Question Number: 21317

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/11/2009

RE: Jersey Area Girls Soccer Premier Under 17

John Mion of New York, New York USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 21290

Is the blatant pull on the shoulder by Fletcher as he attempts to catch up (before his tackle) the kind of expected and accepted contact that is not called a foul? Certainly not shoulder to shoulder. Just wondering why this is not part of the debate. Love the site, I've learned a lot!

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

My OPINION is that the shoulder pull was not a foul and acceptable contact at that level. I also think the play on the ball was acceptable and it was the trailing foot tripping his opponent that got a foul called on Fletcher. Once the referee decided a foul occurred the send off was inevitable.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

It is great question John,
The Italian referee Roberto Rosetti had a good match and can certainly justify in law the penalty he gave after Darren Fletcher collided with Cesc Fabregas. What is interesting is it is the subsequent leg sweep from the trail leg as being the reason for the foul no mention of the hand on the shoulder hence its exclusion but you were spot on to raise the issue!

We can scrutinize video and pictures on the Internet for vindication or redemption but it simply does not matter during a match the referee has to make a decision on the field in a split second as he sees it.

There are several teaching points on this foul that most national associations could do well to analyze and then EXPLAIN to their respective referees as to why this is, could be, or is not a definite foul. It is funny this call received so much attention when the Barcelona versus Chelsea match had so much more to speculate on. ;o)

I did not see a *blatant* grab but a pull by Fletcher was likely as was the straight arm hold off by Fabregas with his fingers across the face of Fletcher. Remember watching in real time is different than analyzing the slow motion multi camera angles.

First off we need to grasp the overall physicality of the game itself. There seems to be a myth that if any contact occurs it is a definite foul. Just as in the reverse if a ball is contacted it means there is no foul

There is also a misguided belief that if the ball is contacted first it does not mitigate the physical contact! It MAY not excuse the careless, reckless or excessive nature of the contact but getting to the ball first is certainly 9/10 of the law of possession and may turn a trip into a fall. I am adamant that this tackle was at best careless there is no way I see it as SFP and while I shake my head at those who deemed it reckless I can at least wrap my mind around the fact they see it that way even if I vehemently disagree.

The fact is much contact is deemed trivial or doubtful and to a great extent equal by both opposing players. In other words if the players ALL do it and MOST importantly accept it, just how UNFAIR is it?

I often cringe when pundits and armchair referees offer their valued opinions as to the correctness of a referee's call at the elite level of the game that applies to those for and against! Granted my own opinion has no greater value than any other however at least I attempt to distance myself with the recognition it was the referees match, his decision his reputation that was on display. Most importantly as a FACT of play it is his opinion that is final.

When we offer an analysis of another referee one needs to be careful and not be swayed by ego or arrogance or tainted by needless humility or uncertainty because of slow motion reevaluation in a moment of time we think we could see it different.

While we can chastise a miss-application of law, to argue foul recognition semantics in real time versus slow motion has little value. I could offer speculation the referee mechanics were suspect or argue his positioning angle hampered his line of sight with greater ease than to publicly denounce his opinion of what he saw was wrong or agree that he was right simply because as a fact of play his opinion rules. If you recall the 'Esse' Baharmast incident in WC 98 in France it taught me to leave the decisions on the field with the referee in charge of the match.

Too many referees believe in the laws as being sacrosanct! There is no doubt if you apply the law you will never be on uneven footing, however, if players or coaches offer a divergent view they are belittled by referees as failing to understand the laws. In my opinion the referees do a disservice to the game by doing so. Understanding the laws and understanding the game may not always be the same thing. The laws evolve as the pressures and needs of match play also evolve. The sending off of players is a big deal and it is understandable those doing the sending off have their decisions scrutinized for integrity. As integrity can not be measured, it is the accountability through discovery and observation in understanding the laws and in spirit of those laws by which excellence is obtainable, acceptance is granted or whether improvement is required.

The two part theory some advanced as the foul occurring after the ball was played away is not valid, this was a challenge for possession that had at minimum in the eyes of the match referee, a careless outcome given the trail leg scythed the opponent. If that trail leg had remained bent this might be a non call topic instead of the send off!

The problem with DOGSO is it is specific that if it DOES occur it is a send off. Even as it says it REMAINS the final opinion of a referee to send off, a referee who fails to NOT send off, those in CHARGE of assignments are even less tolerant than the fans and players and coaches, believe you me!
Cheers