Question Number: 22491

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/10/2009

RE: AYSO Rec Under 12

Mike S of Chino Hills, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 22468

Yeah, that video is like a compilation of fouls; really mean fouls.

I do have a question about the ball that was kicked into the face of the player on the ground. The announcer suggested that it was intentional. I think it's more likely that the player was just trying to clear the ball away from her goal; though I do think it was still a foul. Normally, I would think dangerous play. Possibly a yellow card for USB. But I was also wondering if 'striking an opponent' with the ball would apply? It would seem strange because it was off a kick, however the ball did 'strike' the player in the face. Or is this more like 'attempting to kick' an opponent? Other fouls aside, how would you judge the kick of the ball to the face?

Here's the link; I hope you like heavy metal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LPIUI_CY44&feature=related
Ball to face is at 1:36.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

Frankly, I need to resist the irresistable: trying to judging whether a single moment is a severely edited piece must be or should be misconduct. USSF suggests that the referee consider several factors for violent conduct in tackles - - using the acronym SIPOA - - and several of the factors are relevant here:

* Speed of play and the tackle (not a tackle, but how much time did the player have to react before kicking the ball)
* Intent ( a key issue that may involve past contact between the players, or often for women, their teammates)
* Aggressive nature (kicking the ball at someone's head is pretty aggressive)
* Position (she was near to and clearing the ball, she didn't run to the ball in order to kick it at the opponent)
* Opportunity to play the ball (not a factor here)
* Atmosphere of the game (why we need to see more than 1:38)

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Mike
I believe the foul was given for the challenge outside the penalty area and not for the kicking of the ball towards the player on the ground.
When the ball is out of play and it is used to strike a player then that is a dismissal offence. It is the same as throwing a water bottle, boot etc. Same applies to kicking an object including the ball. As regards throwing or kicking the ball the referee has to judge whether it is careless, reckless or using excessive force. We apply the same consideration to VC as we would to play
'Careless' indicates that the player has not exercised due caution.
'Reckless' means that the player has made unnatural movements designed to intimidate an opponent or to gain an unfair advantage.
'Involving excessive force' means that the player has placed the opponent in considerable danger of bodily harm.
In this case it did not involve excessive force and IMO a caution was the correct decision. If the ball was kicked violently at the player on the ground then that would be a dismissal for violent conduct.
Also If the ball is in play the referee would have to be pretty certain that the kicking of a ball at a player was deliberate before action could be taken. That would be say the player turning away from direction of play and kicking the ball at the player. Again if excessive force was used then it is also a dismissal.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Lots of links to this video. ;o)
Given the interpretation of the extension of the hand for a strike from a thrown object I suppose an extension of the foot from a kicked object is not irreconcilable.
Given this incident occurs after the trip If the whistle had not gone and advantage was applied It is not impossible to think a PK for kicking an opponent inside the PA as opposed to the trip outside could be awarded as it is the most advantageous position and result of all the evil intent just endured by the BYU player. That said these are tough calls to make given this could be a clearance gone awry as well as a deliberate cheap shot!

This is guess work on hearsay, I am not 100% sure on this point so if someone knows for sure happy to hear about it, there was no caution shown to the player for doing this, nor was there a caution for the Lambert trip. Lambert was apparently cautioned for arguing the call thus dissent.
Cheers