Question Number: 30369

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/30/2016

RE: Intramural College

Chris of Gainesville, FL USA asks...

In an intramural soccer game, a free kick was taken towards the penalty area. An attacker felt as if he was pushed when he jumped for the ball, but no foul was called. The 'pushing' player then took the ball up the line, and the 'pushed' attacker pursued him. You could tell the player was looking to commit a hard foul on the player running up the line. He ran an angle to cut off the ball handler and stepped in in order to commit a foul, but no contact was made as the attacker moved and the aggressor missed.

A yellow card was shown given what was interpreted as intent to hurt the other player. Is this appropriate even though there was no contact made? The offending player made this argument, but to me, I feel as if the ball handler should not have to take the hard hit in order for a foul to occur/yellow card given.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Chris,
The referee most likely gave the caution for unsporting behavior as the player had acted in a reckless and unsporting like manner, which is a valid caution. Although in many instances the referee will give a warning in this situation, I, as a former university intramural director, applaud the referee for giving the caution. It is too easy for intramural players to lose control and injuries to result. As a referee, injury prevention must be a top priority. If you observe a player acting in this manner in the future, please remember that you can caution the player for reckless or unsporting behavior, even though no contact has occurred. I hope that you are having a successful season.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Chris,
Interesting one here. 95% of the time when a player is storming after an opponent in a rage, they're still smart enough to look to make a hard but fair tackle (of course, don't forget that getting the ball first doesn't mean no foul!).

If I'm not mistaken, it sounds like he ran in front of the opponent then stopped to block his path, and the opponent ran around. If so, then I would question the foul and card. If he's simply stopped, then I don't know how this could be considered aggressive enough to warrant a card. It sounds like the only foul committed here would be impedes the progress of an opponent. While advantage is certainly a consideration given the opponent ran around, sometimes the referee may want to waive that to stop the game when tensions are running high.

The other possibility I'm reading from your question is that the player got just in front and tried to do a heavy charge on the opponent, but the opponent just danced around it. In this case, the only foul that has been committed would still be impedes the progress of an opponent - 'attempts to charge' isn't a foul, so without contact it can't be that. But if it's a clear aggressive action against an opponent in that fashion then I could see how a card could be justified. The restart would be an IFK either way.

It would be a little bit of an unusual decision, but a wise referee uses his feel for the match and understanding of what's happening to know when an unusual decision like this is warranted. Of course, the referee may have chosen to award the free kick for impeding the progress of an opponent and simply warn the attacker - that all depends on the severity of the incident, previous behaviour, mood of the match, and a general feel for what is required to calm things down.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Chris
This reads like good refereeing IMO. Everyone including the referee could see that the *aggrieved* player may have had intent on some form of retribution against his opponent by chasing after him and making a rash challenge. In those situations there is no need for contact for a foul to occur or that contact is required for a caution to be issued. Intent is sufficient enough. There are multiple reasons for the foul which includes playing in a dangerous manner, jumping at an opponent, attempt to kick, trip etc. It can also just be reckless play which is a caution.
Have a look at this video which I refer to regularly in the reckless challenge with no contact foul.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJn4UgpjY4
There is no contact by Red on Blue yet the referee saw this as a foul and a caution.