Divebomb

(image from here)

There's 2 articles about diving in the papers today. Not Man United related so I've not included them in the usual paper round up. Both use the same study, The first one, in The Telegraph, is only remarkable for its mundanity:

Dr Paul Morris, of the University of Portsmouth, has found that footballers use a series of distinct actions when faking a fall during a match.

These include clutching their body where they have not been hit, taking an extra roll when they hit the ground and taking fully controlled strides after being tackled, but before falling.

It would be too easy to do a "look at these silly academics, stating the bleeding obvious" post, but I'd prefer to imagine that the actual study is more involved than this. It's The Telegraph's reporting that is the problem here. The attempt to dumb down an academic study to the point of absurdity.
The other report on it is on The Guardian blog. This goes to the other extreme, using the report as an excuse to launch a bizarre tirade on diving after the overturning of Eduardo's ban. Or not diving as it turns out:

In plainer terms, the situation now seems to be this. Players shall not be punished for making the most of any sort of contact. Indeed, they are free to try to win penalties by not just inviting the foul, but by falling ostentatiously to the floor under any sort of powder-puff contact. Stand by for half a dozen attacking players dropping like flies when a corner produces the usual amount of penalty area jostling. Darren Fletcher and Paul Scholes, be very afraid. Goalkeepers had better just stay on their line, out of harm's way. Because if a dive is not a dive as long as there is contact, just about anything is permissible and it is going to be a long time before any more retrospective suspensions are handed out.

Isn't just about everything wrong with this paragraph. First off, "the situation now appears to be this." Now? hasn't it always be thus? You get touched you go down. Of course you should be free to do this, and the referee is perfectly free to say, "no penalty." And has he ever watched a corner? Players do drop like flies. They hardly ever get a penalty. In fact, aren't the authorities constantly trying to get referees to clamp down on contact in the box at corners? What he seems to be suggesting is not so much a "cheat's charter," but a charter to allow defenders to try and put players off with "minimal contact" without fear of punishment.
The other point is that where he questions that "a dive is not a dive as long as there is contact," it seems to me that it really isn't a dive. There's a difference between asking a question when touched and pretending there is a touch. How many times have we seen players stay on their feet, at a disadvantage because of "minimal contact," miss the chance, put get nothing. You have to go down to get the penalty. It isn't a dive. Ronaldo never really dived, he just made an awful lot of minimal contact. He asked a lot of questions. Steven Gerrard dives.
The following is also too extreme:

A dive is now only a dive if there is no contact, which means a player hurling himself to the floor for no apparent reason with no one in his vicinity.

It has been known to happen – Rivaldo in the 2002 World Cup comes to mind – but in most imaginable situations the referee would see such chicanery and deal with it accordingly. It is hard not to interpret Uefa's latest judgment as an indication that, short of dingbat Brazilians claiming spurious free-kicks when they have only been struck by the ball, they do not wish to see many more retrials by television, thank you very much.

The dive is no where near as scarce as this, and putting in that "no one in his vicinity" is just misleading. Did he watch the Man United Arsenal game the other week in which Eboue was booked for diving - for going down without contact? Has he ever seen Steven Gerrard play football.
The UEFA decision to charge/ban Eduardo was flawed in the extreme from the outset. That was the mistake. Not overturning it. Once they'd done it they couldn't win. The argument that somehow the overturning of the ban changes anything is ridiculous. Getting banned for three games has never stopped awful, dangerous tackles from going on. To take my argument to the extreme - having capital punishment has never stopped murderers murdering.