I’m genuinely curious here from anyone who’s been/trained as a ref. Why do refs tend to wait for the outcome of a tackle/coming together and only call a foul if the player getting fouled loses the ball or goes to ground?
I can’t help but worry that there’s definitely a problematic element of encouraging either diving or fouling a player back from this sort of situation. It’s not the same as an advantage either, I understand the point about keeping the game going but is that the responsibility of a referee?
I’ve definitely played in games where refs have arguably endangered players by not punishing wild/vicious tackling and just wonder if it’s actually in the rules or just a cultural thing?
When a foul occurs the ref can give the fouled team “advantage” where the play can continue to give them a chance to play on from it but if they lose possession or if play stops then the foul will then be called and a set piece can be awarded at that point. The rule is designed to prevent some tactical fouls where you foul a player to prevent a promising attack from properly developing and it also serves to reduce stoppage time and keep the game going.
An example would be if a team is counter attacking and about to have a 3 on 2. If an attacker is fouled then play would stop immediately and the defence gets time to reset, ruining the attack. With advantage the ref can give time for the team to progress their attack to possibly have a goal scoring opportunity. There is a limit on how long an advantage can last but I’m not sure on how long that is exactly
As part of the rules, they want to see if there is any advantage. That is why referees carry their whistles in their hands, and hold them in their mouths. It gives them a natural delay to see play develop first.