Question Number: 16530

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/2/2007

RE: D 2 U17 girls

bill of Birmingham, al usa asks...

Here is the situation. Offence has a free kick from just inside the sideline. The ball is crossed into the box on the kick. The defender lifts her left foot to her shoulder level to block the cross in the box. The ball bounces off her left foot and then hits her flying right hand an arms lenght away from her foot, ball changing direction and rotation to go upward. All this happens within 3 yards of an offensive player facing the the high kick and within 10 yards of the ref who had a clear view. I know this to be a fact because I have it all on video, including the ref, from a great angle. No foul was called.

What should have happened? What should I do with the video? That was only one of a number of questionalble calls that were not on video, including a possible shot on goal that was whistled dead and brought back outsie the box to where a defensive trip took place. Offence had the advantage. Whistle blown too fast. I asked him very politely about the call after the game. He tried to explain it to me, but I must have seen it differently. The offence still had the ball in the box moving toward the left side of the goal with defenders on her right when the whistle was blown.

This is why I want my daughter to play golf ;-)

Answer provided by Referee Debbie Hoelscher

Bill
Fact doesn't always equal truth. Knowledgeable and truthful interpretation of fact equals truth. A 'high kick' is not necessaryily what has been commonly termed as "dangerous play." Playing in a dangerous manner is based upon the opinion of the referee. US Soccer has given guidelines for the referee to use when determining whether or not the height of an opponents foot should be consider playing. Age and ability of the players is considered, as well as whether or not the play for the ball made the opponent back off their attempt to play the ball. There was no infringement because the referee must have been of the opinion that the player was not playing in a dangerous manner. There was no foul called for handles the ball deliberately because in the opinion of the referee, the ball was not deliberately handled by the defender. What should have happened is exactly what did happen.

As to the "early whistle." Maybe he did blow his whistle too soon. But maybe he didn't. This is not a matter of "questionable" within the laws of the game. He saw a foul and called it because he was of the opinion that stopping play to award the free kick was of greater benefit to the offended team than letting play continue.

Videos in the hands of someone who doesn't really understand what they are looking at is the same as a layperson attempting to "read" an xray. We think we see what we need to see in the film, but only a trained professional can really explain the picture to us and help us understand what we are seeing.

As for what you should do with the video. Might I suggest that you keep it to watch with your daughter. Enjoy her game over again. Spend a moment or two with her before she goes off to college and those precious moments are gone.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Bill,
Every decision in some part on what is required is based on knowledgeable perception of what one has learned through experience by an individual on what he thinks he has seen.

It is entirely possible to see the same thing and agree that was what occurred!

It is also possible to see the same thing differently and arrive at a different conclusion yet both be correct!

It is also possible that what we thought was right and what was right are different!

It is a myth that a raised foot is automatically considered as PIADM (playing in a dangerous manner)
If you study the laws it indicates for a FOUL an opponent MUST be disadvantaged unfairly. It also notes that this determination is in the OPINION of the referee not the opinion of those watching. It makes no difference who is more correct at that moment although for training purposes video can be a useful learning tool as well as entertainment.

There is a huge difference between an opinion regarding a fact of play and a misapplication of the law. We can not contest an opinion but one can protest a misapplication of law.

The ball deflecting off the high foot onto the hand seen by a referee close by with a good view determined the opponent who was 9 feet away was not endangered thus no INDFK for PIADM and there was no handles the ball deliberately because the player was not trying to use his foot to guide the ball into his hand where it was then directed in such a way as a DFK offence.

In short as an opinion there is no recourse!

Even if the video clearly showed the attacker trying to head the ball but then suddenly stopped and pulled out because the foot flashing close to the head scared him. Or once the ball was cleared onto the arm the arm clearly reaches out to redirect the ball away.
Now it might do the referee good to see it and perhaps learn but the decision of the day will stand!

Advantage as allowed in law requires a perceptive referee to anticipate something better out of something just gone wrong! Yes we can but a sock in it for a few seconds after witnessing a foul to see if signaling advantage play on will be a good thing for the offended team!

However, I encourage referees to first whistle the fouls they see rather then debate the merits of not calling them at all before trying to grasp the nuances of advantage! Early whistles will occur and the good referees will learn that we can await an outcome rather then immediately stop play.

Still we also must reign in the seriousness of whether the foul is too impacting and perhaps the need for cards out weigh allowing play to continue? That again is from experience!

The foul was what? Was the restart after the early whistle correct for the type of foul awarded? If so then as an opinion there is no recourse! Again if the video was clear in showing the development of play it might do the referee good to see it and perhaps learn but the decision of the day will stand!

At best you can agree to disagree when a referee makes a decision! 50% of those watching tend to do that on every decision we make!

