Here is an intersting simulation call I saw a couple of weeks ago. A fairly chatty and physical player is the victim of a hard slide tackle that was an obvious foul with cleats up. However, as he is going down, he yells "OW" fairly loud and is somewhat dramatic as he flies throught he air. Ok, he is definitely overacting a bit. However, he bounces right up and gains possesion of the ball and begins to dribble. Play is stopped and he is cautioned for simulation. Other player gets no foul. Does the fact that he was over-emotive enough for the card, even though his action of gaining possesion and dribbling is indicative that he was not looking for a foul?
Sorry about your yellow card! Seriously, as a chatty, large, overly-expressive when injured guy, I feel your pain (or that of the carded gentleman). This sounds more like embellishment than simulation. As described, I probably wouldn't have given a card, but the spirit of that game, any previous simulation, and demeanor of the teams need to be taken into account. A lot of this type of call comes from the gut of the referee, and is purely subjective. The CR was probably thinking, "do I need to curtail this type of theatrics?"
Is there any reason you can't call the foul on the defender, and then caution the fouled player for embellishing it? I've never done this, and never seen it done....would it violate any laws?
There's no reason you couldn't, if the CR thought the embellishment was 'unsporting.' Usually if the CR calls a foul, then a word to the embellishing player is sufficient. Sometimes if he thinks the foul was triffling, but the embellishment was unsporting, the CR will call the unsporting behaviour. It's sometimes very subjective and depends on the opinion of the referee. Dangerous and unsporting plays frequently fall into that subjective, 'I don't like what I saw' bucket.
The foul and the simulation are separable events, and the ref can call one and not the other. But I would generally hesitate to caution someone for embellishing the results of an actual foul in the situation you describe, as there is no real impact on play and no unfair advantage accrues to either team, so both the foul and the embellishment can be see as trivial. Rolling around on the ground for a few minutes, as one can see every weekend in the Italian league, could be a better candidate for a caution...
No reason at all. It happened in a US WC qualifier in 2005, can't remember the exact match. Beasley was tripped, the contact was at the ankle. He rolled around clutching his knee, which would give the impression of a more serious foul. The referee cautioned Beasley, the restart was a DFK to the US for the trip.
I'm not sure what you'd do about this one though, a clever lawyer could perhaps argue that it really wasn't simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0w4vlJvc6o
Embellishment, aka 'exaggerating a foul,' is a type of simulation and is cautionable. Generally, I would be very reluctant to caution a player for simulation when he immediately bounced to his feet and kept playing -- even though he yelled as he went down. I don't like the yelling, but this does not bother me as much as the rolling around and pretending that one is really hurt and forcing the referee to stop the game and deal with the theatrics.
Don't think I'd caution him, but I wouldn't give advantage either, then when he complains, just say "look with how loud you yelled I thought you broke your leg or something so wanted to get you to the hospital", then smile and walk away
I like the idea of taking away his advantage to teach him a lesson. It's a cheaper price to pay than cautioning him, which seems a little too harsh on a case like this one.
Had this happen just this week in a HS match. Kid is fouled lightly (but clearly)and goes flying like he was drilled. I call the foul, help him up, and told him he was fouled, not shot, and if he does that again he will see yellow to remind of how hard he was actually hit. This worked very well as the team that committed the foul was happy I dealt with it and the kid who was fouled nodded and amazingly didn't have the problem again.
"Yes, you were fouled, but I don't need all the acting to see that. This time, you get an Oscar. Next time, it might be a different award."
Did anyone else see the simulation card that was just handed out to DC in the MLS match v. the Revs...Very questionable (smelled of make up). Even White badges have off matches.
After reading all the answers, I must say that there are some witty ways of taking care of this situation. In summary, let him know you don't appreciate his acting ability and let him no that the show closed after one performance.
Can you stop play for a diving/simulating a foul and not caution them? Since diving is misconduct(USB), if you stopped play wouldn't you be doing so to caution them?
I don't believe there is any lawful way to stop play solely for an act of simulation WITHOUT issuing a caution for the misconduct. Guess I need to go back and see who disagrees with that, and WHY they disagree -- because I cannot think of any good supporting arguments.
My opinion on it is this. If it was serious enough for you to stop play for it, then it's time for that card to come out. I don't see how we can deem some cautions not serious enough to stop play right away but then say that something that wasn't serious enough to be a caution is serious enough to stop play for. That said, there is nothing in the laws that says you can't stop play to deal with it, however, now you've got to question what is the restart? It'd have to be a dropped ball as the IDFK is specified for when play is stopped for misconduct. It'd be a real stretch in my book to say you stopped play for misconduct but didn't issue a caution or send-off. Lastly, don't confuse this with holding up the restart. I've in MANY MANY cases delayed a restart to issue a verbal warning. I'm sure most here have. That's just good game management.
2006 atr 5.7. you can stop play for misconduct even if you do not intend to card. restart w/ db. q&a's 5.14.
Thanks for the citations -- and the reminder of something that should be obvious but hadn't really been pointed out in this thread! Of course, the referee can stop play pretty much any time he wants, for any reason he wants. This is supported in ATR 5.7. In ATR 5.7, if the ref sees misconduct and wants to stop play to warn the player but NOT issue a card, the restart is indeed a dropped ball. Please note it says, "As the stoppage will not have occurred for a foul or misconduct, play would be restarted with a dropped ball." To be clear, you CANNOT do the following: stop play for misconduct (for example, simulation), award IFK to the opposing team, and NOT caution/send off the guilty player. In other words: * If you want to give the IFK, you also must show a card. * If you do not want to show a card, you must restart with a dropped ball. Generally, I think it is not a good idea to stop play to warn a player and then restart with a dropped ball. It sends mixed message to the players -- shouldn't he be receiving a card if you stopped play to talk to him? Why did you stop play if you aren't carding him? It should be possible in many/most cases for the referee to manage this player without having to stop play to have a word with him.
Just a simple few words when you are close to him again. I wouldn't stop play for misconduct and not caution them, it could be confusing for the other players, like you said.