"Attempting to trip" v. "Simulation"

[MassachusettsRef]

Bluedevils and I talked about this subject a little bit offline a couple months ago, when I mentioned to him that I wanted to discuss it in this forum. Unfortunately, I've been too lazy to bring it up, plus I could never really find the correct video to illustrate the point that I wanted to discuss. I think I've finally come across it.

First, it's from an EPL match and it's on a weird website, so it may very well be pulled soon. That being said, here it is for now (link should go through a quick 5 second commercial first): http://www.d1g.com/video/show/?id=1580253

So, as my title alludes to, the question is "how do you differentiate an 'attempting to' penal foul with 'simulation'?"

I'll elaborate a bit...

"Attempting to trip" and "Attempting to kick" and "Attempting to strike" are penal fouls. They are written into the law as such and require direct free kicks (or penalty kicks) when they are called.

However, there is also a clampdown on diving or "simulation." Any simulation action "meant to deceive the referee" is supposed to be sanctioned with a caution and an indirect free kick.

So when a player goes down without contact while he's trying to avoid an opponent, how do we [you] determine between an attempted trip and a dive?

Two points I hope get considered in this discussion:

1) We're always told not to judge intent, just the result. So--putting the diving issue aside for a second--in general, what things do people consider when they call the "attempting to" fouls?

2) Do we inherently expect a certain level of embellishment from players in order to call "non-contact" fouls? We always say we want to get rid of simulation, but it seems to me that we actually welcome it in some cases. For example, in this case, if Ronaldo had dragged his feet into the keeper rather than tried to leap over him, is there any doubt that he would have gotten the penalty call?

I hope the discussion focuses on the theoretical here, but I also would be interested in answers for this specific call. Is it DOGSO on the keeper or simulation on Ronaldo?

(also, I would hope we could leave aside discussion of Ronaldo's visual dissent and whether it should have been addressed, which is a separate subject entirely...)

[Tarheel Ref]

One of the most important indicators I use on the "intent" issue is the eyes. Is the defending (fouling) player looking at the ball or the player. This is especially important when they're challenging for balls in the air. It's not always possible to see but when the angle is right it's been helpful to me as it gives me some insight to their thinking.

Not sure-fire and not always possible but if you see one player staring down another...something is probably about to happen.

As for the "attempting to trip" issue...many times I think this is let go as a play-on/advantage situation but if I see deliberate intent to try to trip/kick/strike somebody that will be dealt with depending on how serious I think it was. Quiet word, caution or even sending somebody off (generally when a punch is thrown but missed) are all possible from the "attempting-to" fouls. IMHO.

[Tarheel Ref]

Now specifically on the video...

DOGSO on the keeper...attempting to trip. Red card. PK. At least that was the result in my mind. I couldn't believe YC only.

Ronaldo is forced to go high in the air to avoid the keeper throwing his arms and legs up to try to somehow make contact with and impede Ronaldo from going on. The fact that no contact was actually made does not detract from the fact that the GK CLEARLY (in my mind on first viewing) made a SERIOUS attempt to trip the attacker.

In jumping high into the air, Ronaldo was only trying to protect himself and avoid contact with the GK. It doesn't happen often but I appreciate attackers who do this and sometimes I give them a quiet "nice play avoiding the keeper and thanks for not killing him."

I wouldn't have cared for Ronaldo's clapping like that in my face though...

[MassachusettsRef]

DOGSO on the keeper...attempting to trip. Red card. PK. At least that was the result in my mind. I couldn't believe YC only...

I wouldn't have cared for Ronaldo's clapping like that in my face though...To clarify: Ronaldo was cautioned for diving--the card wasn't for the keeper (which is why Ronaldo subsequently dissented via the clapping).

[nonya]

To me, the goalie clearly lifted his top arm up for a second, long enough to trip up the attacker. I can not for the life of me understand how and why keepers are getting away with this. If instead of a goalie, let us assume that it was a defender who made the same tackle with his legs, and that his leg came up late (just like the goalie's arm did) would that not be a foul? We are all trained to watch a tackle a second after it happens and recognize that it is a foul if the leg comes up late on a tackle to trip up a player, why isn't the same true for a goalie's arms?

[refmike]

From my repeated viewing of the clip I see the keepers' arm hitting Ronaldo's back leg in the air. That is a trip, not an attempt -- PK. Also Ronaldo went down because he accidently stepped on the keepers other arm on the ground as he came down from the jump. That fall should not have been carded and the keeper was lucky to avoid a red for DOSGO.

[MassachusettsRef]

I'm beginning to think maybe this wasn't the best clip to select.

In an effort to steer the discussion a little, my point--and question--is more theoretical than having to do with this specific clip.

Plenty of times we see instances where a defender (or goalkeeper) sticks his leg or arm out in the penalty area after the ball is by said defender (or goalkeeper). The attacker then leaps over that leg and falls to ground without any contact. Sometimes we see the penalty called, but more often than not--when there's no contact, we see simulation called. However, in the Laws, "tripping" and "attempting to trip" are co-equal fouls. A player may very well be "simulating" contact in some cases, but in many of these instances, a trip was clearly attempted (and, the attempted trip not only happens first, but it's also more severe--DFK compared to an IFK for simulation).

