With due apology to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his short story entitled ‘The Adventure of the Dancing Men‘ - Scene: the Baker Street home of Sherlock Holmes, the famous detective, who is seated in silence with his long, thin back curved over a chemical vessel in which he is brewing a particularly malodorous product. He looks up in order to converse with Dr Watson, his lifelong friend, saying slowly and deliberately.... 

 

“So, Watson, you are surprised to learn of yet more Chelsea simulators in The Times this very morning, are you not?â€

 

Dr Watson gave a start of astonishment, accustomed as he was to Holmes’s curious faculties, but this sudden intrusion into his most intimate thoughts was utterly inexplicable. “How on earth do you know that Holmes?†he asks in amazement. “Elementary my dear Watson,†came the reply, with the air of a professor addressing his class - “it is not really difficult when you have the newspaper’s distinctive printers ink colouration on your hands, whilst at the same time your left eyebrow lifts in askance and I know that you are not: 1. Medically afflicted in any way. 2. Unduly surprised by the Arse not defending properly or 3. Carlo Ancelotti in disguise. Add to this my having prior knowledge of your undying love of all things Chels and it is but a simple step to deduce accurately, as I have done on this occasion and many others before. 

 

However, what is of far greater significance, my Shed End loving friend, is not the revelation that diving exists within the ranks of Chelsea blue, but that, of late, the supposed perpetrators of it are not, nor ever have been at any time in their careers, usual suspects associated with such deplorable conduct. Moreover, even though I have still to avail myself of Matt Hughes undoubtedly sombre appraisal of events this morning, I believe another diver will surely have emerged from the scandalous depths, bringing the possibility of further opprobrium on the club you support, in what might otherwise be described as its finest hours of this Premiership season.†

 

Dr Watson stepped back in amazement, accustomed as he was to Holmes’s incredible powers of deduction, but this unimaginable level of fortunetelling left him totally nonplussed. “Pray tell, Holmes, how do you manage to astound in this manner.†he pleads, finally. “Elementary my dear Watson,†came the parroted reply from Holmes, with the air of a smart Arsene manager knowing he is safe in a job for life regardless of results - “ it is not really difficult to construct a series of inferences, each dependent on its predecessor and each simple in itself, leading to a premise such as this - the curious case of the Chelsea simulators - where none appeared to exist before, and where those that do now do so, not through guilt, but by virtue of necessity.†The great detective pauses for effect, only to see his friend look even more befuddled than in pre-enlightenment times.

 

“I confess to total confusion now Holmes, for what exactly is this ‘inference‘ and ‘necessity’ you speak of?†The renowned detective sighs, and then in condescending tone explains in full and at great length, “My dear Watson, inference was borne of necessity because referees have pinpointed diving as this Premiership season’s unnecessary evil, to be removed at all cost, even at the risk of damage to the PMGO‘s reputation due to their officials scattergun decision-making. For Chelsea, the first inference involved Diego Costa against Burnley, but it was to be immediately discredited on replay and, by the very nature of the player [he’s a fighter not a diver] another ’inference’ needed to be made. Briefly, Eden Hazard was the chosen one, but it soon became apparent that here was a player who could pass opponents legally and with ease, so there was no need for subterfuge, as evidenced by him soon becoming the most [clearly] fouled striker in the country.â€

 

“Next, and of this I am almost certain my friend, Andre Schurrle and Mo Salah would have been ’inferred’, had it not been for the fact that neither has played enough games to warrant attention of any kind, let alone be targeted in a spurious cause designed to clean up the game. And so, as happens these days in the strange inverted world of football officialdom, where [idiomatically] invention becomes the mother of necessity, suspicions had to fall on the least likely of characters - I think I heard you refer to them as Gary Cahill and a certain Branna, whoever he may be. To be honest, which is what both players are [as the day is long, reputedly] it is easy to sympathise with both, for neither (after respective careers’ worth of having forwards theatrically flinging themselves to the ground once they were in fairly close proximity of either) deserved to have their names drag through the dirt after [allegedly] doing the selfsame thing on just one isolated occasion in an opposition penalty area.“

 

“Yet the authorities deemed it fit and proper to infer, if not punish to the full, whilst the media, as only it does where Chelsea players are concerned, became judge, jury and prosecutor, despite there being no sign whatsoever of previous convictions to be taken into account on player charge sheets. Curious, indeed, but no lasting damage done, except to player and club reputation and, as I am sure you will verify Watson, that is now more than enough, is it not?†He looks enquiringly at his friend and finds him staring back at him incredulously. “But how did you know it would happen to us again, so soon and to so costly effect this time?†he asks, safe in the knowledge that, if he knows anything at all, it is the exact words in the opening sentence he is about to hear.

