Question Number: 28669

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/18/2014

RE: Competitive Under 15

Aaron Speca of Virginia Beach, VA USA asks...

Just discovered this site and love it! My question today involves Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct). I actually have a video of the situation, but I will describe what occurred as I saw it.

Ball is played into the box and an onside offensive player chases it down before the defense can get to it. Keeper comes off the line to challenge. Offensive player shoots and immediately goes into a feet-first slide. Keeper dives and deflects the ball away over the end line for a corner kick. Offensive player finishes the slide into the keeper after the ball is gone, ending up tangled with the keeper. Keeper extracts herself from the entanglement and, taking exception, appears to throw a punch. Referee gives a red card to the keeper, but gives no sanction (foul or card) to the offensive player, and the restart is a corner kick.

What I could not see clearly is exactly how the feet contacted the keeper or if there were any other extracurricular activities on the ground.

Obviously, the red card on the keeper is automatic, no question about that. But I was wondering about the offensive player.

My question is twofold. First, how would you as a referee go about evaluating the offensive player's actions for a potential foul or card, and the resulting restart (with the understanding it all happened pretty fast)? Second, based on what you can see in the video, do you have an opinion as to whether something should have also been called on the offensive player (#1 Black)?

Here is the video ... thanks for taking a look at it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LB8jpwHGeE

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Aaron
Glad you found the site and thanks for the question.
I have looked at this a number of times. It appears to me that it was momentum only that carried Black #1 towards the goalkeeper after shooting and losing her footing. I don't believe there was any malice / intent here nor was it an attempt to challenge for the ball but purely a coming together after a shot and save, which does happen.
Obviously the goalkeeper took exception to this and exacted some retribution.
Now had Black #1 effort been a challenge for a lost ball then in my opinion that might have been considered careless which is a foul. If it is considered reckless then there is a caution as well. That though is not what happened.
Now interestingly the ball was out of play before the retribution which meant that as the play was dead the restart is going to be a corner kick and the violent conduct retribution did not change the restart to a penalty kick. Had the ball stayed in play then the goalkeeper's action would have resulted in a penalty kick.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Aaron,
glad you found us and we are happy to answer ! I was unimpressed by the attacker going down with feet first slide into the keeper simply because a keeper is vulnerable when prostrate on the ground and a pair of size 9s are implanted into the arm, head, chest, thigh, etc. of the body are certain to spark a response. As my colleague REF McHugh points out the goalkeeper took exception to this and exacted some retribution. I noticed the run through and her first touch pushed the ball as bit too far ahead so she chose to lunge and go down to ground as the keeper closed in. While incidental contact does occur on any challenge, I have issues with feet first slides into keepers for no apparent reason! It maybe a non foul to some, whereas I might not accept it so readily if I was the official. If I felt the follow through was at least careless a DFK out could be awarded and the corner kick nullified if the contact occurs before the ball went out! In my opinion a referee must get to the point of any contact like that quickly to head off the retaliation by the player who felt he or she was fouled even if we decided they weren't. A player tends to feel, what we only see
Cheers

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

See Question: 28677