Is drawing a foul Unsporting Behavior? It seems that attempting to draw a foul often equals simulation or embellishment. I was watching the UNC - Louisville semifinal match (after all the chatter about these NCAA games, I had to see one for myself!). At 34:30 on the clock in the first half, a UNC player makes a nice move down the right sideline, turns the corner and beats his man. He is now approaching the PA along the goal line. He takes a quick glance around. He sees 6 defenders well spaced in the PA, and 3 of his teammates well covered. He takes a step with his right foot, feels the attacker behind him place his right hand slightly on his waist, then he throws his left leg out, manages to get the attacker behind him to step on his right foot, and down he goes. IMO, if you look at this closely, the player decided to draw the foul when he saw there was no clear attacking opportunity when he glanced up. He threw his left leg out so far that he was committed to go down, and only THEN did he luck out and get his foot stepped on. Also IMO, if that foot had not been stepped on, I believe the foul would still have been called because his acting job with the left foot was very convincing. I am really not faulting the CR or AR on this, as it was very subtle. I will say that on first viewing at full speed from the camera angle which was reasonably similar to the CR's angle of view, I saw the leg come out and it looked unnatural, like the setup for a classic dive, but then he actually did get fouled so in the end the call was technically correct. Unless, that is, if it is unsporting behavior to try to get your opponent to commit a foul. Is it?
If you are seriously contemplating cautioning a fouled player for UB for getting fouled, you really need some playing experience before ever refereeing.
Giving your opponent an opportunity to foul you, or even making an invitation by your position is legit. You cross the line when you don't get fouled and try to get a foul called anyway.
LOL. That would be pretty funny. As a player, you don't think it is cheating, or at least against the spirit of the game, to slow down ever so slightly and let your opponent run up your back side, potentially getting him a yellow or even a red card when you exectute it ever so subtly at just the right moment?
You aren't making the opponent do something. It is their own action. If you slow down, stop, put your leg out, whatever, it doesn't get you fouled until the opponent does something. Their lack of reaction time to what you did is fairly specifically what would be considered careless. I believe the ATR's defining of careless involves something like a miscalculation of speed or strength. I'd say that's what this is.
For me ESPN3 via DSL is almost unbearable to watch. ESPN360 used to be terrific. It appeared to me that the UNC player was fouled when he threw his left leg a bit wide and got kicked in the back of the leg by the defender running up his back. The defender moved to his right and successfully got around the UNC player after that. The UNC player rather outragegeous threw his right leg way out in an attempt to block the Lousville player (and draw a foul) and went to ground, but a) I don't believe he was touched on his right leg, and b) I would call a foul there on the UNC player for any ensuing contact, because IMO you don't have a right to throw yourself in front of an opponent to draw a foul. The first contact was a bit borderline in this regard, but you do have to give more latitude toward your opponent when coming from behind.
That's called obstruction or impeding, which is not a foul, but an IFK offense. Two entirely different things. You don't have a right to put yourself between the opponent and the ball? What planet are you from and have you ever seen a soccer game before?
This is another way of asking my same question. It is a question of whether your opponent deserves any consideration. In basketball, I suppose (not being a BB official) there are guidelines about what constitutes a player who has fairly established his position such that he will get a charging foul called against his opponent. Can't be moving, can't be leaning in, not right under the basket, those kind of things. In soccer, there are no such rules. So when Howard came out to block Anelka's shot and stopped, it seemed like part of the rationale for all three sides of the argument was whether he had fairly established his position. Some said taking the position itself was causing the call to go against him, others said since he had established his position, and really didn't lean to the ball, he was safe, and one final twist from those using the same logic but who said if only he HAD made a move towards the ball they would have let him off the hook. What should this decision hinge on? If, by slowing down ever so slightly, I cause my attacker chasing me down to clip my heels, is it just good, clean soccer? Perhaps my team's strategy was to get a free kick at a certain point on the field as we have been practicing all week, so when I get there, I simply slow down and literally force (due to the laws of conservation of momentum) my opponent to run into me, thereby securing my tactical goal. Or, that's cynical and against the spirit of the game?
Excellent point and I've always wished soccer had the basketball charging concept. I wonder if this is a "problem" mainly for Americans? I mean, I grew up and was inculcated with the NBA and the offensive charging foul. Although I played soccer from youth as well, I didn't really get to watch much until the last decade. So it seems unfair to me that Howard can get called for that foul, or this UNC one gets called. But maybe that's just because I'm a basketball fan? Does the European perspective appreciate the calculated deviousness of checkmating your opponent and forcing him to bowl you over and get the foul called in your favor?
Basketball is a horrible analogy. You are talking about a sport in which you only have 'possession' while the ball is IN your hands. In soccer, 'possession' can be applied even when the ball is 5 yards away from a player at the higher levels. Said player is free to shield a defender from the ball all they want. I really don't understand why you are even trying to compare two completely different sports where one is played with the hands and the other played with the feet. Basketball also has no advantage clause, and you get called for a foul at the slightest touch of the person who is in possession. Weak sport compared to soccer.
