Paul March
Well-Known Member
If you have warned them it should come as no surprise when you caution if they choose to repeat
In that case why not get the card out straight away? They've tried to deceive you, so if that's a cautionable offence the second time it happens, aren't we just being weak referees by letting it happen the first time and only having a quiet word?If you have warned them it should come as no surprise when you caution if they choose to repeat
In that case why not get the card out straight away? They've tried to deceive you, so if that's a cautionable offence the second time it happens, aren't we just being weak referees by letting it happen the first time and only having a quiet word?
I think it's a well-established principle that there are various kinds of behaviour for which you can potentially caution a player but that are not necessarily a mandatory caution on the very first occurrence and for which a referee can choose to warn a player before eventually cautioning if the behaviour persists.So again, just to clarify. Consensus on this thread is that it is a cautionable offence, but that it would be unwise to simply get a card out for it straight away?
the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues
I absolutely agree with your principal, I just don't think it applies to simulation. Simulation is a cautionable offence, full stop. And unlike the example you quote where there is a specific getout clause, if we consider a player to have dived I don't think there's any wiggle room in the laws allowing us not to caution them. We would all issue a yellow card without a warning if a player dived to try and win a penalty wouldn't we?I think it's a well-established principle that there are various kinds of behaviour for which you can potentially caution a player but that are not necessarily a mandatory caution on the very first occurrence and for which a referee can choose to warn a player before eventually cautioning if the behaviour persists.
The law even gives a specific example of this, as follows:
Yes, but these considerations are all exactly the same for any dive anyway.It opens all sorts of debate. How do you actually know it was exaggerated? It might look exaggerated but if it was a foul as OP says you've no proof it was exaggerated. Contacts at varying speeds can produce some odd looking falls that might look exaggerated but are actually not. .
If this were undeniably a case of simulation, where the player has not been fouled and has clearly thrown himself to the ground with absolutely no contact then yes, that's an automatic caution. I think the point is that, as several people have pointed out, it's not totally and definitely that clear that this necessarily is simulation. The player has been fouled so he can't be guilty of pretending to have been fouled.I absolutely agree with your principal, I just don't think it applies to simulation.
Except we've already decided a foul has been committedYes, but these considerations are all exactly the same for any dive anyway.
Think it's one of those syndromes like ADHD or ADD. Didn't know you could card for those.........ADTBI???? I'm all for acronyms but WTF is that one???
Action(s) deemed to be inflammatory. It will be in the 18/19 revisions along with ungentlemanly conductADTBI???? I'm all for acronyms but WTF is that one???