Question Number: 21642

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/12/2009

RE: U16G Competitive Under 16

Rob Johnson of Folsom, CA United States asks...

As big fan of asktheref.com, and as a soccer parent of three players, I very often refer to your site for my own education so that I can better enjoy the many games I watch.

I was filming a game in a tournament, and captured this segment of time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDz8Q7G6kPo. For context, it's about 4-minutes into the game, with neither player or team having prior remarkable instances or issues. The play is inside the Blue team's 18-yard box. Both players, feeling they were wronged, are complaining to the center for a call.

I am very interested in learning from your experts whether there is a foul here. If so, what is the foul and the appropriate penalty.

If you wish, please feel free to use the video as a reference in your responses so that other readers can understand context.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

One guesses that blue is defending and white is attacking. The white player stretches too far trying to win the ball, and falls, causing the ball to end up between her legs, making it unavailable for blue to play, and in the process of untangling themselves and trying to play the ball, blue falls over white. About the only reasonable call in a situation like this, if one is to be made at all, would be one for playing in a dangerous manner against the white team.

However, since it appears the white team has kicked it out, the offense is most likely trifling, and the restart will be the goal kick for the blue team.

Even if I have the attacker/defender choice mixed up, this is still nothing more than a PIADM, and hardly that.

Thank you for the video - it might be a useful instructional tool for PIADM.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

I concur with playing in a dangerous manner, but only because it is a youth game. The Laws define it this way: 'Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.' While nestling the ball between her legs could be dangerous for the first player that went down on the ground, her opponent did cease play to avoid the danger. Thus in an adult game we would let play continue; had the upright player then kicked the downed player in an attempt to remove the ball, the foul would be on her for kicking. In youth games we should be more proactive and make the call even if the opponent doesn't pull back from the play to (as happened here). That the second player then got tangled up and fell over in her attempt to continue playing the ball is immaterial.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

I can tell you what I do not like! Male players practising in behind the goal during the match!

I can also tell you the referee of the match made a decision and as a fact of play it stands . Armchair review or slow motion disection of a single camera or video picture does not make us more or less correct. Percepion and educational value might be gleaned if we remember to hold ITOOTR as the basis for all stoppages or non stoppages!

It is a very interesting video in that the white player from the ANGLE of the video shot does not **appear** to make illegal contact with the blue player. She **appears** to over extend or partially step on the ball, loses her balance, falling on top of the ball!


Here we the referee must LOOK carefully to see if (a) she immediately **appears** to be making a conscious effort to regain her feet as opposed to covering up the ball or (b) unfairly traps the ball squeezing it between her legs preventing the opponent from challenging without danger. It could **appear** she momentarily squeezed the ball between her legs as she flopped over carrying it with her thus indfk out

Appearances are often decieving! There is no way to be certain what we think we see is what actually happened.

The blue player dispossessed is likely upset because the white player is inadvertently or not, blocking access to the ball. Some referees MIGHT see this as PIADM (playing in a dangerous manner) because blue cannot successfully challenge for that ball without perhaps putting the white player in jeopardy. I do not see a wild flailing kicking action on the part of blue who steps across the white player so I do not see a clear foul by blue from this angle. If there was a DFK foul by blue it must be a PK . If it was PIADM then only an indfk.

We need to reflect three important issues here.
1st-
a referee sees this once in an instant from HIS position on the field.
2nd-
it is NOT a foul to fall on the ball.
3rd-
It is not illegal to play the ball on the ground

Only if you lie there on the ball or attempt to play the ball unfairly by shielding or trapping that ball with your body is there reason to judge this as PIADM. There is no reason the player on the ground can not shield the ball as she gets up since she is in playing distance to the ball.

For the criteria of a PIADM foul to be met the referee must be convinced the blue player was unfairly disadvantaged by the unsafe action of the white player and refrained from playing the ball for fear of injuring herself or the opponent.

For PIADM against the white attacker benefitting the defence with an indfk out, inside their penalty area you must also be sure that if this situation was reversed and we switched the two players it would be an indfk against white inside their penalty area with an opportunity to score. I could not award this if it was an attack thus I cannot award it for the defence.

I see no reason to consider this anything but doubtful there is any foul and at best a trifling one if at all!

In my opinion only based soley on this camera angle, this could be fair play! I could likely yell, "NOTHING there, get up and play!"
The fact both players feel hard done-by, does suggest a referee must by strong body language and verbally manage THAT aspect of dissent from the players to prevent further retailiation or resentment if he does want play to continue.
Cheers
PS What was the referee's call?

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The video presents several moments to judge foul/fair. There is no clear answer, but rather one based on the opinion of the referee. The video also shows that the referee is very close to play, but the camera's angle is to the left of play and the referee's angle is to the right of play. It is what the referee saw that matters. Here's a way to analyze each of the decisions that the referee had to make.

Careless Tackle? The defender has clear possession of the ball. As the attacker tackles the ball and moves her body between ball and defender, it looks like a fair tackle, with contact to the ball well before any contact with the opponent. But, this is the first instance where the referee's angle might be better than the camera. We can't see if the attacker jumped into the defender using her hip to knock the defender back and create space to get between defender and ball. One clue is that the attacker fell down and probably fell into the defender left leg, while the ball still pinned at the attacker's feet. This has many of the earmarks of a charge in a careless manner.

Play in a dangerous manner? Assuming no initial foul by the attacker, the attacker is on the ground with her body between the defender and the ball is at the attacker's feet. Note: there is no flat prohibition against 'playing the ball on the ground.' Play in a dangerous manner requires an unfair result to the defender because she is ceases an attempt to play the ball to prevent injury to herself or an opponent. The skill level and age of the players are important in deciding PIADM: we are quick with the whistle with u-littles, and very slow at advanced levels of play. Here, the ball isn't below the attacker. It's pinned at her feet while she's on the ground and it quickly comes loose. In GU16 competitive, I would be giving the attacker a chance to pass the ball (she's trying to do that) or to get up and play the ball. I'd also be looking for signs that another defender had an opportunity to play the ball as it popped out but did not to avoid injury to the opponent. But, a key factor would be the temperature of the match so far: has it been a physical match between teams that don't like each other; were there earlier actions between these players; have the players indicated a preference or has the match required a tight or generous flow. A quick whistle takes away opportunities to play and score, but game management may require it at GU16. In an "average GU16 match" I probably would not find PIADM here.

Penalty kick? The defender then tries to play the ball as the attacker is trying to get up. Their legs collide, and the defender falls over and onto the attacker. They are tangled together. The referee needs to judge whether the defender is engaged in a careless action to prevent the attacker from getting the ball (a penalty kick for pushing, tripping etc); the attacker extended her leg to trip the defender; or whether this is a case of two players seeking to move into the same space and is 'just soccer.' IMO, at this level, this is just soccer.

Note: after the collision, there are two different players (one for each team) who could play the ball. Based on what the referee saw, the referee decided that play needed to be stopped. Thus, we will never whether letting play continue would have led to a clearance or a goal. But, based solely on the video, I probably would have concluded an initial DFK for the defense if match control needed to be kept tight, or no fouls, keep playing, if letting the game flow was appropriate for this match.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 21653

See Question: 21658

See Question: 21676

See Question: 21685