Question Number: 29898

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/8/2015

RE: Rec Under 13

John Sendrey of Costa Mesa, California USA asks...

In the play depicted in the referenced video (https://youtu.be/xmZwC-ru_S4) involving boys under 8 players, the defender comes from behind, and even slightly overtakes the striker with his outstretched foot. It was believed by many that since this defender made contact with the ball (that is not even fully established though maybe the ball is deflected off its original path of travel) that any other contact to bring down the striker was justified, the tackle was clean, and there was no foul committed. A spectator said that he actually saw contact with the trailing legs pushing one of the striker's legs making it crash against the striker's other leg. It is a bit difficult to see with the other player temporarily obscuring the view of the play.

I think in this play, the trip and fall and resulting injury were unavoidable with the type of tackle made.

Is there an opinion on this play, or is it too difficult to judge?

https://youtu.be/xmZwC-ru_S4

This defender had been previously playing in an aggressive manner (e.g. craftily throwing hips) without any sort of referee intervention and was a very skilled player for his age group.

Although he did not seem to initially want to make a call, the referee did feel pressured to make a call due to parent and coach outcry and awarded a PK (though PKs are not usually awarded in U08 play in our region). I think if he felt justified awarding a PK that some caution or send off would have been warranted (neither was done). Also, the PK was given at 12 yards out. Generally, PKs for younger players are given from closer in (e.g. 10 yards out for U10 players), so for U08, the kick should have probably been awarded from at most ten yards if at all. Then when you consider the size of the goal, 12 yards is a bit excessive.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
One of the issues at Underage is the differing biological ages and player development. Some players are just stronger than others and some also have a higher developed acuity for their age in comparisons with their peers. These player usually progress more easily into development squads and academies. For referees in underage games these player can pose a test for decision making. Should the player be strong in challenges is it a foul when a weaker player goes down easily. Because their play is much more combative than others is that a reason to single out strong physical play.
I can see from the video that this no doubt was a contest between two *talented* players. Was it a foul? From the video I am unsure as if Blue plays the ball first without foul contact on Green then there is none. Any subsequent contact is not a foul certainly not in this type of challenge once the ball is played cleanly first.
Now when the ball goes to the team mate the referee comes into view. He has a poor angle of view of any foul contact here particularly if Blue played the player first illegally rather than the ball. He is blind sided on the point of contact and the best angle of view is from behind if the ball is played. If the ball is not played then it is an easy call from any angle. Any foul contact would have happened BEFORE the ball was played.
Could there have been a foul? Yes and perhaps the use of the right leg to get to the ball always runs the risk of foul contact on the player before the ball is played. Put it this way if the contact was on the ball at frame 45 there was no foul. Now was there a subsequent double movement to then trip the player after contact on the ball. I am not sure of that.
As regards the referees decision he should not be allowing anyone other than neutral assistants to influence him. If he does not see foul contact which I don't think he saw based on his reaction then it was a goal kick restart. That is just part of the game. The player I think may have got hurt from the fall to the ground rather than any contact by Blue.
Also if there are no penalties then it is a free kick restart. It might be a *fair* decision to award the PK yet if the ROC do not allow it then one can argue that is not fair. As regards the PK distance again that is matter for the ROC. If there is no rule then there is no penalty spot. If I was asked I would simply tell a parent, coach *Hey I don't make the rules of competition. Speak with the competition organisers.* Might not be fair yet the Laws and ROCs are all we as referees have even if it is seen as unfair. Once we start going down the making it up route we get into all sorts of problems. People can disagree about what is fair even if they hold the same concept of fairness. I could say that 12 yards is fair or that a free kick restart is fair perhaps when there may have been other lesser fouls inside the penalty area elsewhere. Others can disagree. Hence the need for rule. In the absence of a ROC then we revert to the LotG which says 12 yards.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi John,
From the camera angle and blocked view I can not say with any degree of certainty but if it was deemed a foul then a PK and send off could be justified if played under normal FIFA LOTG. In the U little's the ROC has various rule alterations, no PKs only INDFKs or shortened fields and smaller PAs no cards etc..

No doubt the player fell hard , check him for injury, and perhaps some sort of punishment should be applied to the defender if there was a foul awarded and if there were no cards shown. A sit out time penalty substitution?.

It is true that a leg in to poke a ball free can still cause a player to fall rather than be declared a trip but this looked like he may have crowded the legs out from the opponent as the spectator may have speculated. A referee with integrity sees what he sees.. If he is influenced by parents and shouts for fouls when he sees none, he has to live with his version of integrity. If he saw no foul then we are looking at a goal kick out.
Cheers