An unique opportunity to develop anti-diving laws

The FFA has taken a major step to ensure that one of the blights of the game abroad does not take root in Australia - banning two players for diving in Round 4 of A-League season 2010-11.

The Match Review Panel, consisting of former Socceroo Alan Davidson, former referee Simon Micallef, and Barry Such acted swiftly in handing down two match bans to Argentine Central Coast Mariner playmaker Patricio Perez and Perth Glory striker Michael Baird. Liam Reddy’s red card was also rescinded in the findings held overnight.

In its deliberation, the Match Review Panel had specific regard for the good of the game domestically, in recognising that one of the major concerns of potential fans was the perceived theatrics that disfigure the game.

The anti-simulation jurisdiction of the Match Review Panel was established two years ago by Football Federation Australia. In the process it made the A-League only the second domestic competition worldwide to introduce the measures, following moves by the Scottish Football Association.

Perhaps the most cogent thesis regarding the phenomenon of simulation is Morris’ dissertation published in the Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour. In it, Morris argues that diving can be characterised by four basic traits:

• A separation in time between the impact and the simulation;

• A lack of ballistic continuity i.e.: the player moves further than would be expected of the momentum of the tackle;

• A lack of contact consistency i.e.: the player nurses a body part other than that which would be expected to show pain for impact to have occurred); and

• The “archer’s bow pose” i.e.: the player head tilts back, the chest is thrust forward, arms raised and both legs bent at the knee to lift both feet of the ground at the rear. The journal adds to this end that it is counter to the body’s natural defence mechanism to cushion the body in a fall.

Certainly Perez’ thespian traits displayed Morris’ classic archer’s bow pose and could be adopted as a guide by the FFA in educating current A-League match officials and aspiring referees.

Morris’ article is by no means an exhaustive list of the types of player simulation and FIFA would need to remain committed to its decisions yet be flexible in its approach.

For instance, in terms of Morris’ second point regarding a lack of ballistic continuity, it is useful to view an incident in the A-League last Sunday. In Gold Coast United’s 1-0 loss to Melbourne Victory at Skilled Stadium we can view James Brown’s lunge on Kevin Muscat as a point of reference.

In this incident, Muscat received the ball before distributing it to another Victory outfield player. Brown arrived late and in a non-sporting manner rapped his boot into Muscat’s shin. The contact was minimal, but the tackle was crude and Muscat wanted referee Ben Williams to understand the nature of the tackle. Without feigning injury, Muscat rolled several times more than was necessary to underline the nature of the tackle. This did not indicate a lack of ballistic continuity so much as a seasoned player in Muscat wanting respect from the referee.

In terms of attempting to catalogue instances of diving, Morris’ thesis should be adopted by FIFA and could form a guide as to how the laws of the game are interpreted by individual referees on the pitch in the moment, in much the same way rules of evidence operate in a court of law.

Obviously there will be instances where a referee has a certain angle of a tackle that makes the referee perceive an event very differently to how it looks from the stands or on television. This usually results in fans' despairing at the quality of referees.

This will, akin to other incidents that do not involve diving, remain the domain of the Match Review Panel, if, in the tribunal’s view, the incident was of a standard necessary to exercise its jurisdiction. But this should not detract from the development of a body of interpretation in relation to instances of simulation being created. This will enable referees to have greater education and knowledge of the types of diving that can occur in a given situation. This will, in turn, lead to greater continuity in terms of the decision making process and the outcome of a match rather than FIFA simply legislating that instances of simulation earn a card.

To understand what we are trying to achieve it is important to understand the motivations for the behaviour of players in attempting to deceive match officials. To paraphrase a piece on diving in his book Fozz On Football, Craig Foster writes that diving is inextricably linked to its socio-economic and cultural setting.

The thesis is essentially this: Players who dive routinely in order to gain material advantage often come from nations where football is the one and only way for vast numbers of people to gain in terms of social mobility. Where education, healthcare and financial security are not options for people and where making it in football can offer the possibility of access to any or all of these; the chance to change one’s fortunes can stem directly from one’s exploits on the pitch.

Combine this with the effect that a penalty or, in instances where accomplished technicians of varying types populate a team, a free kick can have in a football match and the mentality can be easily understood. It might be useful to point out that in seeking to understand the behaviour, the aim is not to forgive the behaviour.

Foster adds that Australia as nation, though it is not and does not claim to be perfect, has an intense focus on equality and fairness in society.

The philosophy of "fair dinkum" operates writ large and, without wanting to isolate sections of the community in Australia in which many consider this might not exist, this means that Australian players have a job to perform as standard bearers of egalitarianism and even-handedness on the world stage.

To export this mentality to the world game is one of our destinies, according to Foster.

Simulation presents challenges to the claim to being the beautiful game for initiates in Australia. Australians all agree on a broader basis as sport lovers and members of an egalitarian society that cheating is not acceptable and not something we want to see becoming rife in our domestic league.

These first steps of the Match Review Panel in banning two players for two games each for cases, in the view of the tribunal, of simulation represents an historic moment. A message is sent not only to domestic football but to the game worldwide.

Whilst it is not the first instance of simulation to be punished after the event, certainly as more cases are viewed and dealt with in accordance with precedent as found by the FFA’s Match Review Panel, a cogent mechanism can be created for the eradication of this blemish on the beautiful game that can be exported by Australia to the world of football.