Question Number: 29929

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/16/2015

RE: AYSO Under 15

Jeff Reiner of Kona, Hawaii USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 29923

I did not explain my call clearly. The goalkeeper dove and hit the ball and the attacker and the attacker flipped over the goalie and hit the ground hard. There was contact, but the goalie hit the ball and the attacker at the same time. That is why I wonder what type of call I should have made, because I knew that PIADM should not have any contact. My reasoning was based on the GK hitting the ball slightly before hitting the attacker, but I thought the goalie should not have dove so aggressively. I awarded an IDFK and cautioned the goalie about such an aggressive dive. Was this correct?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jeff,
truly difficult to say, without seeing it first hand or some great detailed video might help. If there was a foul by the keeper then you award a PK and possibly send him off for DOGSO or SFP or maybe a caution for reckless if no DOGSO.

It appears as if you feel the keeper actions endangered the safety of the opponent so a tripping foul and a PK with SFP rather than a caution does seem more likely that PIADM. Just so you are aware PIADM is a free kick offence and DOGSO criteria do apply.

Was it correct? For me it sounds more like SFP but as a fact of play, your opinion as the referee, yes it was, even if someone else might choose to see it different. You mentioned you received no flack from either team. So even if was LOTG suspect, perhaps as a match decision it was the best one? NO PK because the keeper made a save and a chance to score because the save caused some danger to the attacker . Now, personally I do not truly buy into that reasoning given I hold the opinion the 2014 WC German keeper Neuer's challenge on Higuain of Argentina was most definitely a SFP but Your match, Your decision, Your Reputation!


Cheers


I will point out a recent link to a video look at the 2.38 mark
This is a possible PIADM but no call was made

http://footyroom.com/stoke-city-1-0-chelsea-2015-11/

THIS is in my opinion SFP! but no call was made except a wrong free kick in favour of Germany instead of the throw in sigh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG-HyI6wa2A

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jeff
Your call based on what you saw. Now once there was contact there could not be playing in a dangerous manner foul. Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact in the foul, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Now my take on it from what you have written is that if in your opinion the goalkeepers challenge on the opponent was aggressive and reckless with contact then it should have been a penalty kick.
Now the result may have been acceptable to both teams in that the defending team does not concede a penalty kick and the attacking team gets an IDFK in a very promising position when perhaps it might not expect to do so given that many of these types of plays end up as nothing.
Referee Dawson has shown the German goalkeepers Neuer challenge on Higuain of Argentina and questions why it was not sanctioned correctly as serious foul play.
It was certainly not playing in a dangerous manner nor was there no offence nor was it a foul on the goalkeeper as given by the referee on the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG-HyI6wa2A
Graham Poll the former UK FIFA referee said that for him Neuer was blameless as he stretched to punch the ball away and his momentum caught his opponent. He went to say that perhaps Rizzoli was wrong to give Germany a free kick in this instance when a throw-in seemed the right decision. Referee Rizzoli later said that he was wrong to award the free kick to Germany and that he felt that it was a coming together with the throw in being the restart.
So what do we take from all that. It certainly sends out the wrong message and one that at Underage would cause me great concern. For me Neuer showed a complete lack of regard for his opponents safety and he uses excessive force against his opponent in the challenge.
A challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
serious foul play.