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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Wow, now that was something I wasn't aware of. Seems to me there would be a lot of instances for advantage to be applied as usually the guilty player removes himself from play by simulating. It's always a gamble -- if you get the call it's a big advantage and worth the try, if not then you're sorta screwed for giving the other team a freebie. I guess it really depends on the surrounding circumstances. You noted "diving in the area" with an IFK restart. I guess that wouldn't necessarily be a good idea to call if the play creates an obvious goal scoring opportunity? Personally I'd rather get a chance at a breakaway instead of an IFK. That's if the defender is the one who simulated of course (which they often do in the area). However in the above situation, wouldn't the tugging of the jersey be considered the more "major" case? I would think if a foul does occur and simply is exagerrated that it would take precedent over the UB for the restart, regardless of where it occured. I'm rambling a bit here but I just can't think of many cases where actually stopping the game for simulation alone would really be of any benefit!
I should have been more clear. I meant diving in the area in an attempt to win a penalty. If a defender has the nerve to "dive" in the area, the potential consequences from his opponents should be enough. However, when I said that FIFA and USSF have encouraged stopping play solely for simulation, I meant--almost exclusively--for instances when players go down with no contact in the box in an attempt to win a penalty, or, less often, when players go down at the top of the box to win dangerous DFK. At least 4 examples alone come from the World Cup (including Totti's second yellow) for diving in the area, and in last year's WCQ with T&T, play was stopped and a card was produced simply for a dive about 25 yards out. The rationale is simple, and twofold. First, cautioning players, rather than simply waving play on, goes a lot further in eliminating diving, which most fans feel is a plague on the game. Secondly, by stopping play to issue the caution for a controversial play in the box, the referee is sending a clear message that he saw the play and deemed it a dive. If he merely waved play on, his "decision" could be viewed in two different ways. Either he thought it was not a foul, or he simply blew the call. By stopping play to caution for the dive, any confusion is eliminated. With that said, MLS, in its conference notes, recently made it clear that it did not want referees going out and "looking for" dives in the area. If there was minimal contact that didn't suffice for a penalty call, referees are instructed to wave play on. However, in clear situations where a player was not fouled and still tried to win a penalty, the directives--from MLS, USSF and everyone else--are clear: play should be stopped and the caution should be given. Oh absolutely. I wasn't talking about this play, as I did not see it. I was just responding to Greyhnd, who said that call could not be made under the Laws. It can. However, if a referee feels there was a foul and exaggeration, then the restart is for the foul. Any exaggeration is dealt with as misconduct after the foul has taken place. And, with that said, Greyhnd is right in the sense that it probably won't help to go around carding everyone who exaggerates a minor foul. Man managent still reigns supreme over carding incessantly. However, the governing authorities--and fans--are adamant about stamping simulation out of the game. Though rare, there are times, places, and situations to caution players for exaggeration. Most particularly, I would caution a player for exaggeration (even if I gave him the foul) if in my mind, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I felt that he was trying to fool me into wrongly sending off the player that fouled him.
This play is posted on the MLS website under the "MLS Hit Parade" it is number 14. Maybe someone who is more computer saavy than I can post the direct link here. http://www.mlsnet.com/content/02/goals0825.html The shirt pull is completely visible and whether you like the way Kreis falls or not, it was a stupid play by a rookie defender to grab a shirt like that in the penalty area. It is debateable whether there should be a send-off here or a caution. But in my opinion a penalty none the less. Maybe there wasnt a send-off because the foul was on the soft end. (not that that should matter in denying a goal scoring opportunity), but maybe that was what ref Grady was thinking. It is interesting here to see Donovan walk by Kreis and seem to question his "fall" since he has also been accused of falling easily in the box.
Since nobody else has commented on some of these suggestions, I wanted to point out that under no circumstances could you justify a red for Kreis. No matter how bad the simulation, it's still a yellow (at most). A red would only come into the equation if it's his second yellow. I've seen it -- or similar. Can't remember what game. I think it was about a year ago or so and it was on TV, so I'm thinking it was an MLS game. The defender in the case I saw didn't get a yellow. He fouled the attacker just outside the penalty area on the side of the field -- about 15 yards from the end line. The attacker had already taken another step when he realized he wasn't going to catch up to the ball, he pulled his legs up and flops. Referee blew the whistle and awarded the DFK to the attacking team and issued a caution to the attacker for simulation.