Question Number: 35905

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/15/2025

RE: 5 Adult

Dima of Saanich, B.C. Canada asks...

The attacker with the ball tries to take the ball to his left being the right of the defender opposite him . He loses or passes around me the ball to the right and the defender's momentum also went to that direction but he fell into a split with left foot to his side. The opponent meanwhile went or shifted to his right , the opposite side from the ball and trips on the defender's left foot. at that point the ball is not in possession of the attacker according to the 3ft rule. Is that still a foul by the defender according to law 12?

It was not an intentional trip, as the defender’s momentum and body position were directed toward the side of the ball. The attacker had shifted to the opposite side, away from the ball, and made contact with the defender's extended leg, which was the result of a natural movement. Since the ball was no longer in playing distance and on the opposite side, it would not make sense for the defender to deliberately impede the opponent in that area. Therefore, the contact appears incidental and not a careless or reckless foul."

I this a reasonable argument or interpretation of intent, positioning, and context of a challenge? Is it a foul?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Dima
Thanks for the question.
The description is somewhat complicated and I struggled to get a picture of what happened.
Always remember it is how it looks to a match official and one that may have limited experience. Even the Pro referees have had to get help through the use of video review through VAR in certain challenges.
I watched an ECL game last night between Aston Villa and PSG. There was a challenge in the game where a Villa player challenged an opponent and video showed that he touched the ball in the challenge and then planted his foot which ended up tripping the PSG attacker. It was given instantly with complaints from the Villa players and there was an element of foul / no foul in the challenge. There was no intentional contact yet it did prevent progress of the PSG player which looked like a trip. The play on the ball by the Villa defender was limited which I believe influenced the trip call.
What I take from your description is that the players are moving in close proximity to each other with one player trying to shield the ball and the other trying to play the ball. It all ends with what you describe as an unintentional trip due to leg positions.
A referee does not judge intent, mainly what happens or seen to happen. So if it looks like an outstretched leg trip on an opponent most likely it is going to be called as a tripping offence.
FWIW I have seen intentional contact on defenders outstretched planted leg with the intention of winning a foul or a penalty. A referee has to be aware of that and angle of view will only detect unnatural leg movements towards the leg.

In summary your description does not suggest a clear foul yet it may look like a tripping foul with a player going to ground. The easier decision for a referee is to call what it looks like rather than waving it away particularly when there is what looks like a tripping.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Dima Much like my colleague I too have trouble imagining an accurate picture of the situation you’re describing? A player is entitled to their piece of grass and can pursue the ball, they don’t have to move out of the way but if they move into the way of the opponent who has ball possession suspicion will likely fall on that player if a collision occurs. Yet a radical shift in direction may well cause a collision that’s not the fault of the defender, rather the choice of the attacker. There’s a lot of variables that go into judging if a player’s actions are foul are fair. Incidental contact through mirrored or shadowed movement where reacting defenders try to intercept a fast-moving attacker Is highly suspicious when movement is involved. Attackers will try and shift away from defenders., trying to keep their body between the defender and the ball but may show too much of the ball so when the defender reacts, the attacker, rather than move with or towards the ball, they move towards the leg of the defender hoping to draw foul. The directions of an oncoming attacker versus a stationary defender or one who’s coming towards the attacker, once the ball is pushed past, that defender must turn and follow, the attacker is going to try and run around him. If there was impact the referee would perhaps determine if it’s an impeding motion, hold or push versus an incidental contact. A referee with integrity, sees what he sees, from the angle view that he has. at the moment the incident occurs. Cheers