With all due respect MR, I think you're over-thinking this. You punish the more serious foul and give the DFK. That does not prevent you from also giving a yellow for the misconduct of simulation. (Any more than a player who yells "you *$#$ ref" as he trips someone gets off the hook for the trip or the dissent.)
And, Lenhart never got his body in front of Olave. He got his arm and shoulder in front and his sole intention with that, imo, was to hold off Olave who had already caught up to him and was about to pass him as well as having a better line on the ball than Lenhart. Does Lenhart have a right to the space he can't get to first without desperately lunging and still not being unable to fully get the whole of his upper body in front? I don't understand how a player has a right to space they can't occupy without physically forcing the other player out of it. I understand a legal shoulder charge. But that isn't what Lenhart does. He throws his arm in front of Olave and attempts to clear Olave out of the space. But he can't move Olave and instead the rest of lenhart clatters into the side of Olave and his leg kicks the back of Olave's leg. I think that proves that Lenhart couldn't get to the space, because he never got to that space. he fell down after tripping over Olave's leg. If Lenhart could get to the space, he would have, and then he would have had a right to be there and legally shield Olave. But that isn't what happened.
Well, I was admittedly making a tortured argument to answer the question superdave was asking. I never said it's the call I would make or the call I'd want to make. Any "over-thinking" was in an attempt to let superdave know how some refs would justify simulation. We might have just opened up a new debate that sparks a few more pages of discussion, but you're actually wrong here. Law V says we punish "the more serious offence..." We could argue separately if the alleged foul and alleged simulation are committed simultaneously, as the clause we are referencing requires us to stipulate to; that's a different debate. But if do say the occurred simultaneously, the Laws tell us to determine which offence is more serious--not which "foul." The lack of definition from the iFAB about what an "offence" is while the rest of the Laws distinguish between fouls and misconduct is an interesting point that I had not considered before.
IFKs are awarded for misconduct only in cases where you have no other reason to stop play and you believe the game would benefit from a stoppage of play and an immediate sanction for the misconduct. You don't send off a player for DOGSO and then turn around and say you can't award the PK for a careless trip in the PA because you already sent the player off and have to restart with an IFK for misconduct.
I think you're making this way more complicated than you need to. DFK for holding and caution for UB.
What? Games aren't refereed by committees. They're refereed by individuals. When I'm on the field and I'm deciding whether to make a call, I can't go on BS and ask a bunch of guys to vote on it. I have to make the call myself. Maybe someone can back me up here.
I'd submit that "offence" in that part of Law 5 is used in this sense to address cases such as a second touch via handling to let the ref know whether to give IFK or DFK. IMHO, reading it as a get-out-of-jail-free-card on misconduct that occurs simultaneously with a DFK offense. I don't agree that I'm wrong here -- I think you are inferring a level of precision in the language that was never intended. Do you need to caution if you call the foul? Well, ITOOTR. But to suggest Law 5 precludes it, IMHO, is overly technical and not at all how the LOTG are written to be read.
The issue isn't whether games are reffed by committtee...its whether your claim to be 90% certain in real time holds any water. I submit that nearly 145 posts (by some VERY good referees) of analyzing who may have fouled who, via slow mo replay and freeze frame shots, WITHOUT reaching any consensus much less 90% certainty is almost proof positive that your claim is far fetched.......at best. You have ONE guy backing you up...lets see how many more will go along with the "90 percent certainty in real time" theory.
I didn't tell you how to think/act. I told you the assertion you're "90% certain in real time" is horsecrap.
Except that the time to analyze and the ability to examine those slo-mo replays are what's leading to a large part of the indecision. A ref in the game doesn't have those advantages. He's got a second or two and one look to make a judgement and as we've seen from his position it appears to be a very obvious foul on Olave. The fact that with more information and time to analyze a person gets less certain isn't an indicator that they can't be certain in the split-second they have to make the call.
^^^ Except that I didn't use replays and freeze frames as my barometer.....I used my first look in REAL TIME. I can definitively tell you I was nowhere near 90% certain of what I saw the first time in REAL time. The fact that we've had 15 pages of discussion on what occurred simply reaffirms the fact that there was no way in the world I, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter, was/could be "90% sure in real time".
So you know everyone's brain now? I'm not saying they could be 90% sure AND be 100% correct. But you can be 90% sure and have made the wrong decision. Look at how many "eyewitnesses" are 100% sure of seeing something that didn't happen or someone who wasn't there.
At the risk of over-using one of my favorite quotes, having used it recently on another thread: I suspect some would be 100% certain it was a foul on the attacker, some 100% certain it was a foul on the defender, and some 100% certain it was no foul at all only simulation -- and then the rest who aren't certain at various levels. (How many people have you had on the touch line 100% certain that you blew an offside call that you nailed perfectly . . . .)
No, I don't "know everyones brain" now...and I sure as hell am glad for that. Nonetheless, in your scenario, EVERY call you make with "90% certainty" can be a WRONG call. How good then is your claim of "90% certainty"? I submit that "90% certainty" should be judged by a reasonable, not illogical or unreasonable, person standard. What "reasonable" person can be "90% certain" from 35 yards or so away with a bad angle in real time?
Hmm. My point was that Olave CLEARLY fouled Lenhart. He pushed him over. Lenhart didn't fake that. The controversy comes on whether or not Lenhart fouled Olave first.
I disagree. Without Lenhart forcing Olave into him via the shorts pull, I don't know if the contact from Olave would have been enough for a foul.
How much contact is enough for a foul is always in the eye of the referee and is a fickle thing from a fan's point of view. The only way to avoid being called for a foul is to avoid making contact, which Olave didn't do. Olave was beaten to the ball (just barely) and instead of re-positioning himself he continued to take the same line, contact then occurred (both by Lenhart on Olave, and by Olave on Lenhart) but Lenhart had position on the ball and Olave was the last defender, and the ref made a call. The only way as the defending team to avoid giving the ref the opportunity to make a game-changing call is for: a) RSL not to get beat in the back, or b) once you're beaten, avoid making contact with the attacker and either play the ball or take up a position between the attacker and the goal. There is plenty of contact in soccer of course, but doing it in the penalty box or in a break-away situation where you're the last defender is the issue here. Sometimes you will get punished.
I know it is beating a dead horse, but you've dragged my back in. Contact only occurred because he was being fouled by Lenhart. I think if there is an AAR in this match, it is a foul coming out for the hold.