 

“Elementary my dear Watson, for the scene was set, the sorry simulation picture painted in previous banner headlines, and none of this depiction of duplicity was going to be wasted on another incident when it didn’t matter. The cause [in Chelsea’s case] had to have an effect and I deduced that 1.Diego’s denigration didn’t stick and was embarrassing to the authorities while 2.Cahill and Ivanovic’s comic condemnation proved no deterrent, at least not without there having to be serious repercussions for further Chelsea simulation somewhere down a very short timeline and 3.That timeline came to an abrupt end with Cesc Fabregas, I think that is the gentleman’s name, going over in the penalty box in yesterday’s confrontation on the South coast.â€

 

“How perfect it would have been for the media, referees and feigning injury aficionados everywhere had the latest simulation been palpably provable… but it wasn’t to be. Antony Taylor got it horribly wrong and the series of four that should [in the eyes of every Chelsea detractor] have culminated in a blatant dive and a ’cry wolf once too often’ scenario, ended with yet another humiliating refereeing decision, did it not my friend?†Watson took a moment to respond, stunned by the detective’s deductive powers, but still with one unanswered question on his lips. â€Undeniably all true, Holmes, but I still cannot fathom how you knew the player’s name, nor how you became so convinced of his simulation innocence. Surely neither can be described as ‘elementary‘ to deduce, can they?â€

 

.â€Most certainly, my dumbfounded friend, because 1. Jose was never going to use Cesc in the holding role alongside Matic for this game, thereby making it most likely he would do damage in the Saint’s area rather than assisting from afar and 2. When it comes to simulation, it is common knowledge down the whole length of Baker Street that the little Spaniard is just not that type of player.†And with a nod and wink in the medical man’s direction, Sherlock Holmes continued his own particular pastime of preference, by lowering his head back over the chemical vessel once again.      

 

.

 

Terrific read Dorset, up to the usual standard! Well done mate. It is truly ridiculous some of the decisions we've had re; simulation so far this season, hopefully Joses' outburst will put the pressure on referees' to swing the other way with these decisions in future!

Top notch as per

Great read. After I saw post match interview I was quite surprised what Jose said, I totally agree it was penalty but it's hard to believe there is campaign against Chelsea. It's probably one of Jose's tactics.

Let's be fair, Ivanovic was freaking diving. It's a fact, there was no contact. I'm sure it was influence on ref decision. Ref didn't have clear view when Fabregas went down.

Great read. After I saw post match interview I was quite surprised what Jose said, I totally agree it was penalty but it's hard to believe there is campaign against Chelsea. It's probably one of Jose's tactics.

Let's be fair, Ivanovic was freaking diving. It's a fact, there was no contact. I'm sure it was influence on ref decision. Ref didn't have clear view when Fabregas went down.

While I agree with you slightly , it was "simulation" , there was definate contact on Ivanovic from Carroll, he catches brannas left leg 150% , but not enough to warrant going down like he had been on the receiving end of a Mike Tyson right hook

Honestly, I'm not surprised that our players (mainly Cahill and Ivanovic) have started to resort to diving primarily in the box to get decisions. Since the start of the season the referees have been constant in their inconstancy in determining what a foul is. The whole saga started for me during the United game. Yes, players fight for the ball in the box, but it seems that our players can be constantly grabbed, pushed and shoved without any repercussion during corner deliveries. So if a ref says he didn't see the contact, the logical response would be to exaggerate the contact to make sure that next time he will see it. It's getting quite aggravating watching some of our games mainly because of the inaptitude of the officials - it seems that the standard is getting worst by the year and decisions are often made because of media pressure rather than by what's happening on the pitch.

Great post Dorset, as per, but the idea Fabregas never dives is frankly ridiculous. He played for Barca for gawd sake. Remember the penalty they got against us which Messi missed?

Superb as usual Dorset and I barely had to reach for the thesaurus this time 

 

edit: I must admit, one of my fav things about this forum is trolling for a new Dorset thread. If writing isn't your profession, then its certainly in your blood Dorset.

Edited December 30, 201411 yr by Barry Bridges

MBJ, To be honest I didn't see any contact and I've watched it from different angles. I'll check those clips again. And yeah if there was slight contact I totally agree Ivanovic went down as if he was knocked out by Mile Tyson :) no penalty what so ever.

