A Nichol for your thoughts?

Now I've done it.

I have put myself right between a rock and a hard place with this entry. To refresh our recollection, take a look at Should We Punish the Innocent? which details allowing referees in the EPL to administer (what I called) "speculative cautions" if they think (feel?) a player is cheating.

While I did not like the idea generally, I was offered a good discussion by an Anon commentator, and even doubled back on myself with regard to offside decisions, in thinking that "when in doubt, keep the flag down."

Now here we have Jim Boyce, VP in FIFA who took over for the still warm seat of Jack Warner when he was launched from the position, looking for video review post-match of diving incidents. His suggestion honestly is not unreasonable in this day and age, and is used in other contexts in many places today.

See "FIFA VP call diving a 'cancer'" for the complete article.

Critical incidents after a match are reviewed in some leagues, some disciplinary committees review on field incidents to stiffen, or loosen a suspension at times. All of this seems reasonable to me, what about diving?

Well, I am less clear on this one, and here's why. Besides characterizing diving as a 'cancer', which to me acts to trivialize the disease (I personally like plague much better), it puts some guy in a glass booth right in the path of altering the outcome of a match by making a decision that should be left for the referee.

Not on the surface this sounds like hubris, and I don't deny that is a factor. However, lets play out a common scenario and see where it goes.

• Player had ball and carries it to opponents penalty area.
• Defender challenges the player with the ball and contact is made which is not a foul.
• Player with the ball simulates a foul.
• Referee awards a penalty (incorrectly).
• Team of fouled player converts penalty to win the match.

Pretty common right?

Now give the review is POST-match, does the result of the match stand? Why not only take action on the individual player, but also the team by not counting the goal? But wait, if there was no goal, how would the rest of the match gone? Was the converted PK the goal that broke the defending team?

I hate video review honestly. I do. I think it starts to sap the life out of any game that uses it to alter action on the playing surface. To me the most egregious is the NFL who is just one step away from doing something like American Idol, where they show the TV audience the play, and for .99 everyone votes on it during a commercial break. Popular vote gets the call.

MLB with balls hitting foul poles and the like I think is the best use as the distances are so far, and motion so slight, that this makes good sense to me.

I do agree with the use of video after the fact for suspensions and violent conduct after a match. In these cases the referee has made a decision and it is the length of time or fine that is changing, not the decision itself generally.

So for me, doing something like this after the fact just opens the box for tinkering with on pitch incidents that can have massive adverse effects to results. I would think we want to minimize the outside interference and "let them play", not wind up with 10's of people reviewing every inch of film only to have to wait a week for a decision on something that was done in an instant inside the field.

Take particular look at the video clip as well, Steve Nichol makes a great point of what a managers role is in such diving incidents. For those who have never had the pleasure of working with Steve in a referee-manager situation, it demonstrates what a class act he truly is.

Should We Punish the Innocent?

To put this in context, take a look at, "Keep the heat on cheats", from Mirror Football.

It details that to wrongly book players who may not be actually cheating is alright, so long as it is done for the "right reason" of doing so for The Game.

I'm not so sure I agree with this personally.

Trust me, I get that a referee can make mistakes. I have made whoppers throughout my career from the local U6 match, all the way up to the international friendlies I was involved in. Making mistakes in a match is unavoidable, and I found an attitude of "try your best, and fix the rest" was particularly helpful. One can always get better.

There is nothing wrong in my estimation to book a player for something, like a dive, when you genuinely believe in your heart of hearts the player dove. In my career I found myself asking these players often, after the match, if it was, or was not a dive. Some answered honestly, some did not, some declined to answer fearing it would taint my opinion the next time I saw them. In all cases I was trying to learn what goes into a good dive.

If however you are not sure, bringing out a "speculative caution" is a big risk. It alters the management of the match in a big way, and if not really earned, places an undue burden on the cautioned player. Let's face it, a player generally plays differently when playing with a caution, than without.

This also does not take into consideration, at some levels, fines, sanctions, or even suspensions that can occur to a player who has accumulated "points" by so many cautions. Is that fair to punish a player for something they may or may not have done?

Where I believe however, this is at its most dangerous, and referees will not go, is if a player is already under a cation in a match, and commits an offence that, without the previous caution, would have resulted in one, but now with a caution already, a "speculative caution" will likely fail to appear. I just don't think referees will go there.

Where is the consistency there? If a player should be booked, book them. Even if this "speculative booking" should take place, send them off. Right?

I don't think they will because a send off materially changes the match, and to speculate, even for noble reasons, about a players motive, is not appropriate.

In short, the ends (of eradicating diving in players by cautioning) do not justify the means (of speculatively cautioning, or sending off these players).

It's a laudable goal, but I think to guess, and have a handy excuse from the league, is intellectually lazy in this case. If you think they dove, caution them. If you don't know, let them be. If you make a mistake in judging, shame on the player, not the referee. But, the referee should learn form it, not just duck under a handy made excuse.

Now, in speaking out the other side of my mouth, there are times when I think this IS appropriate. Particularly, in offside decisions that are just that close.

We have heard it before, if there is doubt, leave the flag down. This is to promote the attacking nature of The Game.

One in the same? Maybe.

One big distinction to me is that a speculative caution causes harm to individual players that is unrecoverable in the course of the match, where allowing a goal can certainly be harmful to a team, but is generally recoverable in a match.

A fine line distinction ... yes. One I personally can live with though as I have a very difficult time justifying booking a player when I am not really sure if they did it or not.

U-20 player punches himself

Thanks to Ed Rae for spotting this unusual attempt at trickery.

Read the brief story and view the clip. Is there something out of balance here? The Chilean player Carrasco was feigning being punched in an effort to get his opponent dismissed from the game. Should Carrasco therefore be dismissed for this act?
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/article/33668/