I am no BB ref to be sure, but it seems like the "three-point play" is an example of the advantage clause in basketball. If the basketball block/charge analogy doesn't work for you, maybe a better analogy is from driving a car. I've heard that pretty much there is never a case when the driver who rear-ends someone is in the right. Sounds like the same position you are taking with regards to the chasing defender. As the car in front, you always have the perogative to jam your breaks and if the guy behind you crashes into you, he was by definition following too close and at fault. To make the analogy even closer, assume that as the driver in front, your car was really in need of repair, and rather than pay to fix it, you wanted to draw someone into rear-ending you so you could get insurance money from him to fix or replace your car. That's like what the attacker is doing when he looks up, sees that his once promising attack has run into six well placed defenders. His car is breaking down. Looking for a free kick to bail you out, you abruptly slow down and make it all but impossible for the defender chasing you to avoid contact. When the contact is made, down you go and you get paid off by the referee, who turns out to be the insurance agent representing the other team in this case, helping you continue a promising attack that the defense had almost snuffed out, except they were trapped into fouling. Is this kind of act ethical within the spirit of the game? I know, it's a gentleman's game played by thugs...so you are going to tell me anything goes...right?
Impeding IFK for the defense! Especially if while you're slowing down and the defender runs into you the ball is out of playing distance...
What a ray of sunshine... Possession is rather irrelevant to the question I was asking. And in basketball, fouls can be called whether you have possession or not. Wow, 5 yards. That's a pretty big playing distance at any level. And you obviously don't understand much about basketball either... I have the same questions about drawing a foul that Bill C does. I am wondering if something in our American sport culture makes our perception of this aspect of soccer different from the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, I am on the same planet you are on, the one that seems to be filled with complete jerks at the top levels of US soccer. If he had taken the UNC player down with his right leg I wouldn't have caledl it shielding, I would have called it tripping.
Which is completely irrelevant to the OP's point. If you want to call it a foul for tripping or kicking, be my guest. It's still not UB and against the spirit of the game to 'draw' a foul by shielding the ball. Stay on point.
Well, this thread has degenerated into the type of stuff I would expect from coaches, players and spectators but certainly not referees. Seriously, the basketball analogy is not that bad. If a defender is faked up into the air and the offensive player steps in to take contact from the defender on the way down while "attempting" a shot, almost every basketball official I've ever seen will call a foul on the defender. Heck, it's even accepted on the playground as a foul. Exposing the ball to get a defender to overplay and then using their momentum against them is key to every feint and move in soccer. If the defender is awkward in their recovery (or tactical or reckless) resulting in a foul then a free kick (and perhaps a card) should be awarded to the fouling player. There is nothing wrong with baiting a defender into fouling in soccer. It's necessary to playing the game. It's definitely not USB. Should referees be on the lookout for attackers moving oddly or "forcing" a defender to make contact? Sure. Many's the time I've shocked an attacking player who was late on a play with a no call and then letting it be known if they complain that they actually initiated the contact. Should referees consider "soft" fouls that are overplayed by an attacker who goes to ground trifling and consider letting play continue? Sure. Players will be much more hesitant to go to ground if they are regularly disadvantaged because they have removed themselves from play by flopping. Should referees punish players who "fake" fouls for USB? Sure. I was really disappointed to hear from the retiring FIFA referee (sorry, too lazy to look up the name) who was quoted that C.Ronaldo was a renowned flopper among the referee community because he seldom receives cautions for simulating. I usually verbal a warning to a player that they are risking a caution if they keep on flopping. Usually, that's the end of it but sometimes...really gets the players' attention that the junk isn't going to play in this match. The great part about being a soccer official are those wonderful words, "in the opinion of the referee". If you think something is cheating, call it. Just be able to support your opinion if asked why you made the decision you did.
Actually, if the defender jumps straight in the air, he is entitled to that position. The offensive player moving into him would be committing a foul. Of course, it's never called that way, but that doesn't mean that it's correct. It's as accepted now as the 2 step non-travelling call (3 for Kobe, MJ of course never travelled in his life), or the swipe by the defender on a layup always being called a foul, even if replays show that he was never touched, or if a Brazilian falls on the pitch, it means he must have been fouled. I call this "referee's whim"
I wanted to address this part of your reply so that a fallacy is not perpetuated. I am also a certified Basketball referee. Basketball rules has a couple of principles that make your above statement incorrect. 1) Principle of Verticallity: Each player has the right space directly above the area which they legally occupy. The player may rise straight up from and return straight down to the space they legally occupy. 2) Right to a position legally obtained prior to an opponent obtaining said position. Your example is, by definition, a "player control foul" charged to the shooter, if the shooter moves into or under the defender who has not violated their principle of verticallity.
I understand what the rules state but if you watch the NBA (best league in the world with presumably the best referees) it's still consistently called the way I described it. Most lower level referees in the US follow the example set by NBA officials. Drives me crazy (as it apparently does you as well) but that doesn't change custom. I referenced playground basketball to emphasize my point that the call is so ingrained into US basketball culture that it is not even questioned on the playground where fights break out over foul calls that are much less ambiguous. In terms of this thread, the purpose is to illustrate that, in reference to soccer and other sports, a good fake or the taking of an advantageous position that induces contact or even permits the person executing the fake or taking the position to draw contact is not in and of itself inappropriate activity. That was the question posed by the OP.
If you watch the defender on the fakes, the defender generally jumps up and towards the shooter. Once the defender moves towards the shooter (body or arm), he's violated the principal of verticality and contact is a foul -- even if the offensive player also moves forward. Why don't defenders learn and just go up? It's really hard to do, and they feel they have a better chance to block a shot or interfere with the vision of the shooter by reaching towards him than by being straight up. (And I couldn't care less that anyone on the playground who jumps into a defender thinks he was fouled . . . those are the same players that think, in soccer, any ball that touches a hand is a foul . . . ) I agree that basketball is not a particularly useful analogy as the motion of the game and the nature of defense are different. I shudder at the idea of defensive soccer players "taking charges" . . . .