[FlashMan]

A few days has passed but it's been on my mind.

The Burn break out down the left wing and Martinez sends in a cross to a streaking Kreis, with the Quakes' Robinson trailing just behind. Robinson tugs on Kreis' shirt just inside the box as the ball is about to arrive and Kreis goes down as if both legs have been cut out from him AND he's been shot in the head. Ref signals for PK and gives Robinson a yellow.

I don't know the correct call but can imagine many:

Just like the ref called it: yellow for Robinson, PK call.

No call. Gentle tug on shirt doesn't warrant it.

Red to Robinson for fouling last man, and a PK.

Red to Robinson for fouling last man, a PK, AND a yellow (or even a red) to Kreis for obvious diving.

Yellow to Robinson, PK, AND a yellow (or even red) for Kreis for diving.

No call on Robinson, yellow (or red) to Kreis for diving.

Any other permutations?

Anyone see this play and wonder about it?

Thanks in advance.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by FlashMan
A few days has passed but it's been on my mind.

The Burn break out down the left wing and Martinez sends in a cross to a streaking Kreis, with the Quakes' Robinson trailing just behind. Robinson tugs on Kreis' shirt just inside the box as the ball is about to arrive and Kreis goes down as if both legs have been cut out from him AND he's been shot in the head. Ref signals for PK and gives Robinson a yellow.

I don't know the correct call but can imagine many:

Just like the ref called it: yellow for Robinson, PK call.

No call. Gentle tug on shirt doesn't warrant it.

Red to Robinson for fouling last man, and a PK.

Red to Robinson for fouling last man, a PK, AND a yellow (or even a red) to Kreis for obvious diving.

Yellow to Robinson, PK, AND a yellow (or even red) for Kreis for diving.

No call on Robinson, yellow (or red) to Kreis for diving.

Any other permutations?

Anyone see this play and wonder about it?

Thanks in advance.

Dont see how you can yellow kreis and robinson........it either was a foul or it wasnt.

[MassachusettsRef]

I didn't see the play, so I can't say it should be a red for a last man foul, so we should assume the caution is correct (as there was a hold in the box, it was a foul).

Unlike what Greyhnd said, you can caution both players. Give the PK, caution Robinson for the tactical hold, and caution Kreis for exaggerating the severity of that hold.

However, though this is allowed under the Laws, it's really not an accepted practice--yet. This call is virtually never made, and it confuses both the specators and players too much right now. It's more accepted--in fact, encouraged--in ice hockey. In the NHL, you'll see players get 2 minutes for hooking all the time, while the player they "hooked" will also serve 2 minutes for "diving", ie, exaggerating the severity of the infraction. In hockey, though, it means that each team stays even. In soccer, it means a "cheap" yellow (possibly a second yellow/red) for a player who was, in the opinion of the referee, fouled.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
I didn't see the play, so I can't say it should be a red for a last man foul, so we should assume the caution is correct (as there was a hold in the box, it was a foul).

Unlike what Greyhnd said, you can caution both players. Give the PK, caution Robinson for the tactical hold, and caution Kreis for exaggerating the severity of that hold.

However, though this is allowed under the Laws, it's really not an accepted practice--yet. This call is virtually never made, and it confuses both the specators and players too much right now. It's more accepted--in fact, encouraged--in ice hockey. In the NHL, you'll see players get 2 minutes for hooking all the time, while the player they "hooked" will also serve 2 minutes for "diving", ie, exaggerating the severity of the infraction. In hockey, though, it means that each team stays even. In soccer, it means a "cheap" yellow (possibly a second yellow/red) for a player who was, in the opinion of the referee, fouled.

I would ask where in the LOTG or the ATR the words "exagerattes the severity of the hold" are located? I thought it said "attempts to decieve the referee"
Never seen this called the way you say before. What is the overall goal of the second yellow you would be giving.