Just a point on video to monitor a referee performance . You need to remember that if you focus on the play on your daughter's exploits the camera angle will be vastly different then if focused on the referee. Three cameras, one to follow the ball, one on the referee and one on the overall area of the field where when synched to three monitors we can see before, during and after what occurred and perhaps why. Positional and mechanics adjustments can be noted as well as angle of view for a referee to see the benifit or seek to improve! Your video, can be as my colleagues stated, used to enjoy a time in your child's life when in later years the memory has faded! Cheers
PS golf or as I know it flog is a great game but soccer is beautiful in ways a good walk ruined can never be!

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

What should you do with the video? File it in the box with the rest of your videos, so you can pull it out to view on a cold winter night when neither soccer nor golf is possible.

By your own admission the girl's foot was 3 yards away from the opponent's head. How is this dangerous? When feet stay on the ground they are only 2 yards away from a 6-foot opponent's head, and we think nothing of that. Now if you told us that the player's boot was only 3 inches from the opponent's nose, we'd all have a different opinion of whether this was Playing In A Dangerous Manner.

Then you tell us that the ball bounced off the foot and hit her hand. Certainly this would not be considered "deliberately handles the ball". Not even if the ball fell fortuitously and allowed the player or her teammate to recover it. The only reason it would be deliberate handling is if she continued her contact to direct the ball.

Sometimes we all miss situations where advantage could be called. Other times it appears that there is no advantage, but then immediately after the whistle goes we see something that makes us wish we could unblow it. Can't be done. Once the whistle has sounded, play was stopped. You said the referee attempted to explain that call to you, but you evidently didn't like that explanation. None of us here saw the play, so we can't say the call should or should not have been made. Only the referee of the day at the field can decide that.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Aha, the eye of the beholder. It tells us marvelous things, usually what we want to see, but marvelous none the less.

Your film proves, beyond doubt, something happened. It offered you a chance to view things over and over to reinforce your opinion. The referee on the day didn't have that luxury. He was forced to decide in real time. Given the first incident he decided there was no deliberate handling and nothing presenting imminent danger. Facts connected with play and irrefutable, case closed for it is so written in the Laws of the Game.

Advantage is an interesting aspect of The Game. It requires the referee to make a "judgement" call whether or not his stopping play will do what the defender giving the foul play wanted to do but was not skilled enough to do, stop play. Here the referee intervened on behalf of the attack and gave the free kick. Case closed, done deal, facts connected with play again.

Granted the vision of the casual observer is always better because less knowledge is cluttering his mind and slowing his thought process, the casual observer has only hearsay and myth to inform him. These facts are usually enough to allow an opinion to form and be voiced. We hear those opinions all the time: "hand ball ref, handball", "offsides ref", "Geeze, high kick", "foul throw ref", yada yada.

Later on some casual observers even have a video to watch. Those folks, read television commentators, fold their arms and pronounce the referee incorrect based on their expert opinion and that opinion is based on what they know to be true. In fact some commentators rubbish the referee on every decision.

Finally, a casual observer asks someone for an opinion. There are three opinions offered before mine. Their opinions are right. HOWEVER they mean nothing for the match concerned because the referee that day saw all three of the incidents mentioned and had his many electronic impulses fluttering about in the ether for all they matter in the grand scheme of things. We offer thoughts about what the referee did, could have done, or the like, and commit them to out database. But, in the end we all understand that the Game of Football is just a game enjoyed by billions throughout the world. It offers them an escape from the day to day things in their life. It releases emotion, good God does it! It allows those that care one way or another years of argument over something that happened on a match. "Hand of God goal" leaps instantly to mind.

The bottom line is that Football is played by three teams at one time: the home side the away side and the referee team. Two score goals or defend their goal the other ensures they do what they do in accordance with the Laws of the Game. After it's over hands are shaken, congratulations are given and we all retire to where ever it is we retire to and argue about the result. We find the referee usually caused us to loose if we did but he never caused us to win because we did that one ourselves.

In all my years of being associated with this Game I have never been able to remove a goal fairly won nor have I ever been able to add a goal to a loosing side. They score their own or loose them as a team. I have made horrendous mistakes and those mistakes have sometimes influenced the result of a match BUT unless there was only the one shot on goal and I took it away for an infraction or missed something and allowed something I shouldn't have the result is always the team scoring the greatest number of goals wins. If a team misses 22 of 23 shots and the other team misses 1 of 3 shots guess who runs out winners.

Your video is a record of your child competing in the Beautiful Game. You're lucky. My children played too, but I don't have a movie record of it. Cherish your video as the record it is! If the referee had one of the same match following each decision he took he might learn from it and improve his skills or he might just grin and say "Got that one right"

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Regards,

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

See Question: 16578

See Question: 19574