Date:         Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:06:02 -0700
Reply-To:     Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         JR Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: CLB vs PHL (score implied)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Should the ref try to see if there is some contact to go with the diving,
and award the PK if he can detect some?  What if it's 4% vs 96%?

There are two things for refs to be concerned with -- punish the fouls and
get the players to stop diving.  

Not giving the PK addresses the second -- if you dive, you don't get a call,
unless it's terribly obvious; nothing marginal.  Watching World Cup I
decided that would be the proper approach, even if some fouls are not called
as a result.  It gets tricky, because it has to be done player by player --
some dive, some don't.

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George Parker
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 7:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CLB vs PHL (score implied)

10% Contact.
90% Falling to get the call.
You can't ignore the 10%, but you really wish the ratio was lower.


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Stone [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 2010-08-05 8:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CLB vs PHL (score implied)

On 8/5/10 9:05 PM, Rich Zumpone at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> I won't hide my partisanship but Salazar - I have some land I need to sell
> you.  Horrible, Horrible, Horrible penalty.

Really? Why? I thought it was an excellent call.

-- 
Larry Stone
[log in to unmask]
http://www.stonejongleux.com/