[MassachusettsRef]

Greyhnd, like I said, this really isn't an accepted practice right now, but it has legitimacy. The goal of the other yellow seems pretty clear: if you have a chance to stamp out diving/deceit of the referee, you do it. In fact, doing it in a situation where the diving player gets the call might even send more of a message. It gives you the opportunity to speak to the player with a quiet word like "I know he fouled you, but I'm not an idiot, you're getting the PK but take the caution too and shut your mouth, because I'm not putting up with diving".

As far as the actual wording, the Laws of the Game state that "any simulating action meant to deceive the referee" is a mandatory caution (note that it doesn't use the term 'dive'). Exaggerating the severity of the foul (ie, making a simple foul look like excessive force) seems to fit this criteria in my book. Further, the 7+7 document for the professional leagues in USSF lists two (mandatory) cautions under UB. The first (f) is "fakes an injury or exaggerates the seriousness of an injury". The second (g) is "fakes a foul (dives) or exaggerates the severity of a foul".

So in the 7+7--the official document used for USSF disciplinary purposes--"exaggerates the severity of a foul" is listed as a mandatory caution. That makes the option of calling a foul AND cautioning the fouled player for exaggerating perfectly legitimate. But, again, it's not accepted practice yet.

[Soccerski]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Greyhnd, like I said, this really isn't an accepted practice right now, but it has legitimacy. The goal of the other yellow seems pretty clear: if you have a chance to stamp out diving/deceit of the referee, you do it. In fact, doing it in a situation where the diving player gets the call might even send more of a message. It gives you the opportunity to speak to the player with a quiet word like "I know he fouled you, but I'm not an idiot, you're getting the PK but take the caution too and shut your mouth, because I'm not putting up with diving".

As far as the actual wording, the Laws of the Game state that "any simulating action meant to deceive the referee" is a mandatory caution (note that it doesn't use the term 'dive'). Exaggerating the severity of the foul (ie, making a simple foul look like excessive force) seems to fit this criteria in my book. Further, the 7+7 document for the professional leagues in USSF lists two (mandatory) cautions under UB. The first (f) is "fakes an injury or exaggerates the seriousness of an injury". The second (g) is "fakes a foul (dives) or exaggerates the severity of a foul".

So in the 7+7--the official document used for USSF disciplinary purposes--"exaggerates the severity of a foul" is listed as a mandatory caution. That makes the option of calling a foul AND cautioning the fouled player for exaggerating perfectly legitimate. But, again, it's not accepted practice yet.

[Soccerski]

Originally posted by Soccerski

Sorry for hitting the reply button too quickly.

What I was going to say was that I wish yellow cards were given for "exagerating". Diving and foul exageration is what one of the blemishes on the Beautiful Game that I would really like to see go away

[Statesman]

Nothing in the rulebook is against denying the creation of a goal scoring opportunity, just deny the obvious goal scoring opportunity itself. If the pass was just coming inbound and the attacker hadn't received it yet only to get held up a little by the defender on his tail, that's not DOGSO. It's a tactical foul, but one that deserves a yellow card nonetheless.

If the player did dive, he deserves a yellow card as well. That's clearly explained by the rules. Restart is a PK because play is stopped for the foul by the defender in the area, whether the player simulated or not. Only time referee stops play is if a foul actually happens regardless if the player dives.

If a player dives to try to "win" a foul call when no foul occured, play continues and a yellow card issued at the next stoppage.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by Statesman
Only time referee stops play is if a foul actually happens regardless if the player dives.

If a player dives to try to "win" a foul call when no foul occured, play continues and a yellow card issued at the next stoppage.

Not exactly the case. FIFA and the USSF (as well as other federations) have been very consistent in calling for referees, in the case of obvious diving in the area, to blow the whistle immediately for the infraction of simulation by itself. The correct restart, as it is UB by itself, is an IFK to the defending team.

[Greyhnd00]

I would think that a quick word to the person who exagerrated would suffice. Not very creative to walk around the field with your card in your hand.