The Issue of Diving in Soccer: Why is 'Acting' Tolerated? Diving Controversy from Scotland

The Issue of Diving in Soccer: Why is 'Acting' Tolerated? Diving Controversy from Scotland

Even the Winning Coach Says "It's Not a PK"—Is Football Allowing Too Much "Falling Advantage"?

The Words from the Winning Side Deepened Doubts About the Decision

After the match, the coach expressed dissatisfaction with the PK decision. This is not an uncommon scene in football. However, the situation changes when the coach of the side that benefited from the PK does not support the decision.

Such a scene occurred during the Scottish Championship match between Ayr United and Partick Thistle on October 16.

Just before the end of the first half, Thistle's Seb Drozd fell in the penalty area, and referee Matthew McDermid awarded a PK. Ayr's Liam Dick was nearby, but the decision to call this play a foul raised doubts.

The match ended with Thistle winning 1-0. The controversial PK became the decisive goal that separated the two teams.

According to the Daily Mail, Thistle's coach Mark Wilson expressed that he did not see it as a PK. He reportedly conveyed the same view to the fourth official at the moment of the decision.

Acknowledging doubts about a decision that favored his team without evading responsibility is commendable. At the same time, the fact that the decision was not supported even by the winning side further fueled the controversy.


The Issue Is Not Just "Misjudgment"

Gary Naysmith, the defeated Ayr coach, criticized Drozd's fall as a dive after reviewing the footage repeatedly. He expressed strong dissatisfaction, claiming there was an unfavorable PK decision the previous week as well.

The original article reports that James McFadden, who was providing commentary for the BBC, also found it difficult to understand what the foul was.

However, it is necessary to separate two points here.

One is whether there was a foul significant enough to award a PK to the defending side. The other is whether the attacking side intentionally tried to deceive the referee.

Even if the answer to the former is "no," it does not automatically mean the answer to the latter is "yes." Players may slip or lose their balance while trying to avoid contact.

It is true that there is criticism of a dive from those involved in this case. However, within the scope of the materials confirmed in this article, there is no confirmation that any post-match disciplinary action against Drozd has been finalized. Criticism and formal disciplinary decisions should be treated separately.


Doubts About the Decision and Calls for Player Responsibility on Social Media

The Scottish Sun reports on social media reactions regarding this decision, highlighting posts questioning what the referee saw to decide it was a PK and calling for responsibility not only from the referee but also from the players.

What is highlighted here is a summary of the posts published by the paper and does not represent the overall opinion distribution on social media.

What is noteworthy is that the criticism is not directed solely at the referee. If a player attempted to deceive the referee, is it enough to only blame the side that failed to see through it? This question arises.

Meanwhile, in places where short videos are spread, doubts about the decision can easily escalate into words that completely deny the individual's character and suitability as a referee. Examining the play and expanding attacks on individuals are separate matters.

What is needed is not to compete in the intensity of anger but to confirm what happened and on what basis the decision was made.


Simulation Is Already Subject to Warnings

The International Football Association Board (IFAB), which sets the rules of the game, considers acts of feigning injury or pretending to be fouled to deceive the referee as unsporting behavior subject to warnings.

In other words, there is not "no rule" against simulation.

The issue lies in when and with what degree of certainty to apply that rule.

For example, if a player falls but there was no foul, simply deciding to continue play might be appropriate. Unless there is recognition of an intent to deceive, a warning should not be issued solely based on the fall.

Conversely, if it is clearly judged that a player is feigning a foul, merely gesturing "get up" each time would weaken the effectiveness of the rule that stipulates warnings.

What is required is not uniformly severe punishment for players who fall. It is to carefully distinguish between natural falls and deception for gain and to consistently respond to the latter.


What Does "Skillfully Earning a PK" Praise?

For Japanese football fans, this issue is not an event in a distant country.

There are moments during a match when one might feel "skillfully earned a PK" or "it was a seasoned play." However, what those words refer to is not always the same.

If a player touches the ball before the opponent and is brought down by an unreasonable challenge from the defending side, it can be said that skill and judgment drew out the foul. On the other hand, if a non-existent foul is made to appear as if it exists, what is being praised is the act of deceiving the referee.

What happens if this distinction remains ambiguous and only the result is evaluated?

Players who continue to play without falling gain less than those who fall dramatically. If such recognition spreads, "the skill to make it look like a foul was committed" becomes an additional competitive target for players.

Of course, it cannot be said that football as a whole has become more dishonest than before based on this incident alone. Without comparable data, it is also inappropriate to idealize the past.

Nevertheless, if an act by one's own team is praised as wisdom and the same act by the opponent is condemned as dishonesty, this inconsistency is something spectators themselves can examine.


Can the Coach's Frankness Be Linked to the Team's Standards?

This time, Coach Wilson's expression of doubt about a decision that favored his team serves as a starting point for discussion.

If the evaluation of a decision changes based on the outcome, the coach's remarks will only be perceived as criticism of the opponent. The attitude of speaking with the same standards even in situations where one's team benefits is the first step toward making fair play a concrete action.

The original article's author also mentions the idea of fines for players by the club. However, this is the author's suggestion and not a report of actual disciplinary action.

Moreover, when a club addresses a player, a judgment based on video and the player's explanation is necessary. It is not acceptable to determine intent solely because of strong public backlash.

What clubs should share is a more fundamental standard. It is acceptable to convey that a legitimate foul was received. However, attempting to create a non-existent foul is not acceptable. The question is whether this boundary can be maintained even on days of victory.


What Football Should Protect Is Trust in Decisions, Not the "Strength Not to Fall"

Criticism of diving sometimes leads to stories like "players in the past didn't fall easily." However, if the direction is to make players endure contact and pain, it will create other problems.

What should be protected is not the ability to remain standing despite dangerous play but an environment where actual fouls are correctly handled and no benefits are gained from feigning fouls.

For that, not only the referee's judgment but also the players' actions, the coach's evaluations, and what the spectators praise are involved.

The PK in Scotland posed not only the question of "Did this referee make a mistake?"

Can we view play with the same standards even when our team benefits? Can we separate celebrating victory from justifying inappropriate actions?

The task of maintaining trust in decisions cannot be left to the person holding the whistle alone.


Sources

Related Articles