Josh Magennis - Self-Confessed Cheat

[Tamdunk]

Is cheat not a little harsh? Diving/simulation is breaking the rules, I'd say cheating was a bit more severe more like fixing the outcome of the game, or using PEDs. Being caught offside is breaking the rules, but you wouldn't really say it's cheating.

[killienick]

Straight up divers are a different kettle of fish of course but I don't think Magennis said that he outright dived? More made the most of contact?

This is exactly my point.

We as fans will be quite happy if our players 'make the most of contact' as Josh no doubt does occasionally. Harkins throws himself into Connolly in that clip therefore making the most of the contact that was about to come. When Harkins did this I was using some expletives about him and casting aspersions as to his parentage, however, what he did was clever and it's the same for Josh and players in every other team in the league. We as fans though will always be biased in our interpretation of these incidents - it's one of the things I love about fitba - we can all view the same incident and have completely differing views on it.

[ArabFC]

There's a difference between out and out diving and making the most of genuine contact.

Why? Both are cheating, you just choose to be more outraged by one than the other.

Kris Boyd diving 2 seconds after an 'imagined' contact just looks far worse, than someone feeling some contact and falling down. They both amount to the same thing.

For the benefit of the doubt, I hate diving of any kind and cringe when I've seen United players do it. I've also told many of my own coaches and managers to f**k off when they've said I should have 'gone down'.

But then, I'm a hypocrite too, as I'll cheat in other ways when playing football, whether that be grabbing hold of opponents in the box, or standing 8 yards away from a free-kick instead of 10. Diving just rubs most of up the wrong way, because we preferred football when it was a more physical sport.

[killienick]

Why? Both are cheating, you just choose to be more outraged by one than the other.

As a fan, I'm more upset when there is zero contact. With zero contact, the player has been premeditated in his cheating by pretending something happened which didn't. If there is contact, in many cases it could be significant enough to put a player off shooting or make them alter their stride and ultimately impede their chances of scoring. Unfortunately, going down is the only way to assure that the infringement is punished as the ref is unlikely to give it otherwise - it's a fine line but IMO there is a big difference.

[ArabFC]

As a fan, I'm more upset when there is zero contact. With zero contact, the player has been premeditated in his cheating by pretending something happened which didn't. If there is contact, in many cases it could be significant enough to put a player off shooting or make them alter their stride and ultimately impede their chances of scoring. Unfortunately, going down is the only way to assure that the infringement is punished as the ref is unlikely to give it otherwise - it's a fine line but IMO there is a big difference.

So the decision lies with the player, as to how much contact constitutes an infringement? Sad times.

[Tamdunk]

As a fan, I'm more upset when there is zero contact. With zero contact, the player has been premeditated in his cheating by pretending something happened which didn't. If there is contact, in many cases it could be significant enough to put a player off shooting or make them alter their stride and ultimately impede their chances of scoring. Unfortunately, going down is the only way to assure that the infringement is punished as the ref is unlikely to give it otherwise - it's a fine line but IMO there is a big difference.

It's embarrassing watching folk built like tanks, Drogba/Bale going down like flies though. Wee dicks like Maloney and Naismith you can kind of understand it, but the brick shithouses going down is poor. That huge bloke Koller(?) 6'8" was terrible for it.

[Deefiant]

Why? Both are cheating, you just choose to be more outraged by one than the other.

Kris Boyd diving 2 seconds after the 'imagined' contact just looks far worse, than someone feeling some contact and falling down. They both amount to the same thing.

Nope. If you are impeded by contact which has an effect on the phase of play then you should be awarded a free kick / penalty. If you feel you need to take measures to highlight this legitimate contact then crack on.

If you are not impeded and choose to throw yourself to the floor when there is zero contact you are entitled to a booking.

I'm not particularly outraged by either - I kind of accept that it's going to happen. This may be because I'm cynical and spent a fair portion of my footballing life doing the dirty stuff that happens but no-one wants to see or hear about. I'm talking about pulling attackers back on top of me at corners so it looks like they have fouled me or , standing on my markers toes whilst waiting for a corner, grabbing armpit hair, standing on peoples achilles etc.

Also if the person finally bit back I would be doing my best to make sure they were caught doing so. Basically I was seeking to gain an advantage for my team in any way I could. If I got caught my gaffer would give me a hard time, if I got away with it and scored / stopped us conceding it was overlooked. Diving is a bit easier to pick up on TV, usually because it occurs at the focal point of the play, but I don't think it's any worse than some of the stuff mentioned above.

I will still go ballistic when a decision goes against my team but thats all part of the soap opera - football is about emotion which often overides rational thoughts. Thats why we follow it.

If you want a sport where everyone plays by the rules all the time... well I'm not sure it's a sport you are after.

[killienick]

So the decision lies with the player, as to how much contact constitutes an infringement? Sad times.

No. It lies with the referee but they will not give a penalty without the player going down as they are not brave enough in most cases. I think it should be acceptable for it to be considered a penalty and a dive at the same time. If there was enough contact for a player to be put off then penalty, but if you throw yourself like Tom Daly and roll around like you've been shot - yellow card for simulation. The decision should be the ref's as to whether there was enough contact to infringe the player irrespective of whether they went down but we all know that would if a referee can avoid making a decision then they will.

