggle with subs at times! That feigned head injury stopping play may also prevent us from breaking forward for a score that wins the game too. Cheating sickens me.

I suppose the hope would be that eventually it would be eradicated if players are getting retrospective bans. It wouldn't comfort the victims at the time though which isn't fair. If it was proven, and that could be the hardest part, should the cheating team forfeit the game? Can't see that making the rule book. Not easy this one.
 

Armagh_paul

Well-Known Member
I get your point but I can't see it being managed in game. We struggle with subs at times! That feigned head injury stopping play may also prevent us from breaking forward for a score that wins the game too. Cheating sickens me.

I suppose the hope would be that eventually it would be eradicated if players are getting retrospective bans. It wouldn't comfort the victims at the time though which isn't fair. If it was proven, and that could be the hardest part, should the cheating team forfeit the game? Can't see that making the rule book. Not easy this one.
If a video referee situation is not feasible for entire games, it would be interesting to look at the allowing management to challenge refereeing decisions but this would have to be limited to 3-4 challenges per game. In the Monaghan and Galway game, Duffy could have told Corey to challenge the decision knowing he definitely did not strike him and video evidence could be brought to the referee's attention. The referee could have correctly punished Kelly for his antics.

Something similar to this -

The Maple Leaf's goaltender was interfered with by the opposition player who fell to the ground and took the goaltender out. The foul led to the flyers scoring a goal. However, the maple leaf's coach challenged the decision and after reviewing the evidence the goal was disallowed. It is quick, simple and easy to implement. If the Leaf's manager challenged the decision to award the goal and no foul had taken place (this would be viewed as the manager intentionally disrupting the game) then the Leaf's would have had to play at a disadvantage for 2 minutes.

 
Last edited:

Bringyourboots

Active Member
If a video referee situation is not feasible for entire games, it would be interesting to look at the allowing management to challenge refereeing decisions but this would have to be limited to 3-4 challenges per game. In the Monaghan and Galway game, Duffy could have told Corey to challenge the decision knowing he definitely did not strike him and video evidence could be brought to the referee's attention. The referee could have correctly punished Kelly for his antics.

Something similar to this -

The Maple Leaf's goaltender was interfered with by the opposition player who fell to the ground and took the goaltender out. The foul led to the flyers scoring a goal. However, the maple leaf's coach challenged the decision and after reviewing the evidence the goal was disallowed. It is quick, simple and easy to implement. If the Leaf's manager challenged the decision to award the goal and no foul had taken place (this would be viewed as the manager intentionally disrupting the game) then the Leaf's would have had to play at a disadvantage for 2 minutes.

Could work for fouls/sendings off but I think the head injury given the potential medical side would be too hard to call.
 
Top