Late dive?

[Wingdings]

In a Girl U-15 match, a Red forward is on a breakaway, and a Blue defender, being the last one, was chasing her. When the forward reached the penalty box, the defender clearly pulled her jersey. However, the forward tried to shake her off, find her balance, and continue running. At the same time, the keeper was coming out. The defender then released her hand from the jersey. The forward regained here balance, continued for three or four steps, but when she reached the keeper, she just threw herself down. The ref (a young lady, in this case) awarded a penalty, showed a yellow card to the defender for the foul. But then she also called the forward to talk with, and also booked her, presumably for simulation.

Was it the correct call?

[NHRef]

Couple of things of interest here, first off the defender pulling on the shirt and the ref trying to let it go to see about advantage, good cal. The advantage never happened, so the ref is right to call it back and award the penalty, the card, within rights, could be red for DGF, depending on where the ball was in relation to the attacker.

Talking with the attacker keeps it interesting, not sure what I would have done at this point. Really have to see it since I can see it not being a dive since the "let go of the shirt" could change her balance and cause her to fall after a couple of steps, also was there any keeper contact?

Not sure you can book her for the dive since the foul happened first, maybe, be interested to see what others will say.

[JohnR]

Wow! I rarely see young referees applying advantage, never mind advantage in a PK situation. Then you have the card for simulation to the player who was fouled ... a lot of nuances in what normally would be a black & white situation.

I hope that's she's right (I don't know), because I admire her creativity and ability to think on her feet.

[Wreave]

From the way it was described, it sounds like a great job by the ref.

Yes, a player who was fouled may be cautioned for UB if the foul was excessively embellished, etc. This seems like the textbook situation. The foul was real, but there was still a dive. Addressing both shows both teams you're being fair - the fouled team gets the PK it deserves for the jersey pull, and the fouling team understands that the penalty is for a real foul, not for a flamboyant dive.

[IASocFan]

It sounds like the ref saw it like you did, and made great decisions.

[Wahoo]

I'll agree with the others here...

If it was as described... then I think the ref did an excellent job.

And as Wreave mentioned.... you can have a foul and a dive on the same play.

[soccertim]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I had a question about an almost identical situation. Red forward on a breakaway, blue defender grabs her from behind, holds on for 3 or 4 steps, then lets go. The defender was still behind the attacker, who ran onto the ball, shot it, and the goalie stopped the shot. While the defender didn't drag down the attacker or even run past her, she slowed the attacker down enough that the keeper was better positioned and other defenders were rigth behind her, making the shot much more difficult than it should have been. Do you call a pk and card the defender even though the attacker got off a shot or do you have to blow the whistle before the shot to make the call? I recall someone saying in another thread that you don't give advantage if the attacker takes and misses a shot, but that could have been in another context.

[JohnR]

Was this a final defender? With a clear break onto goal for the attacker?

[refmike]

In a Girl U-15 match, a Red forward is on a breakaway, and a Blue defender, being the last one, was chasing her. When the forward reached the penalty box, the defender clearly pulled her jersey. However, the forward tried to shake her off, find her balance, and continue running. At the same time, the keeper was coming out. The defender then released her hand from the jersey. The forward regained here balance, continued for three or four steps, but when she reached the keeper, she just threw herself down. The ref (a young lady, in this case) awarded a penalty, showed a yellow card to the defender for the foul. But then she also called the forward to talk with, and also booked her, presumably for simulation.

Was it the correct call?
The card to the attacker may not have been for simulation. It is possible she was swearing at the defender who held her or something else. We were told the card was "presumably" for simulation and are all trying to justify that but my suggestion makes at least as much sense.

[refmike]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I had a question about an almost identical situation. Red forward on a breakaway, blue defender grabs her from behind, holds on for 3 or 4 steps, then lets go. The defender was still behind the attacker, who ran onto the ball, shot it, and the goalie stopped the shot. While the defender didn't drag down the attacker or even run past her, she slowed the attacker down enough that the keeper was better positioned and other defenders were rigth behind her, making the shot much more difficult than it should have been. Do you call a pk and card the defender even though the attacker got off a shot or do you have to blow the whistle before the shot to make the call? I recall someone saying in another thread that you don't give advantage if the attacker takes and misses a shot, but that could have been in another context.

