penalties and diving simultaneously

[Kent Ref]

I did an under 16s game today and there was an incident in the white penalty area.

Blue player and white player go for the ball and both miss it. Blue player feels some contact and then adds a "flip" to the equation.

His team and manager scream for penalty and i wave it away as i'm not sure about the possible minimal contact but the "flip" has annoyed me.

At half time a league official speaks to me (he's also a well respected ref). He asks about the penalty.

I told him i wasn't sure about the amount of contact and i didn't want to give a penalty because of a piece of deception. He said he would have given a penalty.

This played on my mind in the second half that i'd made a possible error.

My question is does a player exaggerating change your thought process when a possible penalty is involved?

 

[one]

Yes. But not in his favour. And not in the obvious decisions, but only when I have some doubt.

If the player has tried to device you and simulate a fall for example, contact is not a reason for not cautioning. It just makes it harder to sell. I won't look at how tv referees do it for this as many things done on tv is different to how we should referee the game.

And on the other official, was he affiliated with either club? Either way, his angle was different and it's your opinion that matters not his (or mine).

 

[Big Cat]

I did an under 16s game today and there was an incident in the white penalty area.

Blue player and white player go for the ball and both miss it. Blue player feels some contact and then adds a "flip" to the equation.

His team and manager scream for penalty and i wave it away as i'm not sure about the possible minimal contact but the "flip" has annoyed me.

At half time a league official speaks to me (he's also a well respected ref). He asks about the penalty.

I told him i wasn't sure about the amount of contact and i didn't want to give a penalty because of a piece of deception. He said he would have given a penalty.

This played on my mind in the second half that i'd made a possible error.

My question is does a player exaggerating change your thought process when a possible penalty is involved?

Sounds like a tough one. You could argue the FT happens before the simulation so you have to give the PK, but I hate cheats (as everyone knows), so there's a good chance the deception would have irked me as well. If you don't give the PK, I'd strongly recommend the caution for cheating
Don't beat yourself up about it though. The culture in the game is not your fault

 

[GraemeS]

I don't think there's any problem with being cautious on a PK decision. You've seen clear exaggeration/simulation that has made it difficult to be confident that the actual penalty decision is correct.

You wouldn't give a penalty if you weren't confident there was a foul and there are lots of reasons that might be the case - obstructed view, difficult to judge contact. Exaggerated reaction is just another thing in that list that makes it more difficult to correctly judge that foul. That's not your fault, that's the fault of the player who chose to be over dramatic.

 

[higdawgy]

You can always award the penalty and show them a card for simulation, you will have an interesting conversation afterwards.

 

[one]

You can always award the penalty and show them a card for simulation, you will have an interesting conversation afterwards.

If you award a penalty, what are you giving a card for? Law 12 says you can give a card if he attempts to deceive you. By definition in Law device means an act to make you give a wrong decision.

By awarding the pen and cautioning, you are basically saying here is card for making me give a wrong decision (you are contradicting yourself). Well if you know the pen is a wrong decision, change it.

 

[RustyRef]

You can always award the penalty and show them a card for simulation, you will have an interesting conversation afterwards.

You could, but you would have a near riot on your hands. I'm giving a penalty but it was a dive, you have zero chance of explaining that.

 

[george.g]

You could, but you would have a near riot on your hands. I'm giving a penalty but it was a dive, you have zero chance of explaining that.

I'd like to see the club mark after that

 

[higdawgy]

I always think of a scenario where an attacker has their shirt pulled, clear penalty, the attacker screams and rolls around on the ground like they've been shot holding their shin.
You would award the penalty for the shirt pull and then call the attacker over afterwards once they make their magical recovery and award them a yellow card. Give it some theatrical rolling hand signals to show what it's for.

 

[GraemeS]

If they're feigning injury, I think it's definitely justifiable in law - you've given the correct penalty decision, but they are simulating a greater injury in order to try and deceive you into booking or sending off the opponent. No real issue with that, other than the practicalities of selling it.

If all they do is a dramatic over-exaggerated fall and then immediately hop up, I think it's harder to justify. As @one points out, he's not attempted to con you into an incorrect decision in this scenario - the fall results in the correct decision. So the LOTG's habit of redefining existing English words comes into play again: Simulation in the LOTG doesn't mean the same thing it dose in general conversation, in LOTG terms it must be to try and create an incorrect decision.