Proceed with caution: Reevaluating FIFA’s standard for penalizing exaggeration

Photo credit: Hayden Schiff

With 20 minutes left in their World Cup round of 16 match against Mexico, Brazil’s star forward, Neymar, dashed towards the touchline in an effort to retain possession and improve Brazil’s fragile 1-0 advantage. Reaching the touchline a moment too late, Neymar broke his stride and tumbled to the ground as the ball skidded out of play. In an effort to delay the reset, Neymar kept the ball at his feet, forcing Mexican defender Miguel Layun to retrieve it. While picking up the ball, Layun placed his foot on Neymar’s already injured ankle. Though an unquestionably unsporting act, Layun appeared to put little, if any, weight on Neymar’s ankle. The cheap, but ineffectual, touch would have gone completely unnoticed if it weren’t for the aftermath. Shortly after Layun’s foot came down, Neymar erupted in a fit of agonized thrashing and howling that surely forced fans to question if they were watching a soccer match or a battlefield amputation. Unimpressed, the referee allowed treatment but was otherwise disinterested in further action. Brazil went on to win the win 2-0, while Neymar earned both man of the match honors and internet infamy as the caustic image of him writhing in clearly insufferable pain went viral.

I do not mean to detract from the quality of soccer Neymar displays — he’s beyond world class — or even chide him as a unique actor amongst soccer’s elite players. Instead, I use Neymar as an illustrative example of a pervasive problem plaguing soccer — exaggeration.

Generally speaking, exaggeration is the dead-ball equivalent of the similarly problematic simulation. Simulation is the act of trying to gain an unfair advantage by falling to the ground in order to give the impression of a foul. In the modern age of analytics driven soccer, players recognize that the odds of a successful set-piece are higher than most runs of play. Some players take this knowledge to its logical extreme, causing or allowing themselves to fall, react to contact, or show symptoms of a foul when one has not been committed. Exaggeration on the other hand takes place after the play is complete, typically in the form of excessive rolling, wailing, or clutching at the “afflicted” body part. While simulation is designed to earn set-pieces, exaggeration aims to aid in “selling” the simulation, encourage further sanctions (i.e. warnings and yellow or red cards), and, in some cases, to waste time. Unfortunately, VAR be damned, referees (myself included) are shockingly human, subject to frustratingly empathetic responses to seeing others in apparent pain. Whether it encourages officials to take disciplinary action in that instance, or influences them to discipline a player later in the match, exaggeration is a decidedly non-soccer action which can impact the match. Fortunately, this is not the first time FIFA has faced a challenge of this nature. FIFA’s handling of the aforementioned act of simulation demonstrates how a renewed emphasis on enforcement can help deter the use of non-soccer acts to influence a match.

Due in part to pressure by fans, FIFA spent the better part of the past decade on a campaign aimed at eradicating simulation. Given the incredible value of set-pieces in the modern game, simulation provided teams with a clear tactical advantage rooted in a distinctly non-soccer act. In response, FIFA instituted a process of training referees to focus on the rules barring simulation — which already existed — and, for what seemed like the first time, encouraged officials to actually enforce them. While it has taken time, the results on the field are clear to even casual fans – players are being disciplined for in-match acts of simulation and, while not completely eliminated, the tactical advantage it carried is narrowing. The introduction of Video Assisted Review (“VAR”) has gone so far as to aid referees in real time, allowing outside officials to view plays from multiple angles and speeds, and alert the head referee to instances of simulation (or, if simulation is incorrectly called, of a genuine foul). Beyond the individual match itself, the English Premier League (“EPL”) and other professional leagues have gone so far as to issue de facto suspensions for instances where simulation went unnoticed (or, more importantly, incorrectly called) during the course of a match. While this may not help the victimized opponent, it allows each league to hold players accountable for their actions. Though the public’s opinion of VAR and de facto review is still unclear, their implementation allows officials to make better calls and deter the use of non-soccer acts to influence the outcome of a match, leading to results which better reflect the true character of the match. Despite the success of this approach, FIFA is yet to take on the exaggeration problem with such vigor.

Much like simulation, players who engage in exaggeration are generally trying to achieve a clear result. In the case of exaggeration, they are seeking one (or more) of three objectives: 1) to influence an official’s decision to call a foul, 2) to influence an official’s decision to issue disciplinary action (i.e. a final warning or card), and/or 3) to waste time. While all three of these have tactical ends, the use of a distinctly non-soccer act to pursue them demands intervention and disciplinary action. Further, the delays caused by such dramatic acts breaks the stride of soccer’s otherwise dynamic pace, negatively impacting the fan experience and further reducing the actual time-of-play (for which added time is woefully inadequate). These delays may similarly provide an unfair advantage to less fit squads, allowing an unscheduled break in the match, risking an unfair influence on the outcome. In league settings or tournament play, the impact of cumulative bookings and subsequent suspensions means the consequences of successful exaggeration can extend beyond the confines of the individual match.

