Dale v Spuds
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
PP62
Well-Known Member
Well, yes, it was a penalty. There was a trip on his standing foot. I know why you're asking though; he planted his other foot on the floor to launch himself into a theatrical reactionary dive but it was a penalty.
It is time this over reaction (simulation) is eradicated from the game though.
It is time this over reaction (simulation) is eradicated from the game though.
Jacob Walukiewicz
Active Member
Is it possible to give a penalty and caution the player for simulation or would that be contradictory in law?
Lets just say he invited the contact and the defender obliged into making the contact and he fell into the trap. So, there was contact, so on that score i can see why it was given. What wasn't required is the 6-0 6-0 6-0 theatrics from the upper body that exaggerated the fall just to rub in the point!
Hes a little boy that seems to cry wolf, there will become a point when he is genuinely fouled then no-one will believe him anymore and he will miss out on genuine penalties!!
The sooner they bring in retrospective bans for all players caught diving the better, no need to involve VAR, all games are televised and they can easily scan through footage to catch the culprits!!! that would start helping from day 1, they'll soon learn!!! 3 games, then 6....
Hes a little boy that seems to cry wolf, there will become a point when he is genuinely fouled then no-one will believe him anymore and he will miss out on genuine penalties!!
The sooner they bring in retrospective bans for all players caught diving the better, no need to involve VAR, all games are televised and they can easily scan through footage to catch the culprits!!! that would start helping from day 1, they'll soon learn!!! 3 games, then 6....
I'm a Spurs fan. It's already happened twice this season where he was fouled and didn't get the call.
Then you can see my point, as much as we never admit it, certain players at all levels get reputations for doing certain things and that will follow them whether they like it or not!!
Last edited:
Not necessarily, but I'd wish your match control the best of luck for the rest of the game. Try explaining that it's a penalty but he used simulation to win it, that just wouldn't be a credible decision to make.
I just think Alli has deservedly earned a reputation, as this one was a clear penalty. The reaction of the defenders said it all, they knew it was a penalty.
one
RefChat Addict
It would actualy be incorrect in law to give a pen and caution for simulation.
By definition if you give a pen, he hasn't tricked you into anything and it cant be a deceive so its not a yellow card.
one
RefChat Addict
Yes you could if he is rolling on the ground holding to his legs etc. But in this case there was non of that. Simple exaggeration of going down.
Murri O
Well-Known Member
Don't know if you can but would love to see just one ref do it one day.
'Free kick here and a yellow for you Sunshine'.
'What for ref?'
'The ridiculous exaggeration. Unsporting conduct, on your bike.'
Last edited:
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
I think it is a pen because there's quite hard contact on his right leg, but the contact certainly doesn't warrant him planting his left leg and using it to push off into a front flip to the ground. It's a penalty in real time but an exaggerated dive and quite frankly embarrassing in my opinion.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
If the law still read as it did before the latest change, I would completely agree with you. However by adding the 'e.g.' (which was added in 2016) it opens the door for the possibility that feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled are not the only ways to deceive the referee - and that for instance, simply exaggerating the effects of the foul could be seen as a form of deception.
Now, having said that, I don't personally think that mere exaggeration is enough to trigger a caution when the player has actually been fouled and that's partly because, as suggested by @Jacob Walukiewicz , it's fundamentally contradictory and I also don't happen to think it's what the law-makers intended or "what football would want/expect."
However the way the law is written now, I don't think you can say it's totally and necessarily incorrect to both award the foul and caution the player - although let me just stress again, that I don't think it should be done and I personally wouldn't recommend it.
one
RefChat Addict
Using 'e.g' doesn't nullify the fact that it has to be a attempt to deceive the referee. And the definition of deceive is very clear, tricking the referee into making an incorrect decision. So whatever example you use has to fall within that definition. If you give a pen and that is all the player is attempting to get, no matter how exaggerated his actions are, by lotg definition, he has not attempted to deceive you so you can't caution him for attempting to deceive.
As per my conversation with GrahamS, if he is attempting to to deceive you into sanctioning the opponent as well, then its a different story.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Yes, but by accepting that deception includes attempting to deceive the referee into giving an incorrect sanction (which exaggerating an actual foul could do) surely you've in effect just conceded the argument that it's not totally against the law.
Incidentally, and even though I still don't agree with them, I have seen plenty of referees in plenty of debates saying they would both award the foul and caution the player (and have done so). They also point to a number of examples on YouTube where top flight referees have done the same thing.
Here's an example of a player getting a second yellow card for "embellishing the contact" in an MLS game in 2014, even though his opponent was cautioned for the initial foul. I have to say that out of all the examples of exaggerating contact that I've seen, this was far from the worst and did not merit a caution even if the law did allow it.
Blas Perez second yellow card
I think the belief that it is OK to do this is more prevalent in the US, not least because the now-discontinued USSF 'Advice to Referees' document used to say that a player who "exaggerates the severity of a foul" was guilty of a cautionable offence and that mindset still persists.
Murri O
Well-Known Member
Ha ha. Brilliant. Well deserved.
Difference here is that the initial foul was called (when the opponent in white came over the player in red's back), then the push happened after the foul by white, and the red player embellished the force of the push.
So, the cautions there were for the idiotic push by white, and embellishment by red to make the referee think that it was a RC offence by white.