Chelsea vs Watford

[Samiad]

A question from last night's game. Just before half time there was a bit of what the pundits like to call "handbags" involving Diego Costa and Juan Carlos Paredes. There were two incidents within a few seconds of each other - firstly, Costa threw himself to the floor after minimal/no contact and nothing was given. A few seconds later, he gave Paredes a little shove, resulting in him going down theatrically and rolling around on the floor and Mike Dean gave a free kick to Watford. Dean then booked both players which seemed like a commonsense result.

My question concerns Paredes' booking as Costa was booked for the push which led to the foul. Mike Dean indicated as he showed Paredes the yellow that it was for the way he had exaggerated the contact. However, the free kick was given to Watford so presumably the yellow wasn't for simulation (ie feigning contact when there was none) as it would have been Chelsea's? Has Mike Dean set a precedent of booking a player who was fouled but exaggerated the seriousness of the foul? If so, would the booking be for unsporting behaviour?

Grateful for your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Mooseybaby]

We all know Costa could start an argument in an empty room, but the behaviour of Paredes is the prime example of why those who attempt to cheat should be retrospectively punished, regardless of whether the referee saw the incident and did/didn't take action during the game.

Unsporting behaviour covers a wide range of things and Paredes actions were a clear attempt to cheat the game and the referee. Whether 4th official Kevin Friend had an involvement or not, who knows, but either way well done Mike Dean. Could have been just for the cameras, but Troy Deeney looked clearly embarrassed when questioned about the incident post-match.

I have long maintained the potential rewards far outweigh potential punishment for cheating and it will continue until football's law makers and FA's clamp down hard on those who do!

 

[Samiad]

Thanks for your reply. Whilst I agree with all of the sentiments expressed above and think that Mike Dean handled it well, I'm still not sure about the practicalities of the situation. Is that the first time that a referee has given a free kick for a foul whilst also booking the player who was fouled for his exaggerated reaction?

 

[ASM]

I suspect the caution is for simulation by way of feigning injury so therefore unsporting behaviour.

 

[DanCohen17]

Disgraceful decision. Parades did absolutely nothing wrong and that vermin Costa should have been immediately dismissed...

 

[Monotone Whistle]

Is that the first time that a referee has given a free kick for a foul whilst also booking the player who was fouled for his exaggerated reaction?

You punish the first offence in this example, so nothing new. Costa pushed Paredes to the ground, so there is the foul, for which the free kick was given. Seeing as the player made a meal of it and was attempting to influence the referee, he was rightly cautioned for UB, but the referee cannot award the free-kick the other way, as the foul had been committed first.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Has Mike Dean set a precedent of booking a player who was fouled but exaggerated the seriousness of the foul? If so, would the booking be for unsporting behaviour?

.

All simulation bookings fall under 'Unsporting Behaviour'. Check Law 12

Players deserve to be booked for exaggerating contact (and don't forget, contact doesn't necessarily mean a foul) - it's cheating; they're doing it to make it look like the opponent's actions were excessive and violent.

The Hyundai A-League had a situation last week which should have had the same outcome, but the referees bottled it. Player gave a tiny, tiny kick from the ground, opponent hesitated then dropped like his leg had been chopped off. Should have been a YC each and a FK - FK for the kick, it was unnecessary, YC for simulation because the force clearly wasn't sufficient for that dive. It's uncommon to see it happen only because you'll want to see a really, really massive difference between what the 'foul' should have done and what the player is pretending to have done.