RefSix

Utd vs PSG

RefIADad

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
By general English meaning, yes. But by lotg definition, no.

From Law 12, Cautions for unsporting behavior:

"There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior including if a player . . . attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)."

I don't see how this quote from the Laws is not defining what the PSG player did as simulation worthy of a yellow card. It's about as cut and dried as it can be. Going down like one has been hit with a sledgehammer while holding his face is about as obvious of an example of "feigning injury" as I can consider.
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
From Law 12, Cautions for unsporting behavior:

"There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior including if a player . . . attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)."

I don't see how this quote from the Laws is not defining what the PSG player did as simulation worthy of a yellow card. It's about as cut and dried as it can be. Going down like one has been hit with a sledgehammer while holding his face is about as obvious of an example of "feigning injury" as I can consider.

Thank you.

Was he injured? No. Did he pretend to be? Yes. Yellow card.
Did Fred act in a manner that fits with then VC definition? Yes. Red card.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
This has been debated before. To @one's point, what the Laws actually say is:

  • attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)

"E.g." means "exempli gratia" or "for example." And the definitions contained in the Laws say:

Deceive Act to mislead/trick the referee into giving an incorrect decision/disciplinary action which benefits the deceiver and/or their team.
and
Simulation An action which creates a wrong/false impression that something has occurred when it has not (see also deceive) ; committed by a player to gain an unfair advantage

We can go down the rabbit hole of what "attempt" to deceive means. But if a player is attempting to make something look worse that it was, I don't really see a way to say that is anything other than an attempt to deceive the referee into thinking it was worse in order to mislead the referee into taking more serious disciplinary action.

That said, I have never seen it done in a high level game, and I don't see any referee going out on an island to take this position. Until IFAB/FIFA or top leagues give the instruction to do apply it that way, I just don't see it happening. For me, I'm only going there in the games I do if it is really, really blatant--if I go there, I want everyone laughing and saying the cautioned player got what he deserved, not catching a more subtle fake.
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
This has been debated before. To @one's point, what the Laws actually say is:



"E.g." means "exempli gratia" or "for example." And the definitions contained in the Laws say:


and


We can go down the rabbit hole of what "attempt" to deceive means. But if a player is attempting to make something look worse that it was, I don't really see a way to say that is anything other than an attempt to deceive the referee into thinking it was worse in order to mislead the referee into taking more serious disciplinary action.

That said, I have never seen it done in a high level game, and I don't see any referee going out on an island to take this position. Until IFAB/FIFA or top leagues give the instruction to do apply it that way, I just don't see it happening. For me, I'm only going there in the games I do if it is really, really blatant--if I go there, I want everyone laughing and saying the cautioned player got what he deserved, not catching a more subtle fake.
Oh, I quite agree but you'd be correct in law.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I can break this down because the actual USB part has two parts one uses deceiving and the other uses simulation. I can argue the meaning of those in accordance to what is in the glossary and logical inference that this can't be a caution under that clause. @socal lurker touched on those so I go on a different angle.

This law was brought in because players reactions made referees make wrong decision. If the referee makes the right decision the reaction becomes irrelevant. There is no sanction higher than red (if given).

Just to add, I have nothing against cautioning, but it can't be for deceiving you because they didn't, or pretending to be fouled, because they were fouled (or if ball is out of play, it's not applicable). Caution for any other USB reason.
 
Last edited:

Kes

I'll Decide ...
Level 5 Referee
I can break this down because the actual USB part has two parts one uses deceiving and the other uses simulation. I can argue the meaning of those in accordance to what is in the glossary and logical inference that this can't be a caution under that clause. @socal lurker touched on those so I go on a different angle.

This law was brought in because players reactions made referees make wrong decision. If the referee makes the right decision the reaction becomes irrelevant. There is no sanction higher than red (if given).

Just to add, I have nothing against cautioning, but it can't be for deceiving you because they didn't, or pretending to be fouled, because they were fouled (or if ball is out of play, it's not applicable). Caution for any other USB reason.
@one as good as you are on the LOTG and at scrutinising them, I think you're gonna have to let this one go mate. ;) :D

Throwing yourself to the floor and pretending you been clumped when actually you haven't, is "attempting to deceive" and "feigning injury" 24/7.

Also, no bullets in the above passage - shocking from you that .... ;):p
 
  • Like
Reactions: one

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
I can break this down because the actual USB part has two parts one uses deceiving and the other uses simulation. I can argue the meaning of those in accordance to what is in the glossary and logical inference that this can't be a caution under that clause. @socal lurker touched on those so I go on a different angle.

This law was brought in because players reactions made referees make wrong decision. If the referee makes the right decision the reaction becomes irrelevant. There is no sanction higher than red (if given).

Just to add, I have nothing against cautioning, but it can't be for deceiving you because they didn't, or pretending to be fouled, because they were fouled (or if ball is out of play, it's not applicable). Caution for any other USB reason.
You can be both fouled and feigning injury.
 

RefIADad

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
This is a situation where the "theoretical" answer is not going to be the "practical" answer. In theory, this should be a send off for Fred because of the head butt and a caution to PSG because it's pretty clear that the reaction did not match up with the force of the contact. In practical terms, that type of decision just isn't going to happen.