First off, the play stops when the referee decides it is necessary, not when the whistle sounds, although that may make it harder to sell your call. In this case if you feel that the holding created a defensive advantage, you can definately give a PK. A DGF call is a little harder and you would have to be convinced the attacker could have gotten off a reasonable shot before the keeper and other defenders got in place. With this time frame, that is your judgement and no one else can make it for you.

[nsa]

... The forward regained here balance, continued for three or four steps, but when she reached the keeper, she just threw herself down. ...Devil's advocate here (and defender :) ): If the forward has her balance and, presumably, the advantage, why call the PK when she decides to just give up and flop?

Maybe I have a completely different mental picture of this play. I still might wind up with two cautions, one to the attacker for the dive and the other to the defender for the jersey tug, but no PK. IFK coming out.

[ref2coach]

I am ecstatic to hear of a referee young/old/male/female calling the foul AND punishing the embellishment.

I would love to see this become STANDARD PRACTICE by ALL referees. More players would fight to stay up and play. Soccer/Football would be better everywhere.

[bluedevils]

Sounds like a very talented young referee.

[MassachusettsRef]

still might wind up with two cautions, one to the attacker for the dive and the other to the defender for the jersey tug, but no PK. IFK coming out.Practically, this would never--ever--work.

You're going to caution the defender (thereby admitting there was a PK worthy offense), say you applied advantage, and the advantage was squandered when the forward committed a cautionable offence (diving)?

There's room within the Laws for this call to be technically correct, I'll grant you. But I'd argue you couldn't sell this call at any competitive level above U12s. Your credibility is out the window with such a decision.

Back to the original question, I agree that it sounds like an excellent decision. This may sound bad, but if the attacker felt the need to flop, it probably means she never felt she had an advantage. Basically, she was showing the ref she preferred the advantage of having the PK. I agree that, if the dive is egregious, it needs to be punished. PK with cautions to both (or, send off to defender and caution to attacker) sounds like the just decision here.

Too many times referees opt not to make penalty calls because an attacker regains footing temporarily or gets a (much weaker) shot off. The more we make these calls, the less diving there will be to begin with.

[Wahoo]

Devil's advocate here (and defender :) ): If the forward has her balance and, presumably, the advantage, why call the PK when she decides to just give up and flop?

Maybe I have a completely different mental picture of this play. I still might wind up with two cautions, one to the attacker for the dive and the other to the defender for the jersey tug, but no PK. IFK coming out.

Because you haven't actually called advantage yet.
Rather you are holding off the call to see if an advantage comes about.
If the player loses the ball, then no advantage occurred and you blow the whistle.

The flop is extraneous to the foul.
Under what ruling are you giving a IFK to the defnsive team.
Are you suggesting that you stopped play for the dive and not for the shirt pull? I would assert that you shouldn't stop play for a dive, but rather card it at the next stoppage in play.

[MassachusettsRef]

I would assert that you shouldn't stop play for a dive, but rather card it at the next stoppage in play.This is also going too far in a different direction (on a different hypothetical).

You should almost ALWAYS stop play when you're deciding to card for a dive. If it's in a penalty area, where would the advantage be for the defending team if they're 90+ yards from goal? Plus, clear dives and controversial penalty/no-penalty calls create hot situations and emotions began to boil over; if you decide to wait, players may act beforehand--either by talking to each other or through physical violence. Moreover, though it's a secondary concern, it's much easier to sell a simulation call to the benches and crowd when it happens right away. People know you saw something and acted. If you wait to the next stoppage, people might have no idea what you're doing.

The maximum effect for a simulation card occurs right when the dive takes place. Really, when you think it out, there's almost never a justifiable reason to wait until the next stoppage to card simulation.

