Ian Royalmultisync1830Ian Royal Yeah, if you penalise the obvious ones and leave the dubious ones, it's essentially just creating a system of encouraging players to get better at disguising diving. Whereas if you shrug and accept sometimes you'll get it wrong and someone'll be unfairly penalised there is no incentive to get better at diving, the incentive is to stay on your feet at all costs.
as a theory that might work but that implies a certain amount of premeditation . Diving (or not) generally is a millisecond split decision. .
You could say the same about tackles from behind. Doesn't mean that punishing them harshly failed to stop them because they were milisecond split decisions.
I don't think you can safely use that analogy.
Tacking from behind has drastically reduced . Introducing a diving ban will also drastically reduce diving because once a player is in the 'shall I shan't I?' phase of a run/tackle/ situation etc he has to be more than certain his 'dive' will be put in the unproven box.
It's quite possible that he will not risk it if there has been no contact because he'll probably suspect with multiple replays chances are he'll get a case proven retrospective punishment.. By just using the ref and linesmen the odds are on his side and it's worth a punt.