Chelsea has pretty good record when it comes to set pieces so there is a lot of fighting, grabbing in the box but giving penalty for that wouldn't be fair, except one incident, I forgot which game was that, but Terry went down then another Chelsea player went down after being hold by opposite player. That was definitely penalty.

May I draw to the attention of our most learned Shedenders the following  words as uttered by the BBC's John Motson's in his commentary of West Ham v Arsenal: "As they say, 'If there's contact you're entitled to go down' ".
The BBC chose to ignore the diving and instead reinforce the widespread belief that contact is a foul, and diving is fine as long as there has been contact.

May I draw to the attention of our most learned Shedenders the following  words as uttered by the BBC's John Motson's in his commentary of West Ham v Arsenal: "As they say, 'If there's contact you're entitled to go down' ".

The BBC chose to ignore the diving and instead reinforce the widespread belief that contact is a foul, and diving is fine as long as there has been contact.

 

This is what gets me, there is such a double standard.  I know I've brought it up before, but I remember Gerrard going down in the area once, when a boot was coming his way.  THe defender realized that he was about to foul. so pulled back.  Gerrard still went down, penalty.  Replay showed it was a complete dive, and yet Keyes and Gray were i the booth claiming Gerrard had every right to go down because there was "intent" to foul him.  I've never understood that

I'm totally with Mad_mac on this.

Wenger is sticking his oar in now, funny how he wasn't saying it when he had Reyes and Pires rolling around everywhere.

http://m.skysports.com/article/football//9626182

This is what gets me, there is such a double standard. I know I've brought it up before, but I remember Gerrard going down in the area once, when a boot was coming his way. THe defender realized that he was about to foul. so pulled back. Gerrard still went down, penalty. Replay showed it was a complete dive, and yet Keyes and Gray were i the booth claiming Gerrard had every right to go down because there was "intent" to foul him. I've never understood that

Me neither. One thing though we need to consider is most of us are not players. For them their legs are the most prized asset so they might feel differently about tackles in general.

However a good example from our team is Ivanovic. I love the man as I think he is one of our best Roman era buys but this side of him is not a very positive one. He dives. No other way to put it really. You see sometimes when he is with the ball in his own area after he just won the ball it is almost impossible for an opponent to make him fall but when he is in the opposition box it is pretty easy to make him go down.

Every team has divers and every player know what it is. It is there. It is a thing but in my mind you can really easily get rid of it. We have eagle-eye, simulation yellow, financial fair play, video review on several things(aka simple mechanisms) but no suspensions for diving. Apart from fixed-results this is the most corrupt thing in football.

They must must bring in retrospective action for diving and video referrals in general. One or two. It will only make football more straightforward. They should at least try it out in international friendlies and the like to see how it works.

I also think it is ridiculous that unfair yellows cannot be rescinded. How can we allow any injustice to remain just because of rules which were made decades ago in another technological age?

What an introduction.

I also think it is ridiculous that unfair yellows cannot be rescinded. How can we allow any injustice to remain just because of rules which were made decades ago in another technological age?

Crazy isn't it. Ref has admitted he got it wrong and it was a pen on fabregas yet the wrongful yellow can't be rescinded.

Wenger is sticking his oar in now, funny how he wasn't saying it when he had Reyes and Pires rolling around everywhere.

http://m.skysports.com/article/football//9626182

I wonder if he wants Sanchez punished for his dive a few weeks ago

Wenger is sticking his oar in now, funny how he wasn't saying it when he had Reyes and Pires rolling around everywhere.

http://m.skysports.com/article/football//9626182

I think he's arguing for their unbeaten season to be looked at again and the draw at home to Portsmouth to go down as a defeat.

Wenger is sticking his oar in now, funny how he wasn't saying it when he had Reyes and Pires rolling around everywhere.

http://m.skysports.com/article/football//9626182

I absolutely agree with him on this. First time ever I agree with Wenger. Probably something seriously wrong with me 

Of course I don't wholly disgaree with him but his timing is suspect when its us in the firing line. He really does hate us I am sure on that.

I agree with him too. The wrestling inbthe box has to be punished too.

Wenger's attitude was wholly different when Eduardo was actually charged with diving by UEFA. Funny that.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/aug/28/arsene-wenger-arsenal-eduardo-dive

How do some of you find these links?! :) Did you remember this incident? Or only assumed that Wenger must be a hypocrite (and therefore there must have been an article with the opposite view).

Edited December 31, 201411 yr by ashwin