As for the concept of not cautioning the embellishment if the more serious red card is produced because the "most severe punishment" is still served, I just can't get behind that. It's a somewhat tangential situation, but let's look at a situation where Red commits a violent conduct foul and then Blue pushes back in retaliation. Just because I've caught the VC and send off Red doesn't mean that I shouldn't also caution Blue for the retaliatory push.

Like I said in my original reply, a VC send-off and a USB caution for embellishment/simulation would be an incredibly tough sell. I can only imagine that the exaggerated reaction was a factor in Orsato only issuing a caution to Fred. I'm not a really big fan of the concept of "well, since the other player over-reacted, I can downgrade my card", but we also know that high-level matches like this look for reasons to keep all 22 players on the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
I'll be honest here, if I was observing and saw a referee send a player off for VC and caution the opponent for simulation I would be asking whether he had received a bang on the head. Whilst I accept it is technically an allowable decision, it would be absolutely impossible to sell and match control would likely be going right out of the window. "How can it be a red card ref if their player dived, you don't know what you are <insert choice words> doing".

Absolutely no problem with cautioning the other player for their part in the incident, but a red card for VC and a caution for simulation just don't mix in my opinion.
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
I'll be honest here, if I was observing and saw a referee send a player off for VC and caution the opponent for simulation I would be asking whether he had received a bang on the head. Whilst I accept it is technically an allowable decision, it would be absolutely impossible to sell and match control would likely be going right out of the window. "How can it be a red card ref if their player dived, you don't know what you are <insert choice words> doing".

Absolutely no problem with cautioning the other player for their part in the incident, but a red card for VC and a caution for simulation just don't mix in my opinion.

Totally agree - but still technically allowed/correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
@one as good as you are on the LOTG and at scrutinising them, I think you're gonna have to let this one go mate. ;) :D
As much as I like letting one go, I'll respond to this one. 😁
Throwing yourself to the floor and pretending you been clumped when actually you haven't, is "attempting to deceive" and "feigning injury" 24/7.
Again yes in your everyday conversation it does but not by your lotg definition.

Screenshot_20201205-112926.jpg

By this definition if you give a red card the he has not received you has he? Why do we have the word 'attempt' there? Because if it was not there then there would never be a caution. It would be like saying "a referee who is deceived must caution the deceiver". A referee can't both know and not know he has been deceived at the same time.

However if you give a yellow card to offender (as was given to Fred), then you can argue the other player tried to deceive the referee into a red and also caution him.

But did they feign injury?
Feigning injury is an example given for "attempting to deceive" and must still qualify the definition of deceive. Using it in isolation is a misapplication.

The are lots of other e.g. 's in the lotg which applied in isolation will be a misapplication. Simulation is an example for sin bin but it must still qualify other conditions fore sin bin can be applied to it.
 
Last edited:

Redster

Member
@one I'm coming to the view that 'attempt' here means 'act with the intention of deceiving the referee' and that is irrelevant whether he was in fact deceived or not.

That being said, where there is a clearly violent action like Fred's, and contact is made, it would seem to me that rolling on the floor like a dropped sausage is less of an attempt to deceive the referee and more of an attempt to draw attention to the incident. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the professional game has become.

If only you could caution for being a ****.
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that refereeing at FIFA/UEFA level has become a lot more lenient in the past five years or so. From memory, there hasn't been a red card for SFP/VC at either Euro 2016 or World Cup 2018, even though there were plenty at the latter in particular I thought should have been - one high-profile I remember is the headbutt by a Colombia player on Henderson (?) in the Colombia V England Last 16 game in Russia which only got a yellow card.
 

RefIADad

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
It seems to me that refereeing at FIFA/UEFA level has become a lot more lenient in the past five years or so. From memory, there hasn't been a red card for SFP/VC at either Euro 2016 or World Cup 2018, even though there were plenty at the latter in particular I thought should have been - one high-profile I remember is the headbutt by a Colombia player on Henderson (?) in the Colombia V England Last 16 game in Russia which only got a yellow card.

It's interesting you mention this play. Mark Geiger of the US was the center referee in that game. He spoke at a 2019 referee training event that I attended, and he specifically addressed this play. Mark's explanation was that FIFA did NOT indicate that all contact with the head like this was an automatic VC send-off. He said that a lot of the controversy around that call was because England DID have that instruction (guidance with which I agree, by the way) while FIFA did not for the World Cup.

Someone also asked about any instruction from FIFA regarding the threshold for misconduct in the 2018 World Cup. Mark and Corey Rockwell (who was an AR at the same World Cup who ran the line for Tunisia-Belgium and worked a lot of VAR during the tournament) both said that FIFA instructed officials to sanction misconduct and that there wasn't explicit instruction to keep matches 11 v 11. Now there could have been plenty of implicit instruction, but make of that what you will. I also know that we won't ever hear the full story of "how the sausage is really made" from any officials about behind-closed doors instruction.

I personally thought Geiger's performance, while not perfect, was far better than he was given credit for in the worldwide press. Yes, he should have dealt with the mass confrontation around the England spot kick in a better way, but I think that had more to do with what I'll still contend was FIFA's (implicit or explicit) directive that referees were to avoid issuing cards (and particularly send-offs) whenever feasibly possible.
 
Last edited:
Top