Question Number: 30222

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/26/2016

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30204

A follow up to the dive or no dive (30204) http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/648185923812/Dive-or-no-dive-That-is-the-question

I agree with Ref Wright with regard to 'This is a jump that's intended for him to fall from' - however, the implied reason for the jump might still be debatable. Did he jump to seek a foul (as is implied), or, is it a jump that is intended to fall from because he needed to avoid the keeper.

Either way, what I find interesting and a little puzzling is, the ideal of what 'trumps' what.
I'm all for eradicating simulation form the game, however, I wonder how a yellow card IDFK trumps a DOGSO red card.
The LOTG say to penalise the higher of two fouls. Does red not trump yellow (in a same instance moment).
I guess that cheating (simulation) is worse than a deliberate or non deliberate DOGSO.
Maybe the real issue is that the penalty to a player correctly adjusted for simulation is not strong enough and so Ref Wrights theory of penalise the simulation is the moral high ground take.
Appreciate the comment to original post - as always, food for thought.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
When a player commits two fouls at the same time the referee will always go with the more serious one. That is what is meant by trumping and it relates to the LotG where it states *punishes the more serious offence when A PLAYER commits more than one offence at the same time*. When there are two fouls by separate players the referee will penalise the first foul not the more serious one.
For example a player raises his boot in a dangerous manner and uses his hand to play the ball away at the same time. In that instance the referee will award the DFK for handling rather than the IDFK for PIADM.
In the video instance there are two separate instances, committed by two separate players and the referee had to determine which one happened first. The referee here decided that the simulation happened first so that is the offence he dealt with by cautioning for the simulation and an IDFK restart. If say the goalkeeper clearly fouled the opponent first and then to ensure that the foul was seen the player exaggerated his fall to ensure it was given then the referee would go with the DFK and the DOGSO. He might have a word with the player about his theatrics.

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

Hello Russell,
your keen interest and observation about what trumps what, is one shared by many. Obviously the team denied the free kick is against the idea that the keeper did nothing wrong! Your assumption the keeper, by trying to stop the attack, has committed DOGSO for the decision of the attacker to perform a swan dive is erroneous, if understandable.

The action by the keeper, when does it become a foul? He was trying to intercept the ball! He missed! He stopped and then tried to show he was not responsible for the attacker diving(the keeper can not entirely excuse the fact he tried to put himself in the way) It is this action you are likely thinking was an attempt to trip but was deemed an attempt to play the ball by the CR!

The attacker redirected the ball then JUMPED into the air in a manner which left no possibility to recover rather than try to go around the keeper or leap over! One can debate if it was to avoid running into the keeper or highlight if the keeper was in his way and it was to get the keeper carded?

The referee was called upon to make a judgement of the incident and clearly he decided the attacker was more interested in placing blame on the keeper, then scoring a goal. If the attacker had straddled, swerved, or just made any real effort to go around rather then dive over the extended leg and there was contact or he lost his balance and fell chances the keeper will be held accountable for instigating a foul. The point made here is the CR in charge decided the attacker undertook a USB action that has been a focus for censure as a blight on the game! Some effort must be made by players to stay on their feet if you are challenged so the REFEREE can determine (NOT THE PLAYER) if a foul is present. When ever you ask of the ref, "HEY LOOK at me!" WE often do and not always favorably!

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