Dear people of football,

I’ve cheated. You’ve cheated. We’ve all done it. We’ve all condoned it. We’ve all been upset when someone has done it to us. 

There are many different forms of cheating: intentional/tactical fouls, diving, malicious tackles, shirt pulling/pushing, handballing, blocking, time-wasting, appealing for a throw in we know is not ours. So what’s the difference? Most are used to gain an advantage but only one of those is potentially GBH if done on a Saturday night out instead of a football pitch.

The one that seems to make most people in Britain irate is not the one that is career threatening or one that happens most often. It is the one that is most publicised however. Unless it happens to be done by Michael Owen in a World Cup match against Argentina. By that point the high horse that is so often occupied has itself taken a dive.

Tony Pulis and his crap cap have called for a three game retrospective ban for players taking dives. I agree that rubbish diving looks like it belongs in a bad acting reel of Orlando Bloom. But bloomin hell, does it being more embarrassing than say shirt pulling make it more morally reprehensible? Pulis has claimed the moral high ground over a Luis Suarez dive, echoing his identical posturing following a recent game against Chelsea. The worst incident suffered by Stoke at Stamford Bridge was not the terrible Branislav Ivanovic dive but the horrendous David Luiz tackle on Jon Walters. Yet if Pulis called on retrospective bans for those, he might as well call an end to Andy Wilkinson’s career now.

If anything shirt pulling is the real pinnacle of football cheating. It happens dozens of times in every game. Everyone does it, everyone accepts it. It affects outcomes but there’s no bandwagon.  It is “Part of the game”. Yes it is an illegal part of the game punishable by a free kick.

There are many stupid bandwagons on the tracks of British football. The anti zonal marking brigade is the flavour of the past 24 months or so. The anti card waving brigade need to have a look in the mirror,  show themselves a red card and then slap themselves for their added stupidity to calm their hysteria.

Imagine a player gets kicked hard. You’d rightfully feel wronged. On a human nature level your natural reaction is understandably one of fight or flight. So instead of fighting back against your assailant and getting sent off and causing further trouble you ask the law enforcer for justice. And suddenly you are the bad guy. “We don’t like to see that.” The very same people who would like to see bans for divers don’t like seeing an imaginary card being waved. Next time you are assaulted just take it on the chin.

EVERYONE has complained at a ref about a decision. Yet when it suits certain dimwits “trying to influence a ref” is offensive. Despite the fact EVERYONE does it when appealing for or against a decision as simple as a throw in or corner. So next time someone dives if anyone campaigns for justice, remind them they can’t influence the ref and should just accept that a player has cheated against them and move on; after all apparently all of us want to see the game XI versus XI. That is more important than player safety or integrity of the game.

Often refs are judged by how many cards they have issued. Sky will display season stats like it correlates to a refs thirst for blood. Not all cards are justified but neither are the non carded fouls that deserved censure. In short, this is a pointless and misleading stat. It is not necessarily the referees fault if he has a game where players lose control. “We don’t like to see players sent off.” Well if it is deserved, why not?

After all, a lack of enforced discipline is a bigger issue as escalations of offences continue on their merry way. Then retributions inevitably occur. So the aim of not sending off players has only led to more candidates for an early bath. That sounds like a genius policy. We should be more preoccupied about people repeatedly breaking the rules to their advantage and really ruining the true outcome of a game. The rules are the same for all. Abide by them. Apply them.

The excusers of applying the rules by showing cards will often say it’s too early for a booking or plead innocence by uttering the famous, “it was my first one ref” defence. Last time I checked the rules you do not get a free hit but players have propagated this untruth and worse still so have the refs. This leniency has licensed thugs to be unjustifiably physical.

My complaints against other people’s gripes have often been greeted by the familiar chorus of, “stop whingeing”. The irony of that protest seems to escape my not so conscientious objectors.

These are just some of the clichés that are uttered across the land through all levels of the game. Luckily there are enough other catchphrases to keep it company.

“Taking tackling out of the game.” Another of the moron’s myths. A clean tackle is a beautiful thing in its own right and players still do just that many times a game. The clampdown on unsafe tackles has not been severe enough as refs are more preoccupied with keeping eleven on the pitch than player safety particularly the lower down the leagues you go. Often hard tackling/limited ability/ menacing players are described as ‘honest lads’. The poor souls are just out there, trying their innocent best and are “not that kind of player.”  The not so gentle men are often inadequate footballers that work hard and boot the opposition harder. Look it up in the dictionary and you’ll see a picture of Lee Cattermole. Lovely lad.

