Just saw this short video from Sky, in which Matt Le Tissier makes some interesting, and debatable, points about simulation and DOGSO.
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
What do members think would happen if interpretations of DOGSO were changed as he suggests - at least for one-on-one situations - with the aim of encouraging players to stay on their feet in the box and try to score? Would this take us back to the original intentions of the law which was about preventing the 'professional foul'? Would it make a difference at all (ie. is it easier/less risky to go down under the slightest touch and hope for the penalty than to make an attempt on goal under pressure)? Would it make it easier or more difficult for referees?
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9627670/soccer-special-discuss-diving
What do members think would happen if interpretations of DOGSO were changed as he suggests - at least for one-on-one situations - with the aim of encouraging players to stay on their feet in the box and try to score? Would this take us back to the original intentions of the law which was about preventing the 'professional foul'? Would it make a difference at all (ie. is it easier/less risky to go down under the slightest touch and hope for the penalty than to make an attempt on goal under pressure)? Would it make it easier or more difficult for referees?