Question Number: 30071

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/2/2016

RE: Select Under 14

Brad of Plymouth, Michigan United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30067

Asking for clarification on Referee Dawson's answer. As I read your answer, it seems that you are suggesting perhaps the player shouldn't be given a caution due to possible ignorance--is that your point, or have I misunderstood? It seems that at this level of play certainly it is a reasonable expectation for players to know this is outside the bounds of the LOTG. My U-13 Captain got a YC last summer for this. While I would argue that perhaps at that age a verbal is sufficient, at the professional level this behavior strikes me as trying to pull a fast one when the referee's back is (potentially) turned, thus a very well-earned yellow. Have I misconstrued your point? All the best.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Brad,
well earned caution?
The issue is, it is not a mandatory caution, one --could-- choose not to caution.
It is a trite saying to say ignorance is no excuse. I can get behind it might not be enough of a reason to not be cautioned as intent plays little part in our decision making processes but we still MANAGE situations. Did you notice he did not interfere until the ball was actually on the ground?

The LOTG state it is PIADM to do what this player did. Do we usually award cautions in PIADM situations? We CAN but it is NOT mandatory to do so. Do you think a careless trip is any different in they (players) do not know the LOTG forbid those actions? Yet we have the power to ignore it or only award a foul as opposed to see it as reckless or excessive. Players trip each other all the time, match after match this was an UNUSAL occurrence of an obscure INDFK infringement to not kick a ball being tossed/bounced onto the ground by the keeper.

Did you know the LOTG used to permit charging the keeper in his own PA while he held the ball? Or that you could head it out of his hands? And why would you say the referees back was turned? An AR can easily be watching.

The attacker did not try to stop the keeper's progress just incorrectly assumed he could play the ball. I have often seen keepers roll a ball out on the ground and a sneaky attacker in behind comes in and strips the ball away for a good goal. I know the ball was being bounced here as opposed to rolled out in front of the keeper so easy INDFK and I can not fault the referee for showing the card .

Just ask yourself why the ease here to show a card and not say delaying restarts or failing to respect distance or all the crap that goes on inside the PA on corners for far more transparent breech's?

I can only say it appeared obvious to me the player was not deliberately trying to do something wrong like stand out in front of him to block the kick.
My point was it was fairly obvious to me there was no sneakiness involved just a bad decision. The rational for the caution maybe compensates that the ball is placed on the ground instead of punted out which is a detriment more in youth than pro to be sure. But cards are tools and my feeling it was a used as sledge instead of a hammer. Situational awareness and was this a critical match incident? I ask you if it was his 2nd caution would you still think it necessary to give it?
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brad
In the opinion of the referee is the key to cautions that are not mandatory. I viewed three incidents of a player standing in front of goalkeepers at punts where the ball struck the player. All three were attempts to frustrate / restrict the punt. In the one the referee ignored it, in another the referee went with an IDFK and in the third went with a caution and an IDFK. One can argue all three could be correct. My view is that the caution and IDFK is the solution most likely to effect change. The player will certainly not do it again.
Now the complaint we get all the time is consistency and that is no easy task. Certainly it should be easier at the Pro level and I believe that a FIFA badged official in a game will caution for this offence as he expects players at the pro level to know this is not allowed and it is a cheap attempt to challenge, creating problems for the game. Yes at a Underage a strong word will suffice with advice that this is not allowed. The question there is does the player listen and take the advice.