While the negative effects exaggeration has on soccer are clear, the difficulty remains in finding a justiciable solution. Fortunately, FIFA’s governing rules for soccer, The Laws of the Game (“the laws”), already includes a sanction for exaggeration. However, as any referee who’s had to explain why a handball isn’t necessarily a handball just because the ball touched a hand can attest, the language used by the laws to define many of soccer’s fundamental rules can be strikingly sparse. In the case of exaggeration, the existing rules allow for a player to be booked for “unsporting behavior,” and, more specifically, cautioned for “fak[ing] an injury or exaggerating the severity of an injury,” and “fak[ing] a foul (dives) or exaggerating the severity of a foul.” Similar to many other aspects of the laws, an official’s interpretation of the play and the circumstances surrounding it can dramatically impact the application of the rules. Referees are taught both the text of the laws themselves and, perhaps more importantly, are trained to interpret the match as it happens. A combination of the text, past experience and in-match analogy (such as what has or hasn’t constituted a cautionable offense to that point in the match) helps a referee determine the correct decision in each instance. Though imperfect, this provides referees with the necessary latitude to adjust to the match in front of them, independent of age and level of play. Still, there are instances where increased clarity is both useful and necessary. Just as FIFA took steps to better define simulation, providing referees with the necessary tools to actively police it, officials, and therefore players and fans, stand to benefit from a finer explanation of when to caution a player for exaggeration.

With the aims of exaggeration clear — most notably to influence a prospective foul call and push a referee towards issuing a booking — the best mechanism of enforcement is similarly apparent. If the intent is to coerce the referee into booking an opponent, the guilty party should themselves be booked. Just as the cost-benefit of simulation is now better balanced by the risk of a loss of possession and issuance of a booking, creating a better balance between risk and reward for exaggeration may help deter the behavior. Essentially, referees should be empowered and entrusted to observe a player’s exaggerations and penalize them in kind. While adding another judgement call to the referees’ substantial responsibilities is certain to draw the ire of players, fans, and officials themselves, the reality is that enforcement of exaggeration requires very little of a referee. Even a casual fan can identify when a player is clearly overplaying the extent of their injury (or lack thereof), so the burden on referees in recognizing exaggeration would appear rather lite. However, to better prepare referees, FIFA can best equip officials by outlining clear criteria for determining if the exaggeration demands disciplinary action. The laws should instruct officials to consider 1) if the player is exaggerating in a clear attempt to get another player booked; 2) the player is a repeat offender and has been warned; or 3) if the player’s actions are a clear attempt to waste time. If a player’s attempts at exaggeration fall within these three guidelines, the official should book the offending player. However, just as when officials began booking players for simulation, adjusting to this standard of enforcement will take time and there will, inevitably, be bumps in the road.

The obvious downside to this approach is that a referee may book a player for exaggeration when they are, in fact, genuinely injured. To avoid this, officials must take stock of the situation as a whole and assess the player involved. As most officials and fans can attest, separating an actual injury from a theatric injury is not particularly difficult, but, in cases where it is difficult to tell, referees should be encouraged to call for on-field treatment. This helps balance the problem by making it clear to players that on-field injuries will result in treatment and subsequent removal from the field. Once a player is removed, they must be cleared by an assistant referee before returning, meaning that their team will be forced to play short-handed in the interim. By strictly enforcing medical protocol, referees can help resolve difficult cases of exaggeration and create a deterrent — temporarily playing shorthanded — to discourage players from exaggerating minor or inventing non-existent injuries. Nonetheless, given that the chief responsibility of an official is player safety, the referee must make a thoughtful assessment of every situation and only award a card for exaggeration when the intent is clear.

Beyond the tactical reasons for exaggerating the degree of injury or contact, “star” players often use exaggeration to communicate their frustration with the act of repetitious fouling by opposing players. Once again, Neymar’s 2018 World Cup performance provides an apt illustration. As one of the tournament’s best players, Neymar was also the most fouled player, despite the sometimes lax attitude towards calling fouls in Neymar’s favor, such as in Brazil’s 2018 World Cup match against Switzerland. Here, the Swiss repeatedly fouled Neymar to prevent him from showcasing his run-of-play talent, providing their defense with a major advantage – and making Neymar’s theatrics more understandable. The role exaggeration plays in signaling distress to officials should not be ignored. Therefore, to balance a stricter standard in the enforcement of exaggeration, officials must similarly ensure they work to preclude its employment as a means of signaling. In short, officials should demonstrate a greater willingness to caution repeat offenders, whether as individuals or as part of a collective effort to target a particular opponent. Further, because cautioning a player after the play does not change the method of reset (i.e. a free kick for team A remains a free kick for team A, even if a player from team A is booked for exaggeration) referees can both manage targeting and exaggeration in a single instance if necessary, while minimally impacting the match itself. By better policing both targeting and exaggeration, officials can ensure that the run of play remains the focus of the match.

While the subjective nature of exaggeration calls risk overzealous policing, the benefits of diminishing the impact of non-soccer acts on the outcome of a match outweigh the associated risks. Through the certification process, FIFA empowers officials to make necessary judgement calls, and the selection process for top-level matches demonstrates a trust in the ability of individual officials to exercise authority in difficult settings. The added burden of actively enforcing a rule which already exist is a small price to pay for a better match experience.

The ultimate aim of policing exaggeration is to produce a better, more streamlined match at all levels of competition. By cutting wasted time spent rolling in the grass, fans will reap the reward of a more action packed 90 minutes. Further, by returning the emphasis of the match to “soccer acts,” the quality of the match stands to improve, encouraging a result that better reflects the nature of the match.

As soccer seeks a continued expansion into untapped markets in the Middle East, Asia, and the United States, it must strive to produce a better and more consistent product, while insulating itself from the rampant critique of soccer as a “soft” sport. By striking out at one of the game’s most unnecessary actions, the beautiful game can continue to flourish worldwide.

Follow Bryan on Twitter: @BDMedema.

Support Soc Takes on Patreon for access to exclusive content and supporter benefits. Click here to become a patron today.