Question Number: 30104

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/14/2016

RE: Youth to adult, comp and rec.

Barry Stewart of Chilliwack, BC Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 26194

I was discussing with my AR the possibility of awarding a free kick on a legitimate foul -- but also cautioning the fouled player for enhancing the foul by adding drama to his tumble.

My AR said no -- and I was unsure. We both knew it is possible in professional hockey (dual 2-minute penalties.)

I said I'd consult the sages here and I found this quote from Dennis Wickham:

'Similarly, if there is a clear foul, but the player embellishes the effect of the foul to deceive the referee into sending off the opponent, award the free kick, but caution the player for the embellishment.'

Thanks again!

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Barry,
Ref Wickham is 100% correct, it is misconduct be it done to achieve ANY additional punishment on an opponent including a caution. Just be very sure you peg it correctly. It is not done very often.
I awarded a foul in a high school senior match, the player rolled about as if in severe distress then suddenly came up signaling me to card the miscreant by waving his arm and shaking his fist as if holding a card. He was in my opinion guilty of USB misconduct thus he got his free kick as well as shown a yellow card from being a dwerk .
You might allow a little embellishment by a player hoping to draw attention he is going down due to an opponent fouling him but a stern word usually fixes the floppers.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Barry
The Laws state that it is a caution when a player attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation).
Now there can be a fine line between exaggerating a foul to ensure it is given, simulation and feigning injury to decieve the referee.
In my game today a player reacted like he had been injured as part of a foul challenge. Fouled yes but probably made a meal of the injury although there was contact. His injury reaction certainly put pressure on for a sanction on the fouling player. Now at one time a FIFA had instructed its referees to caution players for waving imaginary cards and gesticulating towards the referee etc. That has somewhat declined as referees continue to be slow to caution these antics particularly if the foul could also merit a caution. Case in point was the sending off of Simpson for Leicester City against Arsenal. On both fouls Arsenal players reacted negatively towards the referee to fouls on them. First foul IMO was not a caution yet it was cautioned. Second one was certainly a caution for a blatant arm pull with Giroud reacting furiously towards the referee for a card which was given and the player was sent off. Therein lies the problem as the reaction certainly had the desired effect of getting the player sent off.
A few seasons ago I recall awarding a free kick to a player for what I believed was a push in the back and he went down injured. I did not see the injury so I was somewhat surprised at his reaction. Shortly after that I blew for half time. Now at half time the player was getting treatment as I walked past. I noticed he had a nasty gash to his calf and clearly I had missed that. Now had I cautioned the injured player that would gave added insult to injury as the defender was the player that deserved the sanction. So I am not sure it is a wise call to be cautioning a player for getting fouled unless there is some thing more as seen in these examples.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppt7NdIj_yg

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

This is unusual, and I'd recommend not doing it unless you absolutely had to - ie it's definitely a clear foul, but everybody at the ground knows he's tried to make it look worse.

It's probably more common to see this sort of behaviour when players are squaring up - one player pushes the opponent, and he drops holding his face like he's been hit, that sort of thing. Although unless it happens to be in play, there's no free kick....

In most cases, you may want to have a discrete word with the player in question and that will suffice.

Like Ref McHugh, I've also had cases where I could have sworn there was no contact when a player went down, only to later see clear stud marks (usually they could occur from any instance on the field and naturally you can't make your decision upon seeing that sort of thing, but it's always food for thought).