Yeah, I'm with Ed on this one. Unless the dive has a material effect on the play of the defenders, I don't see cautioning for it. Fact is, I've seen some really obvious dives that in my opinion should have been cautioned, but were let go. Why would someone want to caution one that doesn't really affect play or the outcome?
From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 9:05 pm
Subject: Re: what would you do
Yes, at this level play. What does the action really do? It takes an attacker
ut of the play who maybe could otherwise potentially contribute to play. Let
im be selfish and stupid. If, however, the defenders are somehow put off or
learly taken out of the play then the attempted deception has gone past
ttempted into deceived. No goal and a caution.
On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:23 PM, lee jordan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
not sure of your comment here. do it seems that it is possible that it is a
ive but not enough to deceive the defense or really stop the game you can let
he goal stand.
am I misreading this?
> Lee, if you decide as the Referee that an attacking player dove just before
> the goal was scored and that dive deceived the defense somehow or you
> thought it was so bad that you need to stop play and deal with the
> misconduct, the goal could not be allowed since an infringement occurred by
> the scoring team before the goal.
the bastard in black