Ahead of TheGame: video evidence can stop the divers

In today's e-mail bulletin, we asked: "In the wake of David Ngog's dive to win a penalty at Anfield last night, is it time to introduce retrospective punishment, in the form of bans, to stop this kind of thing damaging the game?"

Gabriele Marcotti responded: "Yes it is. It is certainly feasible, in fact they introduced it in Italy a couple of seasons ago. The only way to make it work would be to have an independent panel that could say 100 per cent that the player cheated and his intention was to cheat. What they found in Italy was that there were very few cases where that actually happened.

"Last night for example, although Ngog went over without being touched, you would have to prove that he was intending to deceive the referee and that is more difficult. If he argues 'I leapt over Carsley to get out of the way of his tackle' then it is very difficult to prove him wrong. Just because there hasn't been contact doesn't mean it is not a foul.

"Things like this make it very difficult to judge whether there has been cheating or not. It is certainly worth having retrospective action, especially to punish the extreme examples, but if it is introduced we should be aware that there are so many grey areas.

"In many ways it would be easier to introduce video evidence at the match. If you are talking about giving people retrospective bans you have to prove that the person was cheating. If you are doing it at the game, your objective isn't to punish the player but to get the right decision. If you take last night's example it would have taken a second to see that Ngog was not touched and the resulting decision would have had an immediate effect on the game. The burden of proof is a lot lower if you use video evidence at the game. Retrospective action would require a much higher burden of proof, because you are punishing a player, not righting a wrong.

"It will still be some time before we see video evidence used at matches. The political will isn't there from Fifa and Uefa and they are the ones who would make that kind of decision."

We also reported on Darren Ferguson's dismissal at Peterborough and footage of the dirtiest player alive.

Sign up for free here to get the full version featuring the latest news, gossip and fun direct to your inbox every weekday lunchtime and you could be setting the agenda.

Comments

[Dave]

I don't see why you need video evidence. The facts aren't in debate in this case. The argument is over whether what Ngog unquestionably did is a dive, a penalty, or neither. All we need in terms of rule changes is to have that clarified.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that if a defender makes a challenge like that and doesn't get the ball, it's a foul. The position on the pitch doesn't change that.

[Shaun Gibbs]

I don't agree that you need 100% agreement from a panel - it would just lead to the vast majority of cases being rejected (e.g. Eduardo). A majority verdict would be sufficient and would be a disincentive to go down easily.

I also think we need to involve experts in biomechanics, who can identify when the fall is not natural e.g. the guy who recently said a dead giveaway is when the arms are thrown back in the action of diving. When cases are brought to that level of detail, the ambiguities will disappear.

[el gaffer]

Hi Gab, I find the outrage over Ngog troubling. From my perspective, even though he might have exaggerated his fall, it was a penalty.

It wasn't any different to Darren Bent getting himself tripped by Gomes or Wayne Rooney falling over Almunia.

In fact, it seems that if Ngog had dragged his trailing leg so that he made contact with Carsley, there wouldn't be any fuss.

Conversely if he had made a concerted effort to stay on his feet and had lost his balance as a result, the commentators would have probably said that he was naive.

In that situation, if you make a tackle at speed like Carsley and mistime it, you would have to be very fortunate to not give away a pen.

[ted]

There are 4 ways this can go:

1) Nothing changes. If you're caught diving in the game then it's a yellow card (supposedly). If you're not, play continues, penalties/free kicks get awarded and cheating continues.

2) Use a video referee during the game. You could stop the game quickly while the video ref looks at the evidence, or you could play on as if nothing has happened while the video ref looks at the footage, and play can be called back if it was indeed a penalty. I favour the former, with the clock stopped as the evidence is reviewed.

3) Use video evidence AFTER the game to punish the perpetrator. Yes, it doesn't change the outcome, but theoretically it could if the punishment was harsh enough if someone is deemed guilty of diving to win a penalty which was subsequently converted (as in this case). For example, would Ngog have dived if the punishment was a 3-5 match ban (worse offence is dive is to win a penalty/gets player sent off etc), along with a possible financial penalty? I'm guessing he wouldn't.

4) Do no 3) and 4) together. I'm in favour of this. The threat of both getting punished during the game, as well as the threat of getting punished after it for blatant cheating would surely stamp it out?

I have no idea why FIFA/UEFA/whoever are so against video evidence, I really must be missing something-any ideas?

[Tom O'Shea]

Totally agree with you Dave, if a player slides in and misses the ball therefore causing an obstruction ot impeding the opposing player then it's a penalty, regardless of whether Ngog dived or not. If I was Carsley's manager I would be furious at him, not Ngog.

[Joe]

One thing's for certain: yellow cards for this are a joke. If there was no fault on either side, then no need for any action. But if the striker cheated to try and get an opponent sent off, the punishment should fit the crime: red card. Or where is the deterrent?

[Dave]

Shaun Gibbs>

I think having expert evidence is no bad thing, but I also strongly suspect that anyone who is genuinely an expert in biomechanics would tend to side with the 'diver' 99 times out of 100 because they understand that running is an inherently unstable, unbalanced process, and it takes very little to upset it and cause a tumbling fall. With regard specifically to the 'arms don't go up unless a player is diving' canard, it's obviously not the case when you stop and think about it. Imagine a player's hands are two weights on bits of string, pinned to his shoulders - a simple pendulum, in other words. If you stop the player's body moving, the hands/pendulums will swing forwards and up because of their momentum.

[Laurie]

How about the referee asks the player if it was a foul and why he thought that? If he said contact was made and its an obvious dive during the resulting video replay, he gets a card. If not, or there is a valid reason that he took that action without contact being made, make it a pen or no foul.

[Ronreagan]

LFC apologists excusing cheating by saying u missed a bad tackle that COULD have hit u therefore u get a penalty - REALLY WARPED THINKING. Ngog was NOT touched by Carsley - so there it ends, no penalty. What next - fouls for trying to get out of way before an opponent heads the ball,.