That is a particularly hillarious example, given that I distinctly recall Simmons’ hero Larry Bird being a past master at drawing a charge. French Lick is certainly exotically foreign to me, but I’ve never seen Simmons take that position.

I do think some version of the cultural difference I sketched in the post is at work in some of our reactions, but it’s clearly only one ingredient and is contingent on any number of factors. (Hard-hitting, definite opinions. That’s why you read this blog.) No chance of building a complete account of this, I’m sure, but it’s fascinating to think about.

In American football, for instance, there is quite an established tradition of wide receivers trying to exaggerate contact in order to draw pass interference penalties and kickers doing the same with roughing penalties (interestingly, in both such cases, the benefit to successfully pulling off such deception is disproportional to the harm suffered, just like a penalty in football); neither is considered a threat to the underlying value of the sport because they have been part of the game for a long time.

In my experience, it is often the case that such offences against the “spirit of the game” are used as a stick to beat a particular population of players who are unpopular for some other reason. Thus we saw the tarring of European ice hockey players as being more apt to use their stick as a weapon, as if there had never been a slash in the all North American NHL. The current English campaign against diving is notable for its xenophobia; it is never Stevie G or Becks who goes down easily, it is always some dodgy foreigner.

Still, I think you’re right that the conditions of particular leagues and the styles of particular sports are a factor in fan attitudes toward simulation. And that that factor is in play as well, along with larger cultural differences.

In ice hockey diving is generally considered dishonorable and downright ‘unmanly’. After all, this is a sport that whose rules tacitly accept and whose culture explicitly encourages bouts of fisticuffs and other forms of physical roughness. Imagine a player getting into a fight and then diving to escape? They would be the subject of never-ending ridicule.

Of course this attitude doesn’t stop some players from diving to draw penalties, but the overall attitude in the sport is that it’s not at all acceptable.

The question of whether hard fouls are more deplorable than diving is an interesting one. I see what you mean about the prospect of a foul ruining someone’s career, and I have no patience for the sort of Roy Keane romanticists who manage to admire players who deliberately look to cause injury. At the same time, though, if we’re seeing acts on the pitch as representative of human character traits, diving just seems so sneaky and vicious that it’s hard to condone on any level. It’s like Peter Lorre in Casablanca—he’s probably not the worst person in the movie, but he’s the one who makes you squirm.

Personally, I prefer to think of a career-threatening foul as even more dishonourable than a dive – at least dives don’t affect a person’s body and their lifestyle. (Which is perhaps why I spend so much time getting annoyed at British commentators when watching Champions League games and my favourite league to watch is the Spanish one.)