Question Number: 30004

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/22/2015

RE: Select Under 12

Brad of Plymouth, Michigan United States asks...

I was a referee on a dual whistle and the play was deep in my corner (1-2 yards from endline), so my co-referee was quite far away. The ball was bouncing and the attacker tried to 'knee' the ball just as the defender came to it (and completely shielded me both from the ball and the attacker's knee). This was a perfect example of why the dual whistle can lead to bad angles and difficulty in assessing fouls...

Attacker made contact with the ball with his knee and the ball immediately traveled the 1-2 yards to end line for a goal kick. Prior to the ball rolling out I considered PIADM, but the knee was close to the attacker and not particularly high. However, as soon as I signaled for a goal kick it was immediately evident that the attacker had indeed kneed the defender in the gut in his attempt to play the ball. (And as luck would have it, ALL of defender's fans were on the opposite sideline with a clear view of the foul).

In the end, a goal kick was probably a better position for the defensive team than a DFK deep in their own corner, so the game itself wasn't impacted (and I took the time to verbally discuss high kicks with the attacker). The defender recovered after 20-30 seconds and didn't have to even leave the field.

But this scenario leads to the question: Can I / should I take player reactions and responses into account in making rulings? Of course there are players who will try to draw fouls, but this wasn't such a case. This was a scenario in which I was about 50-50 in calling for PIADM before I saw the player was clearly injured. I don't want to be the 'goat referee' who gets fooled by fakers, but I also think there are times when the players' reactions and responses help clarify tight calls. I welcome your thoughts and inputs.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brad
Factoring in influences to decision making has always been part of the referees role. UEFA advised its referees that in determining the seriousness of an offence (such as kicking, tripping, jumping at, striking, pushing, charging an opponent), that they should take into account:
# The element of intent or malice;
# The speed of the player’s action (intensity);
# The tackler’s chance of playing the ball;
# Is a player endangering the safety of the opponent?
Have a look at this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qy3eWSnuag
The White player plays the ball and then his follow through makes hard contact with the Red players knee injuring him badly with a deep wound. The referee did not see a foul as he believed White played the ball fairly.
Now should the referee have taken the reaction of the Red player in his call. I believe that he should have and seen this as a foul plus in my opinion it was also reckless. I factor in everything into the decision such as body positions, manner of challenge, players reaction etc. The combination of all those help to get the decision right. As experience develops it becomes easy to figure out what is genuine and what is an attempt to win a foul.
In your case it probably did not make a lot of difference. However the important part is that the referee does not want players to think that unfair challenges will go unpunished. A hard blast of the whistle will let players know that you seen the foul, taken action and the restart can be unimportant. The referee can then have a word or take disciplinary action as he sees fit. Opponents, if it is not called, can think that the referee is not bothered and may decide to take retribution for the challenge.
Okay perhaps once or twice a player can stitch the referee up with his actions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJxBhvF9ZRs
The incident though was still a foul as even if there was no contact Red attempted to kick Blue. The only issue then is the disciplinary sanction if any that should be taken with the Blue player attempting to get Red cautioned or sent off.
In the same way a referee should shout Advantage as well as signal when he sees a foul that he is not calling due to playing advantage. Again that sends a message that the referee has seen the foul and he has decided that it is more advantageous to allow play to continue.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Brad,
Having officiated other sports such as basketball and football, I do feel that the reaction of a player to a foul must be taken into consideration and with experience you will readily understand when the reaction indicates a foul or faking. I also believe that soccer where a 'play-on is permitted, observing, knowing the foul and understanding the reaction of the player that is possibly being fouled are of even greater importance as allowing the game to continue, as you are aware. can often be an advantage to the offended team.

The dual referee system was the only system employed during the first 25 years of my officiating career. It is a system that requires much hustle, the boxing in of the play, and good angles by at least one of the officials on each play.. It requires the trail official to move onto the field sometimes near the center of the field and as far downfield as the penalty area. Also, when a change of possession occurs, it requires the trail official to quickly move into position to observe off-sides, which in many instances requires extensive sprinting. The focus in the dual system is boxing in and controlling play, not offside. When the diagonal system came into use in the early 80's, officials in the dual system got 'lazy.' Instead of boxing in the play, many dual system officials started acting like AR's and began staying off or near the touchline, and never ventured far past mid-field. The main focus of officials in the dual system seems to have changed from covering the play to watching for offside. Hopefully, when you work a dual system, you will work it with play coverage being the top priority. One other interesting point about the early dual system is that because there were no nets on the goals, the trail official had to help determine if the ball went between the goal posts, which required the trail official of be near the center of the field when a team was advancing near a goal. As you can imagine, there were many arguments about goals being good or not. Also, I like the dual system because I often get to run more in it than when I am working the center in a diagonal or three whistle system. Hopefully, this short lesson in dual system history will help you, and you have a very healthy and safe holiday season.