Also isn’t Pete Rose not in the Hall of Fame for betting on Baseball. How is teaching players to dive any different from influencing betting?

Escudero was tackled from behind and because of it was unable to take a shot. It should have been a foul. But since he didn’t fall down but tried to play on, the referee didn’t award a foul. How often do you see referees properly play the advantage rule in the penalty box with strikers where there’s a foul by the defender (usually shirt-tugging or use of the arms), the striker doesn’t go down, but doesn’t get any advantage from the resulting situation (because another defender clears the ball/the goalkeeper rushes out to smother, etc.)? Normally in such a case, the referee should come back to the foul and award a free kick. But way, way too many referees don’t even think about awarding a foul unless a player hits the deck.

Escudero was fouled, so he should have been awarded a penalty. But since he stayed on his feet, the referee didn’t award it. That’s why Finke was angry: his striker was fouled, and because he didn’t fall down he wasn’t awarded the penalty.

One of the steps that need to be taken to curb diving is not only hitting out against players who dive when there is no contact to try to get a foul, but also to improve refereeing and reduce the need for players to feel that if they don’t go down, they won’t get the foul. Players should know that if they’re fouled and they go on playing but don’t get an advantage from it, they’ll still get the foul. Right now, that’s not happening way, way too often, so players learn that as soon as they’re fouled they need to go down in order to get that foul awarded. It’s not diving, but it results in players going down for small, unobvious fouls that in turn encourages diving.