So the question becomes, in general (not this specific play), what does one look for when calling an "attempting to trip" foul in the penalty area?

I'd posit that most of us--myself included--are very reluctant to give PKs when there's no contact by the defender. I'd argue though, as I think this clip illustrates (though I can see how some argue there might be contact) that this is not the right approach to take in many cases.

So what's the difference between a dive and an "attempting to trip" penal foul?

There has, rightly, been a push to clamp down on simulation in the past 8-10 years or so. But does anyone agree that it has had the unintentional effect of making referees at the top-flight (and now further down) reluctant to call what should otherwise rightly be PKs?

[IASocFan]

...

There has, rightly, been a push to clamp down on simulation in the past 8-10 years or so. But does anyone agree that it has had the unintentional effect of making referees at the top-flight (and now further down) reluctant to call what should otherwise rightly be PKs?

I think, particularly in England or countries known for physical soccer, that there is an attempt to discourage diving - something that follows skillful players like Ronaldo who sometimes feel it necessary to embellish.

[Tarheel Ref]

That's where it goes to the intent of the defending player. In this case, as the GK's left arm and leg gone straight up into the air AFTER the ball was past, my impression was PK.

So as it actually happened...caution for Ronaldo and then goal kick or IFK coming out?

If the keeper or defender is playing the ball I'm less inclined to lean toward PK but if they play the man not the ball PK is always more likely.

Except in this video case?

[Rufusabc]

Rob Styles is usually pretty good, I think. But that was a bad call. Not even close. I dont know if it warranted a penalty at that level, but it certainly wasn't a dive.

Also, it is a tought call to make from behind the play.

R

[falcon.7]

If the attempt resulted in a disadvantage for the attacker - losing the ball, stumbling and then falling, or whatever - even without contact, it has to be a foul. This can be illustrated when a player slides into a player with possession and causes the player to jump over his legs with no contact, allowing time for a teammate to come in and boot the ball away. The sliding player's action was an attempt to trip which disadvantaged the player in possession. Had the attempt not occured, the player would still have the ball.

Now, let's say a player puts a heavy touch on the ball as he's going towards goal and there's no way he's going to get to it before it goes over the end line. Now a defender slides in, no contact, and the attacker makes a meal of it trying to get a foul called so he can make up for his heavy touch. In that case, even though there was an attempt, the player clearly tried to deceive the referee into thinking there was contact, and therefore award a free kick to the player. Would I caution the player for diving? Probably not, unless in the penalty area and the player was looking for a PK, but it's also not a foul. It's an opportunity to let the player know that you're not going to be fooled today.

refmike - I don't see any of the two things you said happened. There may have been contact, but if there was it was a brush of the jersey. And Ronaldo didn't even come close to the touching ground with either leg until 1-2 yards after the goalkeeper. But I also don't have my glasses on.

In that clip the attempt to trip clearly caused a disadvantage for Ronaldo (he went 4 feet in the air trying to avoid the contact). But it did look like he tried to help the referee make his decision, possibly hoping for a PK + send-off. For me, that's a PK, and if it's a PK, it's got to be red. Contact or not. I think Ronaldo was fishing a little though ;).

On the theoretical side, I think it's more about intent of the player being fouled. If said player could have just continued on, but instead chooses to milk it and try to get a call/penalty/caution/send-off, then that's simulation. Maybe not card-worthy simulation, but still simulation. But if the attempt legitimately disadvantaged the player, it's a foul.

Edit: On another point, remember the ('74?) WC final, when a penalty was awarded for an attempt to trip? Jack Taylor was crucified for that call. Just a side note to think about.

[AspireNatlRef]

So the question becomes, in general (not this specific play), what does one look for when calling an "attempting to trip" foul in the penalty area?



Not trying to hijack, but I question the necessity of the "in the penalty area." Why are we calling fouls differently in the penalty area? I do it too :o(change my threshold for severity of foul in PA), not saying that, but theoretically, the same foul you'd call anywhere is the same in the PA...

Back to the point, I look for movement in the direction of the player and not the ball. That may sound awkward, but many times, one can judge that the movement is towards the player and not towards the ball. This is in addition to looking at the eyes (damn we have to look so many places).

I agree that attempting to trip is the more severe offense and will call the foul (attempt or actual) and will talk to the player about simulation, but its mostly a non-call for me. While it is a problem in higher level matches, most of the time, the player is more concerned with putting the ball in the net and not trying to draw a PK, however, I did see it happen this weekend. My response was "diver, get up NOW" which she did and didn't try that again...

ANR

[Ref Flunkie]

I agree with most here that the "attempt" fouls are clear movements by the player to "play the man" and not the ball, but either missing or having the player make an unnatural movement to avoid the contact. The real simulation I have a problem with is the stuff where the player has nothing that needs to be avoided (perhaps an extended leg flat on the pitch), but then simulates a foul.

