A&H

Fouled player but exaggerated reaction.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
Paul March said:
If you have warned them it should come as no surprise when you caution if they choose to repeat
Click to expand...
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?
 
GraemeS said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because you would be making yourself look like a clown.

Yes, you've deceived me so I am giving you a yellow card, but I'm still going to give your team a free kick / penalty.

It just isn't credible and would be causing yourself problems.
 
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?
 
Ask the question, has he deceived you- no it was a foul.

Has he gone over the top to embellish or exaggerate - probably.

Ask yourself why- have you as a ref given him cause to take such action. Could a decision you didn't give give him cause?

I can't speak for everyone, but I would suggest cautioning here without a warning will destroy your match control and any credibility. The amount of grief and pressure to issue cards for everything will increase.

Why make a rod for your own back?
 
Hi
It is not simulation which is an action which creates a wrong/false impression that something has occurred when it has not committed by a player to gain an unfair advantage
Nor is it deception which is an action to mislead/trick the referee into giving an incorrect decision/disciplinary sanction which benefits the deceiver and/or their team.
So for me it is a foul and that is all. I would file it away as a player who is likely to go down easily and who can exaggerate contact. I certainly would not be cautioning the player for the OP and I would step in to prevent the verbals between the players by indicating that it is a foul.
 
I just cant see how this could ever be a caution.
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. An example I can think of is when someone trips but tries to keep their feet but eventually tumbles over. It looks exaggerated but is actually just a by product of the human natural instinct to remain on two feet.
Players STILL feign injury but would you caution them for that. No you wouldn't and personally I find this behaviour to be in a similar category. If a player is injured, or feigns injury we just add on time, no mention of a caution.

Give the foul. If you feel you need to, have a quiet, definitely not public, chat with him, otherwise just get on with it.
 
I think you're going to lose all credibility when the player has taken a blatant dive, everybody there knows it, and you don't do as much as pull him aside to tell him to cut it out - going to make it look like the dive is why you gave the foul.
You know the clear foul was first - but player frustration at this player's actions will mean others on the pitch won't look at it as rationally.
So how are YOU going to sell your decision making process here, given the player's actions are now undermining everything?
 
GraemeS said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grove said:
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:
Click to expand...
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?

So if we consider exaggeration to be a form of simulation (and this I don't think is a question we've yet agreed on), and you're 100% sure that's what you're seeing then I think we're obliged to caution for it. And although I'm wary of bringing out my inner Padfoot, failing to do so for "match control" or "credibility" reasons carries more than a hint of cowardly refereeing about it. I've given a red card that destroyed my match control because "You've ruined the game ref" - but that doesn't mean I was wrong to send the player off.

I'm more than happy to take @James Long 's argument that this is so unlikely to actually happen, given that it's very difficult to be totally sure about this kind of "exaggeration". But I don't think that means we can't discuss the hypothetical correct action if we were sure.
 
James Long said:
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. .
Click to expand...
Yes, but these considerations are all exactly the same for any dive anyway.
 
GraemeS said:
I absolutely agree with your principal, I just don't think it applies to simulation.
Click to expand...
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.

My point about not cautioning on the first occurrence was based on the premise (which you may disagree with) that while the exaggeration of an actual foul is unsporting, it can be argued that it does not fall within the guidelines for a mandatory caution for simulation.
 
Hi
The only possibility here for a caution is if the players action was to seek the offender to be cautioned. It cannot be a caution for simulation on the foul part as the foul DID happen.
At the highest level we see players roll around injured after a foul in the hope at the ref will caution the offender. That is always a difficult call and rarely do we see a caution in such circumstances I recall in a game a player rolling around injured on an innocuous foul which I thought was somewhat exaggerated until I saw the back of his leg where the opponent had come down on him somewhat accidentally leaving a dirty scrape down his leg. I saw the foul but missed the reason for the "pain". Imagine giving him a free kick for a foul and then cautioning him for exaggerating the injury which is simulation.
Simple answer here is if it is a foul then no simulation. If there is no foul it is a caution for simulation.
 
As I posted before, I would advise the fouled player to quit the theatrics, if it happened say a third time and it was clearly winding up opponents or indeed me, I would caution for ADTBI or even Unsporting behaviour.
 
Its a caution in the SFA disciplinary forms........guessing from the intelligent replies that its not so in England....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top