Question Number: 30204

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/19/2016

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

Dive or no dive?

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/648185923812/Dive-or-no-dive-That-is-the-question

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Russell,

From the video, it appears to me that the goalkeeper got there late and tripped the player. So I would say that there was no dive. However, the video had a different angle then the referees and in my opinion, the angle that the referee has on a play determines the call, so from the referees angle, it must have looked like a dive. I assume that like me, you thought that it was not a dive. However as always, there is only one opinion that counts and that is the referee's. Thank you for bringing this video for review. I will use it in my training sessions.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Russell,

While I'm Australian, I don't follow either team in question.

First off, it looks to me like there is no contact made between the keeper and the striker. If one thinks there is contact then that completely changes one's perception of the incident.

It's complicated, because you have a foul (the attempt by the keeper) coupled with a clear dive. Look at the side-on view at 30 seconds in - you can see that the attacker is throwing himself forwards there. As he jumps he's throwing the feet out, the arms up and his entire body forwards. This is a jump that's intended for him to fall from - there's no possible way he can maintain his balance from that jump. So, it's clear that he has left his feet with the intention of making it look like the keeper's leg took him out.

So which offence trumps the other?

While there was a late attempt to trip, referees also need to allow play to continue when either there's an advantage, or when there has been little to no impact upon play. No doubt the attacker needed to leap over the keeper, but had he done so and maintained his feet he would have kept possession (shows the futility of diving, doesn't it?).

Sometimes when dodging a tackle like this, the time it takes to land and touch the ball again allows a defender to intercept. In those cases, the tackle has still impacted upon play, even without touching the opponent, by making him lose possession as a result of taking evasive action. Not the case here.

While it's a late tackle, we're only going to want to stop play here if it's going to have an impact. The dive means it's no longer possible to tell if the tackle truly prevented the attacker from keeping possession or not (while the keeper had a hand on him as well, he was already going down so this was inconsequential). The attacker had the option of jumping to maintain possession or jumping to simulate contact (or allowing himself to be tripped, of course). He chose to simulate contact, so we cannot tell if the late tackle really would have denied possession or not - the attacker made the choice to deny himself possession. That (coupled with the heinous nature of diving), is why the dive trumps the poor tackle here, and why I believe the correct decision was made.

The attacker is simulating contact by the keeper that never occurred. That's the definition of a dive.

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

Hello Russel ,
a very good example of why refereeing at the top is tricky business. The touch by the attacker takes the ball past the keeper! The keeper in attempting to play the ball has created an attempted trip of the attacker! The attacker uses this to throw himself forward, he has in my opinion exaggerated the foul to ensure it is called, not even trying to stay on his feet. The LOTG dictate an attempted trip requires NO contact and that a player trying to avoid the trip who simply looses his balance and falls is not a dive! The issue here is the swan like takeoff rather than an attempted a jump over to avoid a collision. The referee was called in to arbitrate and make a ruling. It appears he was of the opinion the attacker made a meal of a slice of dessert.
As we say His Match , his Decision his Reputation!
from our pitch to your pitch in the spirit of fair play

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
There are two issues here. One is the failure of the goalkeeper to play the ball and as a result his position and action has committed the conditions for a foul while the other is the attacker efforts to draw a foul.
Now Blue attacker sees that as the goalkeeper is vulnerable decides to take advantage of the GKs hapless position and ensures that he is going down. That effort is a fall towards the GK and with video technology we can see he begins to fall before any contact at frame 28.
Now I had two of these recently inside the penalty area and I did not give the penalty in either incident nor did I caution the players. I simply allowed play to continue. My thinking was that in one the attacker made no effort to go past the goalkeeper and IMO looked for contact on the GK so as to make a foul which I then decided was a coming together and on another one the player felt minimal contact from an opponent and decided that the best option was to go down. The GK did not attempt to foul yet his failure to get the ball made his position vulnerable and in the 2nd on the contact was minimal and not enough to merit a foul. Now they were nowhere near as dramatic as this nor were the positions as dangerous as this.
In the video example the referee is faced with three options.
A .Do nothing - at this level highly unlikely given the manner of the incident
B. Award a foul and send of the GK for a DOGSO. The foul could be impeding, a trip or attempt, tackling in a careless manner
C. Caution the attacker for simulation and restart with an IDFK.
Obviously the referee went with C and given the attempt by Blue to win / draw the foul. I would say that the referee may have been swayed by his angle of view along with seeing the manner of Blues fall as on field it would have looked unnatural and contrived. Had Blue made a genuine attempt to go around the GK then a different outcome was likely.
Now another referee could have seen this differently and awarded the foul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsPGIHaMD1k
In this video Blue IMO makes little effort to go past Red and there is clear contact. Most commentators say this was a clear penalty and I agree as any other decision is improbable in a game situation. However on video review does Blue look for the planted leg of Red? Is it a natural movement by Blue? Should Red have to take the consequences of not getting contact on the ball and just planting his foot?
Now in a game situation a referee is always going to give this as a foul by Red and it highlights just how difficult it is to make a call when a player is looking for contact and a penalty.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 30211

See Question: 30222