[MassachusettsRef]

Not trying to hijack, but I question the necessity of the "in the penalty area." Why are we calling fouls differently in the penalty area? The qualifier has nothing to do with threshold for fouls. I inserted it because it is the place where we see most simulation and where this becomes an issue.

Can the same question come up a yard outside the area or even in the center circle? Sure. But it becomes a much more heated topic and decides a lot more games when it happens in the penalty area.

[MassachusettsRef]

Edit: On another point, remember the ('74?) WC final, when a penalty was awarded for an attempt to trip? Jack Taylor was crucified for that call. Just a side note to think about.Video available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV-H4288yNk

Though it's actually not that clear in this video, I do think you're correct in remembering that it's assumed there was no contact.

[MassachusettsRef]

On the theoretical side, I think it's more about intent of the player being fouled. If said player could have just continued on, but instead chooses to milk it and try to get a call/penalty/caution/send-off, then that's simulation. Maybe not card-worthy simulation, but still simulation. But if the attempt legitimately disadvantaged the player, it's a foul.I think this is where I come down. This is a well-put, succinct answer. Taking it a bit further, of course, we have to then figure out for ourselves if a player could or could not have carried on.

As Alex Ferguson--I think rightly--pointed out after this match, Ronaldo had a pretty solid chance of scoring his hat trick on an empty net despite the slide by the Fulham keeper and had no real reason to go down. I think that sort of thing has to enter into our minds a bit. Conversely, it can't be the determining factor.

Back to the point, I look for movement in the direction of the player and not the ball. That may sound awkward, but many times, one can judge that the movement is towards the player and not towards the ball. This is in addition to looking at the eyes (damn we have to look so many places).See, for me this goes to the entire heart of what an "attempting to" foul is and how it squares with our instructions not to judge intent in penal fouls. If an action listed in the penal foul section is "careless," then we call the foul--it's that simple.

So can an "attempting to" foul ever be "careless"? Or are those two things mutually exclusive?

And if an "attempting to" foul can never be careless, doesn't that inherently mean that ALL attempting to fouls are reckless or even with excessive force (like "attempting to strike")? As strange as it may seem, if you argue that "attempting to" fouls can't be careless, you are essentially saying that all "attempting to" fouls amount to misconduct.

This is something (reconciling "careless" with "attempting to") that has ALWAYS confused me.

[lmorin]

IMHO, there were two clear issues in the video situation. The keeper raised his arm in a fashion that had nothing to do with either self-protection or blocking the ball. I interpreted it instantly as "going for Ronaldo" and this action forced Ronaldo into evasive bodily tactics that severely hampered further work on the ball. Penal foul, no question.

That said, Ronaldo also clearly embellished. The indicator for this is his lead foot. Remember that these guys are the best of the best pro athletes. Their balance is unbelievably superb--that is arguably the most important attribute of a high class soccer player. Yet, somehow, they seem to lose all sense of balance in and near the PA. This case is no exception. Ronaldo's lead foot is initially extended, ready to land and make a running recovery from being forced to evade the keeper. Instead, as his foot is about to contact the ground, he retracts it backward and falls on his face, trailing foot actually hitting the ground first. Simulation and yellow card, no question.

Both the PK (I wouldn't give the red for DOGSO) and the YC to Ronaldo.

Ronaldo's diving is always the same: he lands on his front or shoulder, with both feet trailing; he may or may not have been clipped on one foot, but he is never clipped on the other; he makes no attempt whatsoever to stay upright. Because he embellishes so much, it is often difficult to discern whether or not he was actually fouled with a small clip around the foot. Personally, I think refs should not hesitate to call penal fouls when they see them, but also not hesitate to add a yellow for embellishment, even if it is by the victim of the penal foul.

[ref2coach]

Personally, I think refs should not hesitate to call penal fouls when they see them, but also not hesitate to add a yellow for embellishment, even if it is by the victim of the penal foul.

I am in complete agreement with the above statement. Some of the best "match control" cautions I have given, is when I call a foul AND also caution the "simulator/embellisher", restart to the team of the player I cautioned. The times I have used this combination the game has gone on with less "crap" by both teams.

[falcon.7]

Both the PK (I wouldn't give the red for DOGSO) and the YC to Ronaldo.


DANGER WILL ROBINSON :eek:!!! The impression that people get is that you're calling two completely opposite infringements - the trip and the dive. The first reaction when most people see that is "how can it be a dive if it's a foul". There's nothing wrong with taking Ronaldo aside and saying, "yeah, that's a foul, but unless you're trying to win an Oscar cut the funny business" and then follow up later if he embellishes something else. Calling the PK (with no card?) and then carding Ronaldo would look awful in my opinion. If you don't card the keeper, you're also saying Ronaldo's infringement (embellishment) was more severe than the keeper's (DOGSO or at least USB).

Addition: If the situation arises where you have a foul and embellishment, and everyone knows it's a foul and embellishment, make a scene to the actor. Let everyone know you saw the foul, but you don't find the "I'VE BEEN SHOT!!!" dramatization funny.

[roby]

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13380989#post13380989

Aha! I knew it!! Simulation is rampant due to incompetent Refs.

Play on.....