Well, you would have wondered if you didn't know Fifa has shirked the issuing of diving for years because, as the administrators of a wildly popular and enormously lucrative sport, they don't seem to care much about the reputational damage caused by players who fall to the ground like autumn leaves.
Notionally the penalty for "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled" is a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.
But given the result of diving can be a penalty (now hopefully overruled by the Video Assistant Referee) and having the wrongly accused culprit red-carded, this punishment hardly fits the crime.
After Pepe fainted, his Portuguese teammate Ronaldo went down in the penalty box like a roller-skater on a floor covered with marbles when a Moroccan opponent swung a boot somewhere in a neighbouring suburb.
Typically contrite, Ronaldo jumped to his feet and signalled the VAR should be consulted, presumably in the belief the replay technology is of the same quality as the Zapruder film of John F. Kennedy's assassination and would somehow show he was fouled.
Ronaldo's tumble created an abject image for the tournament. The world's most prolific striker, a man adored by young fans almost as much as he adores looking in the bathroom mirror, was attempting to milk a cheap penalty even after his subterfuge had been exposed by the cameras.
Such incidents challenge the very integrity of the sport.
But perhaps worst of all, they provide a free kick for those who use diving as dog whistle to fellow football sceptics about football's supposed inadequacies.
Among the hairy-chested exponents of other sports including the rugby codes, diving is code for "weak", "soft" and even "effeminate" - taunts that are admittedly hard to dismiss when Pepe is writhing around on the ground after being brushed on the shoulder.
Never mind that these accusations are usually levelled by people who have never experienced the eye-watering pain that comes when your ankles are scythed by the size-12 boots of a malevolent centre-back.
Enduring such punishment might not require quite the same levels of machismo as fetching a high ball with a couple of 110kg front-rowers charging at you. But it bloody hurts.
In that sense the tumbling and feigned agony of the serial simulators at the world's biggest sports event betrays all of us who love football because they portray a mostly wonderful game in its very worst light to the once-every-four-year "experts".
Despite these amateur theatrics this has already been an excellent World Cup. One that deserves to be remembered for the hat trick Ronaldo scored in a scintillating contest against Spain, not the penalty he tried to milk against Morocco.
Elsewhere, the eternal fatalism of English fans is being tested again after a last gasp winner against the might of Tunisia. Suddenly there is debate about which is England's most popular Harry - Prince, Styles or Kane.
Which mean we must endure the existential anguish of the tortured English who are not so much enraptured by the World Cup as held hostage by it; captivated by the vague possibility they might one day repeat the glory of 1966.
Besides diving the other contentious issue of this World Cup has been the use of the VAR. Particularly in Australia where a penalty (correctly) awarded to France in the opening game brought howls of protest - until a penalty (incorrectly) awarded to Australia in the 1-1 draw against Denmark had locals hailing the VAR as the greatest technological advance since the internet.
The Socceroos now have a must-win final group match against Peru on Thursday morning. As conscientious sporting citizens, Australians will not countenance diving or dodgy VAR decisions in this vital game - unless the decision goes our way.
• Richard Hinds is a leading Australian sports columnist.
