Question Number: 30026

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/17/2016

RE: Select Under 15

Brad of Plymouth, Michigan United States asks...

My U-13's were playing a U-14 team in Futsal--a very tall and athletic group. A particular incident occurred which made me reflect on how and what I would call:

Opposing keeper kicked a through-ball which went all the way to the penalty area. My GK and a blue player had a 50-50. My 5'3' GK came out at 5'10' field player. Field player at a sprint jumped up to play the ball with his foot and ended up with a foot straight towards GK's face (who was NOT diving--imagine a jumping karate kick). It was 'cleats-first' (although this is futsal).

Referee blew whistle and assessed blue with a yellow card. He also explained to him that he had risked himself a red. Two important notes: 1) GK did not YET have possession (but was about 1' from possession); 2) field player did not directly kick GK, but instead contacted the ball with his foot (and drove it into GK's face). I think the 'official call' was PIADM and reckless, and as a coach at this level I was comfortable with the call.

But as a referee, I have a few questions:
1) Barring contact, could this still have been a red (for SFP) given the nature of the offense?
2) Had this been outside (with actual cleats) instead of futsal, would that change the consideration for a red?
3) If the keeper had possession (so a split second later), does that 'increase the offense', i.e. changing a yellow to a red?
Perhaps all of this is ITOOTR, but I am interested in others' thoughts.

Again, as the coach whose GK was on the receiving end, I felt the referee got it right. But as a referee, it made me think about yet another 'new' scenario for me to consider.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brad
Well first off it is a clear foul and it makes no difference if the ball is played or not or that the opponent has the ball.
Now it is certainly a caution for reckless play and it could easily be escalated into a dismissal for serious foul play.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Brad,
easily could be elevated into SFP with any contact including driving the ball into the face with the foot.
Inside or outside SFP is SFP
Keeper with the ball likely an auto red simply as the ball is NOT free to be challenged.
The excessive or reckless or careless aspect is an opinion based likely on how the action is performed and how dangerous it was deemed

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

I'm reading it tat the player, running towards the keeper, leapt to kick the ball (bouncing ball?), with the result that his foot, with the players full running + leaping momentum behind him, was headed straight for the keeper's face.

Contact is not a requirement for a red card. Often it's a deciding factor, but it some particularly serious cases it is not a requirement. A red card for Serious Foul Play is issued if excessive force is used in challenging for the ball (sounds like that was the case, given the nature of the challenge and the proximity of the opponent's head), and if it endangers the safety of an opponent (again, sounds like this was the case).

1)This certainly sounds like a red card for SFP to me. Though it also sounds like an indirect kick for PIADM was correct. Having said that, naturally I didn't see the offence so I could be picturing something worse than what happened.

2)The nature of cleats is inherently more dangerous than a flat-soled shoe so this will often be a concern. 'Studs-up' challenges in Futsal, for instance, are barely a concern for this reason. However, that manner of tackle can still be dangerous because the straight let carries a lot of force through to the ball.

3) It would certainly make such offences worse if the keeper had possession first - likelihood of winning the ball is one thing that gets taken into consideration in determining whether a foul occurred, or how serious it was. And naturally, there's a difference between a split second before (can't even tell if the keeper had secured it), and a few moments after that.