[NHRef]

Devil's advocate here (and defender :) ): .


Let me re-phrase: no blood, bones, death or anything similar so no foul :) :) Old school defending!

[HeadHunter]

I agree that, if the dive is egregious, it needs to be punished. PK with cautions to both (or, send off to defender and caution to attacker) sounds like the just decision here.

.

Not sure you can find room for the send off here. If you applied advantage on the foul it was because there was an advantage. That is to say there was an opportunity, after the foul, to still get a shot off. If this is true then how can there be DOGSO?

I do see how you could have simulation (the rolling around, shrieking, etc.) as a direct part of a DOGSO foul, but not in the scenario above.

In this scenario my real objection is the application of advantage in the area- something I will only do if I think there is a high probability the ball gets into the goal without anything else happening.

To be honest NSA's reasoning appeals to me- though it is far more likely to occur if this scenario happens such that the inital shirt pull is outside the area because of my general refusal to give advantage in the area. Why should I give anything for the dive if by diving you hand over the apparent advantage that you had. Of course, my logic here is supported by a general belief that referees need to be very careful about signalling advantage as our tendency to overdo this is a large part of what leads players to dive.

[HeadHunter]

Plus, clear dives and controversial penalty/no-penalty calls create hot situations and emotions began to boil over; if you decide to wait, players may act beforehand--either by talking to each other or through physical violence. Moreover, though it's a secondary concern, it's much easier to sell a simulation call to the benches and crowd when it happens right away. People know you saw something and acted. If you wait to the next stoppage, people might have no idea what you're doing.

The maximum effect for a simulation card occurs right when the dive takes place. Really, when you think it out, there's almost never a justifiable reason to wait until the next stoppage to card simulation.

Maybe a thread jack, but how does one sell a simulation card? I have never been able to do it and I find that giving this card almost always kills player mangement- at least with that player as you are publically saying I think you are a lying cheater. This seems far worse than cards for offenses that are unoficially part of the game. IE the professional foul where the defender commits the foul and takes his card. The simulation card gets taken as a personal attack rather than the needed sanction. As a result I simply resort to play on or nothing there verbaling.

Yes I realize this is a problem and part of why diving is endemic, but so far I don't have a solution that will let me punish the dive and keep the game intact.

[MassachusettsRef]

Not sure you can find room for the send off here. If you applied advantage on the foul it was because there was an advantage. That is to say there was an opportunity, after the foul, to still get a shot off. If this is true then how can there be DOGSO? If you end up calling the foul, that means the advantage was never realized. Hence, if the requirements for DOGSO were met at the time of the foul, it's a red card.

In this scenario my real objection is the application of advantage in the area- something I will only do if I think there is a high probability the ball gets into the goal without anything else happening. I agree here. Obviously, we're second-guessing without having been there, but if the referee can be faulted for anything in this scenario, it's this. But, from that moment, it sounds like she did everything right to get a just result.

Why should I give anything for the dive if by diving you hand over the apparent advantage that you had.The key word here is "apparent." It was apparent to you. Through the effort to stumble 3 or 4 steps, regain her feet and then get ready to shoot at an onrushing goalkeeper, the attacker clearly thought she no longer had an advantage (and probably never did in the first place, when compared to the option of a PK). She's the one that's getting the advantage--not you. If she clearly felt she didn't have one, in a situation as important as a breakaway, who are you to effectively tell her, "Sorry, but you actucally did have an advantage after that cynical foul on a breakaway that I could have given you a PK for--you blew it with the dive. Now I'm going to book you and give the defense a free kick." This defies logic and defies the spirit of the game.

Let's not lose sight of things, here. A defender grabbed an attackers shot on a breakaway in the penalty area in an attempt to prevent a goal. A penalty and a red card is certainly a just result. If you have to yellow card the attacker for unnecessary simulation if her theatrics are beyond the pale, so be it. But don't let one transgression overshadow the much bigger problem.