[killienick]

It's embarrassing watching folk built like tanks, Drogba/Bale going down like flies though. Wee dicks like Maloney and Naismith you can kind of understand it, but the brick shithouses going down is poor. That huge bloke Koller(?) 6'8" was terrible for it.

Agreed. But to play Devil's Advocate here, I'm 6'6" and sometimes it's easier to knock a big guy off balance if you catch their ankles. We tend to have a much higher centre of gravity and are also generally much heavier so momentum can do the job for you. (Not in Koller's case - he was just a pansy).

Any time it snows I'm a certainty to end up erse over tits for much the same reason.

[kennysmassiveego]

Big Josh has got some people in a twist , which is ironic because he rarely does it to defenders. When Tommy McLean played for KIllie I don't remember him going down too easily in the box any time I saw him but I did when he played for the original Gers . And I also don't remember Davie Provan falling over his bootlaces at KIllie but blow me he became unsteady on his feet at Celtic. Perspective . As this GRAEME says it's an inbuilt or learned trait that anyone who has ever played football has utilised at some point. Josh's " crime" here is that he was honest about it. And even if alayer was instructed or encouraged to do it by the manager what's the betting that would be denied vehemently by the manager for fear of falling foul of the beaks at the SFA.

Hypocrites abound

The next time it happens at Rugby Park I will froth at the mouth, shout ,swear and berate the player that did it but applaud ever so sheepishly if a KIllie player does likewise .

C'est la vie

[k1ll13k1d]

Josh > St Mirren

[Tamdunk]

Agreed. But to play Devil's Advocate here, I'm 6'6" and sometimes it's easier to knock a big guy off balance if you catch their ankles. We tend to have a much higher centre of gravity and are also generally much heavier so momentum can do the job for you. (Not in Koller's case - he was just a pansy).

Any time it snows I'm a certainty to end up erse over tits for much the same reason.

Know what you mean, but you see Bale and Drogba use their strength all the time. They're fooling noone.

[ArabFC]

No. It lies with the referee but they will not give a penalty without the player going down as they are not brave enough in most cases. I think it should be acceptable for it to be considered a penalty and a dive at the same time. If there was enough contact for a player to be put off then penalty, but if you throw yourself like Tom Daly and roll around like you've been shot - yellow card for simulation. The decision should be the ref's as to whether there was enough contact to infringe the player irrespective of whether they went down but we all know that would if a referee can avoid making a decision then they will.

So you feel its fine to dive to highlight to a referee that there may have been an infringement. Where is the line in this? If a defender taps you on the shoulder, are you allowed to fall over, as long as you don't roll around?

It's cheating either way imho. I'd say I have never dived, but then I remember getting a penalty once, where the defender never touched me - I had jumped out of the way as he kicked out at me. I was happy enough it was a penalty and even took it myself, but I'm sure many would consider it a 'dive' as there was no contact.

You can check for yourself...

http://youtu.be/PuFMXe0t1YE?t=55s

[killienick]

So you feel its fine to dive to highlight to a referee that there may have been an infringement. Where is the line in this? If a defender taps you on the shoulder, are you allowed to fall over, as long as you don't roll around?

It's cheating either way imho. I'd say I have never dived, but then I remember getting a penalty once, where the defender never touched me - I had jumped out of the way as he kicked out at me. I was happy enough it was a penalty and even took it myself, but I'm sure many would consider it a 'dive' as there was no contact.

You can check for yourself...

http://youtu.be/PuFMXe0t1YE?t=55s

As I said - It's a fine line. The referee should be able to tell there when there has been an infringement, regardless of contact, (but they can't or won't). The contact should be substantial enough to have infringed on the player's progress, (I would suggest that a tap on the shoulder wouldn't do that ), but, if you have to hurdle a slide tackle and there is little or no contact it could still be a penalty if the tackle was considered illegal and has put a player off by forcing them to hurdle.

I would say that the tackle in the clip was a penalty as it looked dangerous and your movement was to avoid a collision as opposed to diving. (Nicely drilled BTW).

[Ira Gaines]

So you feel its fine to dive to highlight to a referee that there may have been an infringement.

I'd say that until they start doing their jobs properly in this respect, it's fine.

[Staggie52]

That they're only human so are likely to make mistakes?

What's your point, exactly?

The point is that there's lots on here condoning cheating which is a deliberate act but have a go at refs for making a mistake which isn't deliberate, unless you believe the conspiracy theories. Sorry if that wasn't obvious, my fault for being obtuse.

[ArabFC]

I'd say that until they start doing their jobs properly in this respect, it's fine.

We shall be waiting some time.

[Ira Gaines]

We shall be waiting some time.

And therein lies the problem.

I see no reason for players to trust the referees or to play to the whistle in these situations. And thus I see no reason for players not to go down if they can stay up if there's been significant contact that could potentially lose them an advantage that could get a goal.

[Suspect Device]

Makes a change for a player to be honest. Even if he's admitting to being dishonest.

[Estragon]

If a striker is bumped in the box, loses balance and misses a chance then the referees don't give a shit. What on earth is the incentive to stay on your feet?