Question Number: 29996

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/13/2015

RE: Competitive Under 12

Aaron Speca of Virginia Beach, Virginia United States asks...

To call or not to call...

Play down the sideline - looks to me like the first push on #2 blue should be a foul but he fights through it and pokes the ball ahead as a second player cuts in front of him. The second play looks okay. AR was right there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3NJ4AE5Ck

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Aaron,
CALL
in this clip the angle of view shows a small but deliberate push that causes the player to stumble. Referee was correct to play advantage but the player was closed down quickly and what looks like another foul given I saw no ball contact , award the foul DFK for pushing for either foul ! As to why the CR or AR missed or chose not to make the call is either the CR did not see it as easily as the camera and or the AR was not experienced enough or felt intimidated to make the call.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Aaron,

2 fouls for me. As the first defender in Black chases down Blue #2, you can see he puts his arm into the side/back of blue, and can clearly see the arm move and the shoulder rotate to indicate a push. The blue player stumbled, but retained possession - so we may have advantage. Had the second player dispossessed him cleanly, I'd be looking back to the foul - because he hasn't really had the opportunity after the foul - he lost a bit of momentum from the foul, and that allowed the second defender to come across and challenge.

However, the second defender missed the ball, and came across the path of the blue player, causing him to stumble again. This is another foul - it's just a question of which one. If there was contact (most likely with the leg) from running across the body a moment after the ball is kicked, this is a late tackle (but the sort that a lot of referee's fail to recognise), and a direct free kick for tripping. I can't tell if there was contact; it may be that the blue player just tried too hard to not run into the defender and fell over as a result. If so, then the defender has still crossed in front of the attacker and impeded his progress by preventing him from chasing the ball, so if there's no contact I'd be awarding an Indirect for Impedes the Progress of an opponent.

Given there are 2 consecutive fouls, the advantage law basically allows us to choose which one to penalise - if the second one is more advantageous, then essentially that implies we've played advantage from the first foul and awarding a free kick for the second one. The fact that it may be Indirect vs Direct may be some disadvantage, but really only if he's in shooting distance. I'd be inclined to award the free kick at the spot of the second foul whether it's direct or indirect.

Right in front of the AR, teamwork comes into play. Should the AR be flagging even when the referee has had a clear view? Did the referee have a clear view, given he appeared quite far behind play? Personally I think the AR should have flagged this one, but either way - both officials appear to have missed 2 fouls.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Aaron
Yes IMO there are two fouls here both in the minor category. First one is a push which causes the player to stumble yet he wants to go on which the referee should probably allow although at Underage the free kick is most times better. On the second one the defender does not touch the ball yet comes across in front of the attacker. The contact is less marked yet there appears to be contact which causes the player to fall. The contact makes it a penal foul as the defender has not played the ball and without the contact it could also be impeding by the defender.
Now lets look at the mechanics here. On the first foul the CR will have a poor angle of view of this and the AR is best placed to see it. As play continues the AR may be of the view that the CR is allowing play to continue so no need to flag. On the second one the contact happened directly on top of the AR who is seen looking infield probably for offside. Does the CR because he sees the defenders body angle immediately facing the goal line think that Blue has simply stumbled in his attempt to stretch for the ball?
So I could easily see how these fouls might not be called here. If they were not then circumstances have contrived to allow that to happen which is part of the game. The video angle is a good viewing position for these incidents yet the CR does not have that view nor the luxury of multiple reviews.