This is an offshoot from an another unrelated thread that seemed like it might be worth its own. In that thread, someone said in regard to the particular situation under discussion: ...Sure there is contact, but [X] clearly goes down "way too easily" which probably makes up the ref's mind. This raised a question that has occurred to me occasionally in my own refereeing, i.e., to what extent do I – and should I – permit the "fouled" player's post-contact actions to influence whether I whistle a particular contact as a foul or not? I've sometimes caught myself going quickly and almost unconsciously through a mental gyration something like this: "Hmmm, a bit of ugly contact there, bumped player goes down, whistle? Whoa, major embellishment there ... nah." Thoughts on this? Kind of like, well, if he thought it needed that much drama to sell it as a foul, then it probably was not one...
I'll chime in since I commented on the other thread.... I have called fouls that were light contact, but fouls, the player then dives like he is shot and you catch grief. I've never had an issue saying loud enough for the "down guy" to hear "yes, he went down like he was shot, but there was a foul there regardless of his acting" This seems to get the message across that yes I saw the embellishment, but there was a foul. I am intersted in a side angle to this discusison: does the focus on diving being bad for the game actually change your mind, or make up your mind when on the fence: geez he went down very easy, that must not have been a foul, or also, I'm not calling that in case it was a dive, I'd rather be wrong on the dive, than call the foul and fall for the dive. Very similar to the OP here. Does the focus on diving make it harder to actually call a light foul when the fouled player takes a nose-dive?
Personal opinion: Early in the match I err on the side of NOT sanctioning the foul if the player embellishes. I've found that this sets the tone for the match. Later in the match I take other factors into consideration. Maybe the attacker is embellishing the foul because he needs me to pay more attention (ie. persistent infringement). I also pay attention to where on the field this is taking place. Attackers benefit immensely from freekicks in the "kill zone" and so the incentive to earn unwarranted freekicks must be considered. Ultimately you must feel out each situation as it comes at you and manage it the best way you can...
As close a mindset as I can recall is: 1) I see contact that is either illegal or trifling 2) "offended" player surrenders to the contact without resistance 3) Now I'm sold that it was trifling. It is often said that honest players, who fight through fouls, are doing their teams a disservice...that they should go down and force the ref to blow the whistle. Well, I see that happen to the best refs in the world on TV enough to know that it probably happens to me, too. But I like to think that at least my conscious pre-disposition is to favor the honest player.
The only person that I trust less than a soccer player is an honest soccer player. As a player, at any time I can I am attempting to influence the game, be it on the scoreboard or in the referee's mind. I just have to understand what the referee is calling. I observed a match this past Sunday. After the game I surmised that the referee had been a defender. Sure enough, upon query, the referee confirmed that he had been a central defender. IMHO, it was obvious based upon the calls and non-calls. The attacking player's actions had little to do with the subsequent call (or lack thereof), it had to do with the actions *expected* by the referee.
Good thing you're not my indoor ref. While our current ref is quite a bit better than most, I work hard to be cheery and light with the ref and agree with calls to go against us because I want to be able to use my reaction (that it was/wasn't a foul) for something that *should* go against me later.