Question Number: 30211

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/21/2016

RE: Youth to adult, comp and rec.

Barry Stewart of Chilliwack, BC Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30204

That was an excellent video clip - and it wasn't clear to me that it was a dive until I saw the second angle. The attacker was clearly falling before contact was made, not leaping to get past the keeper.

So, the keeper gets away with a DOGSO only because the attacker didn't attempt to legally get past?

In NHL hockey, there is a possibility to penalize the fouler AND the diver - and it isn't that rare a call.

I'd like to see the keeper get something here, as he was certainly the instigator. We have discussed, about a month ago, that it is possible to award a PK for a clear foul - but also give a yellow card for extra simulation by the aggrieved player. Possible¦ but very rare.

Let's take another scenario: an angry player takes a vicious swing at an opponent, who pulls back just in time - then collapses to the ground, wailing and clutching his face. The referee knows no contact was made but surely doesn't let the punch-swinger continue in the game. The faker would, of course, get a yellow.

Your thoughts?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Barry
The referee has powers to caution for simulation both way which includes faking contact on VC when there is none. The player that makes a deliberate swing making no contact is sent off for VC while the opponent who feigned contact / injury can be cautioned for USB. Perhaps if the player pulls back soon enough, before continuing with an attempt, he may get the benefit of doubt on actual VC. I had a player motion his head towards an opponent recently after a foul on him and made no contact. The opponent made no reaction to the attempt to intimidate and he was aggressive as well. I cautioned both. Had the intended target went down holding his face I would have been faced with a more serious situation to deal with and perhaps an expected dismissal for VC. Angle of view, certainty of contact , what happened would all play a part in the decision and many times there can be doubt so we go with what we perceive.
Unfortunately the game has become blighted by simulation and faking. A cursory view of the web shows multiple examples of players showing no respect for opponents or the game. Some are easy calls while others prove a real challenge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgPBeu4hLKw
In this instance while the goalkeeper has contributed to the situation I believe he made a genuine attempt to play the ball and that it was the actions of the attacker that was the real issue. If the attacker had made a clear genuine attempt to get past and that it was the actions of the GK that prevented that then we have a free kick to the attacker and probably a sending off for a DOGSO. Sometimes we just have to make the decision which is best for the game and while a referee can technically call simultaneous offence with a dropped ball restart that is never going to happen as in the first instance it shows indecision and secondly one offence has to happen first. In this instance the referee would have to go one way or another. It is either an offence by the GK first or by the attacker. It is not both so if the attacker get a caution for simulation by default the GK is exonerated. The GK could count himself lucky as in a similar situation he could easily find himself dismissed.

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

Hello Barry,
it is certainly feasible, a referee has the authority to take disciplinary action against players guilty of cautionable or send-off offences prior to the next restart. A player committing cautionable or send-off misconduct is disciplined according to the nature of the offence committed. We general place diving in the catch all of USB
• attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have
been fouled (simulation) although one could include it as
• acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game
Yet as you point out the keeper was committing a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack
If both had received yellow cards it might have been adjudged as fairer but referees have been really made aware of diving and it seems to scream louder than other fouls! Just not sure awarding a free kick so they might score then sanctioning the player who was tripped because he cheated works well for match management. We really need to see an honest effort by an attacker not to go to groud ahead of the contact whether or not the defender is instigating a possible foul. There is a difference in selling a foul versus creating a scene. The attacker did a HEY LOOK AT ME swan dive rather then demonstrate hey look at him as I try to avoid the foul!

We could consider this.
If there is more than one offence occurring at the same time
being committed by players from different teams the LOTG do provide a drop ball restart
from the position of the ball at the time of the stoppage subject to the special circumstances within the goal area. Perhaps a referee shows indecision if he was to award a drop ball but I am more inclined to just think it is simply not an accepted practise. Kind of like not awarding a throw in if uncertain who last touched the ball.

You are correct - IF - a referee can correctly analyze the situation into segments each accountable for their own action. IF they see it as such! One of the biggest things is we always see reaction and miss the instigation in behind play and the reverse when looking at play we see who does what and then miss the reaction. I recall a 2002 WC game where a player booted the ball towards a opponent standing at the corner it hit him waist high but he threw himself to the ground covering his eyes wailing as if he had been struck by a truck in the face. The Turkish player who kicked the ball was shown a red card for VC the Brazilian corner crier Ronaldinho got nothing but I felt as you, a caution was certainly warranted for the fake tears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiW0IPrv1Ro

from our pitch to your pitch in the spirit of fair play

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Barry,
It's only DOGSO if the keeper's actions have an impact upon play. When the player is simulating the impact upon play by taking a dive it makes it impossible for the referee to be able to tell if the keeper's actions did have an impact upon play (for instance, the player may have been able to avoid the challenge). So the dive has robbed the referee of the opportunity to make that decision.

While had the attacker jumped over the keeper cleanly, advantage would have been played (recognising there was a foul), in scenarios like this I think that the dive has to trump the foul - otherwise the only reason the referee is stopping play is because of the dive, thus rewarding a heinous act.