DIVING IN FOOTBALL???

By Zac Baker

Contents 1. Background to Diving. 2. Case Study: The Eduardo Incident. 3. The Aftermath of the Eduardo Incident. 4. UEFA’s action. 5. The non-effect of UEFA’s disciplinary actions

– Aiden McGeady. 6. Reaction to UEFA’s new guidelines. 7. Professional Opinion. 8. The Influence of video games. 9. Conclusion. 10. Bibliography

Background to diving. Prior to the new millennium, diving wasn’t quite as highlighted as it is now. It

has always been recognised as an issue, but never picked up on as strongly as it has been over the last few seasons.

The problem of diving was never seen as a UK issue. The introduction of continental stars in recent years has seen a rise in simulation, particularly in the English Premier League.

For years, British sides complained of foreign players falling to the ground too easily. These problems have now reached British shores, and with the FA being the worlds most powerful national governing body, it seems the problem of diving has escalated now that it has reached Britain.

UEFA has only recently been forced to begin coming up with disciplinary measures to combat diving. Never before has it been so high profile, and for the first time UEFA has been pressurised into action. It panicked under the pressure of the press and powerful bodies within the game, and crumbled not only once, but twice in the first major case laid before them.

Case Study: The Eduardo ‘incident’.

• On August 26th 2009, a dive from Arsenal’s Eduardo in a UEFA Champions League Qualifier sparked the ‘Diving Debate’.

• With Arsenal leading Celtic 2-0 from the first leg in Glasgow, Eduardo rounded Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc before crashing to the turf, untouched. Arsenal were awarded a penalty, which Eduardo dispatched, and Arsenal went on to win 3-1.

•What followed was worldwide fury directed towards Eduardo, for showing such discontempt for the laws of the game in such an important match.

The aftermath of the ‘Eduardo incident’.

The Furore surrounding the Eduardo incident was incredulous. Every newspaper carried the news that Eduardo was an embarrassment to the game, a cheat.

Celtic midfielder Massimo Donati, lobbied for Eduardo to be banned, even though UEFA laws did not state this was normal procedure..

The Scottish Football Association said they felt the dive was “disrespectful” and that all players caught diving should be given an automatic 2 match ban.

The Croatian press, however, were perhaps the only press to refuse to condemn Eduardo, most likely because he is an idol to the Croatian public and it would not go down well with the Croatian public.

UEFA’s action. Following pressure from both the S.F.A and the world press, UEFA decided to ban

Eduardo for two European matches. It was an action seen only once previously, taken against Lithuanian winger Saulius Mikoliunas, who dived against Scotland in a European Championship Qualifying match against Scotland.

UEFA were attempting to turn Eduardo into a scapegoat, almost issuing a warning to the professionals in that game that simulation would not be tolerated. It proved highly unsuccessful, in more ways than one.

Not only did it fail to put a stop to diving in any sort of way, UEFA backed out of the decision, bowed to Arsenal’s appeal and lifted the ban. It prompted yet more criticism of the organisation. Firstly, they were said to be creating rules as incidents occurred in order to keep in the good books of , and now they were backing out of major decisions, again at the request of a major European heavyweight. UEFA couldn’t win.

The non-effect of UEFA’s disciplinary actions – Aiden McGeady

To add to the failure to uphold the ban, UEFA’s attempts at scare-mongering footballers into honesty on the football failed massively too, as another high profile simulation occurred almost immediately.

Just 4 days after the Eduardo incident, and after continuous condemnation of his actions from the Celtic camp, winger Aiden McGeady received a second yellow card for diving and was subsequently sent off in a league match against Hibernian. It proved to be highly embarrassing both for Celtic and for Gordon Smith, who had barely time to breathe having bad-mouthed Arsenal for Eduardo’s antics in the Champions League Qualifier.

Reaction to UEFA’s new guidelines.

So, was UEFA’s action justified? One side of the argument , Eduardo dived and cheated, therefore he deserved to be punished. The other, The same thing happens week in week out elsewhere, and it slips under the radar of football’s governing bodies.

Harry Redknapp, manager of Arsenal’s rivals Tottenham Hotspur, believes that a mountain is being made out of a molehill, that diving is actually “rare in football” and that the laws on diving were fine as they were.

The general consensus , however, is mainly that UEFA was right in principle to ban Eduardo, but went about it in a totally unprofessional manner. Had UEFA created a law stating diving was a banning offence before the incident occurred, the decision could have been justified.

Gordon Smith, Chief Executive of the S.F.A, got highly involved in the debate. Smith was a long term campaigner for laws on diving being stiffened, and the Eduardo incident gave him fuel to strengthen his position. He said, the day after the incident : “I don't think that I have received enough support in my efforts to eradicate what I believe to be one of the most serious threats to the integrity of football.”

Opinions on UEFA’s diving guidelines.

Opinion on Severity of UEFA diving guide-lines

Too severeToo lenientAcceptable

Exhibit 1

12.5%

59.3%

29.2%

As part of my research, I carried out a poll of approximately 35 people interested in football. The results, as shown in exhibit 1, proved that the majority of football followers believe UEFA are too lenient in their disciplining of divers. However, I also found that almost 100% of these people were in agreement that UEFA needed to make clear a guideline for disciplinary action on diving, and be consistent with this rule. Varying the action taken from incident to incident leads to confusion within the game.

The influence of video games.While football’s organisers are busy trying to stamp out diving in football, arcade games such as Konami created “Pro Evolution Soccer” are influencing the next generation that it is part of the game today. By including a ‘dive button’ , makers are sending out the message that simulation is acceptable, and despite incorporating the UEFA advised yellow card if caught, it is surely the wrong message to send out to the boys and girls who will one day become the next line of professional footballers.Although out with UEFA’s hands, Konami and other such computer game creators should come to an agreement with UEFA to verify the laws on diving, and portray this in the arcade games appropriately.

Conclusion. Having considered the evidence I found whilst conducting my research, it remains obvious to

me that UEFA were perhaps right in theory with their actions, but carried the actions out in such a way that made them seem far too severe.

Diving remains a massive problem in football, and severe disciplinary action is indeed the only way in which it will be stamped out of the game. However, UEFA needs to realise that having clear guidelines in place which are free of confusion and which are universally recognised throughout football is a far simpler and more easily managed system of eradicating diving from the game. Handing out bans and allowing clubs to appeal them before withdrawing the punishment doesn’t work, and the attempts at using Eduardo as a scapegoat clearly failed.

Banning divers is the easiest way to prove that it will no longer be tolerated. Should UEFA introduce a system whereby anyone caught diving receives an automatic 2 match suspension, I am sure the number of footballers diving on the field of play will diminish rapidly. Managers would encourage honesty from their players and the players themselves would realise that it would be too big a risk to take. Scapegoats wouldn’t be needed, as every player would receive the same suspension, and every case would therefore be the same.

My overall conclusion, therefore, is that UEFA’s action’s against Eduardo were too harsh at the time, given that the sanctions were not written rule at the time. However, had the laws already been in place, then I believe they would have been fair and justified.

Bibliography www.thelondonpaper.com www.skysports.com www.bbc.co.uk/football www.thisislondon.co.uk www.google.com www.dailymail.co.uk www.celticfc.com www.thefa.com www.scottishfa.co.uk