“Getting someone sent off” is a heinous crime. Most get mildly upset when a ref fails to send off someone for a horror tackle. Getting someone sent off through deceit is another form of gamesmanship but in most of these examples it’s only a cry for justice, which is fair and better than players becoming vigilantes and evening things up themselves. It may not be popular but grassing people up here is just fine with me. Players who are whistleblowers trying to affect the whistleblowers should be supported if they are calling for a just punishment. Stop hating on the snitches bitches!

Appalling appealing has only grown more depressing. For example, “Handball!” shouts from the whole crowd when a ball hits a player in the chest are routinely encouraged. Anyone upset at these attempts to influence a ref? No, thought not. Or it’s close relation of calls “Our ball!” many a player has knowingly appealed for a throw when they know it came off them. More good sportsmanship regularly overlooked. The culture of, “you don’t ask you don’t get” and “eventually you’ll get a decision” fuels injustice in stadiums and parks around the country. The hunt for these wrong decisions seems invisible to countless. Time to pack in these pursuit cases.

The crusade of anti-diving has even led to warped praise for players staying on their feet when being impeded. “Fair play to Sergio Aguero for staying on his feet,” came the sentiments when clearly fouled by Laurent Koscielny recently. People failed to grasp that it was UNFAIR play towards Aguero that he was denied a penalty despite the illegal contact.

So it appears cheating yourself is commendable if perverted. In fact it’s this type of unpunished foul that encourages players to go to ground more easily, to accentuate contact to get the just decision. Eventually the natural conclusion is more players will dive in anticipation of contact that wont come and they will have chucked in a stupid looking dive. Fair play to unfair play it is.

“Soft penalty,” Alan Smith often utters in his many stupid commentaries, he doesn’t think a decision is worth a penalty as it would have been harsh. It’s either a foul or not Smudge you boring, life draining, fence-sitting, soul destroying half wit. Where on the pitch does not matter. Guess what a soft foul and a hard foul have in common? They are fouls!!

The classic, “a little nudge,” analysis followed by a little chuckle from Andy Gray. Richard Keys’ best mate used to revel in a bit of physical cheating in the box. It would be further praised as evidence of a bit of experience on the cheaters part. Even most watching would fail to feel cheated by the ‘little nudges’ when they might have influenced a result just like a dive would. Cheaters do prosper.

“Let him know you are there,” with a good amount of force win the ball and maybe, probably, definitely hit the man as well. That’ll show him you are ready to scare him into playing badly through physical intimidation. Welcome to the Premier League Johnny Foreigner. Now if only there was a game that you could go and practice that in legally. Oh yeah, wait yes there is it’s called Rugby. Or running into a wall.

Now there is one phrase every professional or seriously cynical team has used. It’s so common it’s practically in the coaching manuals of the game. A “good foul” is tactical, cynical, calculated and presumes the punishment is worth the alternative of letting your opponent advance fairly. Our team has done it, we’ve done it, we’ve expected it. Yet it’s a cancer that has its feet under the table of football and we are all happy to have it here.

Frequently the alternative to punishing the multiple pulls, pushes, nudges and acts of cynicism in a game is seen as preposterous. “But the ref would have to give 10 penalties a game” the idiots would cry. Yes if 10 fouls in the box are committed then I would like to see 10 penalties awarded. “But you’d have games finishing 7-6,” yes, no one likes to see goals. Goals are ghastly. I’d much rather watch a boring, cynical 0-0 draw.

On a wider scale football is often castigated for lacking moral fibre in its nature when compared to sports like rugby and cricket. But most team sports have gamesmansh… I mean cheating in them.  Rugby players look to gain an advantage by deception in or near the ruck all the time. Even in cricket, where discipline is much stricter, the players often appeal for dismissals they know not to be correct, or fail to admit when they have nicked a ball behind.

Therefore, if we want true fairness, surely the ultimate quest is calling fouls on yourself as the players often do in snooker. That is the final show of true sportsmanship. If we are not prepared to expect that, and no one is, then we are all promoting injustice. 

What I’m saying is not to ignore rule breakers in all their guises but that they are mostly part of the same cheating family. If anything the unfair calls for fair play in only certain situations are prejudiced calls of justice to suit certain bias. Until the clamour is unified we will go on with the hypocrisy of injustice bandwagons, ganging up on only certain versions of rule breakers, instead of calling on all cheats to be reprimanded.

Bottom line is we are all cheating ourselves.

 

Yours insincerely,

Honest Lad, Vojin Soskic.