Dr Paul Morris, of the University of Portsmouth, has found that footballers use a series of distinct actions when faking a fall during a match.

These include clutching their body where they have not been hit, taking an extra roll when they hit the ground and taking fully controlled strides after being tackled but before falling.

However the biggest giveaway is when they hold up both arms in the air, with open palms, chest thrust out, legs bent at the knee in an "archer's bow" position.

Dr Morris, who specialises in how people show emotions and intentions, said: "Referees have a very difficult job and given the demands of the task, they do it remarkably well.

"We think even experienced professionals could enhance their decision-making by studying the categories of deceptive behaviour we have identified."

Dr Morris said that the "archer's bow" was one of the most revealing as it would not occur in a natural fall.

He explained: "In most dishonest tackles the behaviour itself does not indicate dishonesty, the deception is revealed in the timing and co-ordination of the behaviours.

"But one action is unique to a faked fall - the archer's bow.

"This occurs in many dives but biomechanically it does not occur in a natural fall.

"Instead, instinctively the arms either go down in an attempt to cushion the fall or out to the side for balance.

"Although this behaviour is absurd, the fraudulent footballer does it to try to deceive the referee into believing that the tackle was illegal, and the histrionics are necessary to get the referee's attention in the first place.

"This behaviour has no national boundaries, everyone does it, it even occurred unprompted during our research trials."

Dr Morris said that a player who positioned his body into this "peculiar" shape to show that he had been fouled as a result of a tackle looked "quite bizarre".

He said: "Moving the body like this is completely controlled behaviour so it clearly doesn't show a genuine fall.

"The moment both arms go above the shoulder is a clear indication of deception."

Dr Morris said that during his research, which included three different studies, a footballer's deceptive intentions were easy to spot.

For the first study, he showed four-second clips of tackles from televised games to more than 300 people.

The participants were only allowed to see the clip twice in real-time before they were asked to spot the fakers.

The results showed that the participants were almost always in agreement on when a player was faking a fall or when it was genuine, and they also agreed when the intentions appeared ambiguous.

In the second study, Dr Morris wanted to check whether the observers' judgment was correct and could be trusted.

He employed more than 30 experienced amateur footballers to stage a scenario taken from a Football Association coaching manual.

Attackers were instructed to dribble the ball past approaching defenders and then deceptively exaggerate the effects of a tackle to varying degrees.

Nearly 50 observers were asked to judge if the attackers were faking and the level of exaggeration, if any.

He found that the observers consistently judged the level of exaggeration correctly.

And for the third study, he carefully examined footage of dishonest and legitimate tackles frame-by-frame to produce a comprehensive list of deceptive behaviours.

The research, co-authored by David Lewis, is published in the Springer Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour.

 With thanks Dominic Fransen and UK Telegraph.