Question Number: 29477

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/12/2015

RE: Rec Under 17

daniel of Vienna, va usa asks...

I am finding it difficult regarding the subjectivity of fouls called or not called when a defender touches the ball first, but fouls/touches an attacker after the follow-through.

Example in Canada vs. China Women's world cup.. the goalie comes out to challenge the pass in the penalty box and parries the ball away, but her body follows through cutting off the attacker. I found it interesting that the FOX Sports commenters had differing opinions on that play. One said 'No way, not a penalty kick.' Another stated, 'Absolutely a penalty kick, have to be in control of your body.'

I, personally, think we should probably give the goalie the benefit of the doubt, otherwise, we would have penalty kicks more frequently or goalies would feel like they are on eggshells.

But many refs, including myself, are in a habit of allowing play to continue when a defender touches a ball away, even if his/her extended leg may trip up the attacker.

This seems a major point of subjectivity, and I don't know if there is anything in the Advice to Referees that provides help on making these decisions.

Appreciate insight or advice.

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

I would not listen to the announcers as they are most often wrong. They are so wrong on so many things. Here the referee has to evaluate whether or not the player accidentally collided into the opponent or whether the intention was to play the opponent. I agree in this case if keeper goes for ball and gets ball first and then gets an attakcer, that no foul should be called most of the time. The only exception would be if they made an effort to foul after contacting the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Daniel,
football pundits are often highly excitable emotional and their main characteristics are to generate controversy rather then impart correct information. They make outrageous claims and assumptions because they are not accountable as the official on the field is if he or she incorrectly fails to identify CMI (Critical Match Incident) or MOT (Moment if Truth) situations.

It is important to remember ALL players deserve safety considerations, it is not exclusive nor an added extra to keeper or player. It is because the keeper has permission to use their hands they will challenge differently. Make no mistake a keeper is indeed a courageous individual throwing themselves into the feet of attackers or reaching up high opening up their soft undersides to being charged into.

The referee considers the factors of time, space, speed, control, position, eyes, body language, awareness and the availability of the ball as to whether one or the other is in a superior position to get to it or disregarding the safety of each other, in pursuit of it.

A good slide tackle pokes the ball free and the opponent then FALLS over the outstretched leg or body as opposed to looking it as a trip. The opponent shows too much of the ball and a good tackle knocks it free the contact is unavoidable but not necessarily unfair. In a FAIR challenge for a loose or open ball as a prerequisite to avoid a foul, getting the ball first is a great start.

It might not be enough if the rest of your body acts as a scissoring or crashing tool to take out the player once the ball is away. If the trail legs sweeps in behind the ankles that initial, I got the ball, looks good tackle, suddenly turns into an unfair trip. Or if your free hands that we thought might be raised to protect your face from the knees of the upright attacker start grabbing some opposition jersey again we are now looking at a foul.

A keeper lunging and sliding their body sideways to block as much of the goal as they can when challenging for a loose ball we must be ever mindful that a keepers job is to save and the attacker looks to score. However, although each is focused on getting to the ball, the keeper is also thinking, if no access to the ball then the opponent is not getting by unsullied.

A keeper, once they have ball possession with the hands, the opponent is NOT permitted to challenge and must pull out if they can see the keeper has possession. Dive over top, switch strides, turn away. To just blatantly decide to put the head down and crash into the opponent is certainly not an action that will go unnoticed.

The essentials of determining if any action is careless reckless or excessive must fit the lack of control being exhibited. What we refer to as fifty/fifty is a ball that neither player can claim control over. It is often we see more 51/49 45/55 40/60 and so on where the trifling doubtful is no longer present and one player must ...foul... the other to have opportunity to get to the ball

I have seen some unavoidable horrible collisions that are not fouls because neither player is focused on anything but ball and both are willing to commit to get there at the same time. These are difficult because both are often moving in opposing directions, at pace, into direct intersection or collision possibilities yet both have a right to try and play the free ball.

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

These incidents present a challenge for the referee at every level. When an assessor is evaluating a referee on this kind of match critical event, it is less useful to consider whether the assessor would have called that a foul. Instead, the assessor considers: (1) Is the referee positioned in the ideal location to decide? (2) Has the referee recognized earlier issues among these players and similar incidents and adjusted to the tactics and temperaments of the players in this match? (3) Are the player's responding to the referee's actions and decisions?

I find it useful when watching professional matches to consider the same things. I watch for where the referee is and has been. If she is in a great position to make the call, it almost always is the right one. When the referee has a bad angle, has players in the way so that she doesn't have a good view, is too far or too close to see the entire play develop, then making the right decision is far more difficult. Players immediate response to close plays is emotional and not very revealing, but when they adjust their play to what the referee is allowing or not, you know the referee is managing the match well.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Daniel
First bit of advice is that announcers are in the entertainment business so a questionable call / non call can spice up an otherwise dull game. In addition some are ex players who perhaps have an ill informed view of what referees look for in a foul. They referee also does not have the luxury of multiple views, slow motion to make the call.
From a refereeing perspective we look to the context and manner of the challenge. If the player plays the ball cleanly and then there is a coming together that is not a foul. On the other hand if the player lunges at the opponent making contact with the ball and then the follow through recklessly making contact with an opponent that is certainly a foul and also a caution.
Have a look at this compilation of challenges. Many involve contact with no foul. Some are questionable and could easily be called a fouls.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7cMg8pPWOrs
I feel that they are careless / reckless fouls present in particular the challenges at 2.18 , 3.27 and 3.43. These should be called as fouls. There are a few others as well that are on the margins of a foul 1.05, 1.10 and 1.49 and because it is Pros that are playing with no serious contact, the ball is won and no complaint the referee allows play to continue.

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

See Question: 29480