Question Number: 31275

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/18/2017

RE: Travel Under 15

Jim F of Pittsburgh, PA United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 29877

Here is another collision that involves a keeper:

https://youtu.be/GIS-QFVyjsw

It seems clear that both are playing the ball but the keeper gets the ball first and then gets kicked in the chest by the attacker. Both players are shaken up by the play, but when the game resumes several minutes later the attacking team has been rewarded with a PK. I think the call is quite unjust. The keeper has a clear right to play the ball and she gets to it first.

My question is what foul if any should be called on the attacking player? It think it should be at least a caution because it was reckless to keep going at full speed without looking when she had to know the keeper probably had a play on the ball. But upon closer inspection I think send off is warranted here because she raises her leg and jumps right before the collision and must have know full well the keeper would be right there.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Jim,
Thanks for the question.
One thing I noticed - why was the keeper wearing grey undershorts with blue shorts?
Like anywhere on the field, if Player A and Player B are going for the ball, Player B gets there first and Player B is kicked a moment later, then while both players may have been going for the ball, Player A has committed a foul - and depending on the lateness, force, manner of tackle and how much chance there was to win the ball it may be a card.
People refer to these tackles as 50-50 challenges. I think that's incorrect - the fact that somebody got there first means it wasn't 50-50!

So, both players were going for the ball - but the attacker has not only managed to miss the ball completely (because the keeper got there first - and was always going to do so), but has engaged in this challenge in an extremely dangerous manner with raised studs at the opponent at a high level of force.

All players are responsible for being aware of who's around them - the fact that she was going for the ball may be taken into consideration (but bear in mind, many players are excellent at making a dirty attack look like an innocently mistimed challenge), but won't necessarily mean it isn't a foul....or a caution....or a red card.

For me, this is an appalling challenge. Even assuming it's innocent, it's just terrible. High speed, studs raised towards an opponent, making very hard contact in their midsection, completely missing the ball.....

To answer your question, the foul is 'kicks an opponent'. I agree with you - this is serious foul play. I simply can't accept anything less here. To not even caution the player for this leaves me stunned. Especially as the referee was in the perfect position for this challenge (close and had a good angle).

Now, I had already decided on a red card, but I watched it again. The player raises her leg for the ball....why did she angle her run to that part of the field? She should have brought her run to try and hit the ball a bit closer to where it's dropping, because she's overshot the run here. But she'd have even less chance to get the ball had her run been angled to the left a bit - but that's the only spot she could have reached it. So, she definitely knew the keeper was in the area - that reinforces the red card. But the the actual kick-out - this was never going to reach the ball even if the keeper missed it. She was completely out of reach here. So, that leaves me wondering if it was deliberate.

While 'intent' isn't a prerequisite for a red, these are interesting signs to be aware of.

You say the referee got a PK out of this? That's just a terrible decision. I can't begin to imagine where that came from - you can't claim the keeper carelessly charged the attacker when the keeper got the ball and the only part of contact was the attacker's foot on the keeper's gut!

While normally the AR shouldn't be arguing with the referee over a PK, given the lengthy stoppage I think this is the perfect chance for the AR to call the referee over and have a chat. Because of the lengthy stoppage this doesn't undermine the referee's authority, and when the decision is so grossly incorrect the AR needs to try and speak to the referee if possible without making it obvious to everybody else that he's trying to say the referee got it wrong.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jim,
it pains me to agree but you are spot on mate!
We are often loath to criticise colleagues as we all know that real match time decisions are much different then our armchair review
But Wow! This is a clip that should appear on that goofy TV show Ridiculousness as that was what the decision to award a PK was, utterly ridiculous! The white USA player should be red carded and sent off no ifs, ands or buts! The keeper was fully within her rights to challenge and was to the ball first. The extended studs into the chest to be missed by the officials is simply unexplainable other than it was quick and the AR was afraid to confront the referee on her completely wrong decision to award the PK! Just recall the WORLD CUP kick into the chest of the Spanish player by the Dutch defender in 2o10. It was missed as well but at least the right team received the free kick.
I have some sympathy for the official in real time perhaps it looked as if the keeper had run into the striker given the poor angle and positioning by the referee but the AR HAD to be looking right at it! This is a unfortunate but prime example why some request video replay could fix this injustice!. Not that all video reviews are so obvious as this was. I suspect some finger wagging and headshakes will be evident in the post game review here!

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jim
It is for situations like this that I believe the Video Assistant Referee VAR will prove very helpful. Here, in my honest opinion, the referee gives what she thinks is the correct call yet from the multiple camera angles and slow mo we can see that it was plainly wrong. I just think that this happened to quickly for the referee with the ball being played and the moment of impact being almost simultaneous. Sometimes referees have *baggage* from reckless challenges by goalkeepers that they can have a negative view of such challenges. The challenge by the German keeper Neuer on Higuain of Argentina springs to mind.
The referee seems very certain of her decision with an instant call and a pointing to the spot. I think she rushed it for what ever reason. A discussion with the lead AR could have helped her here. One of the tell tale sign here that could have helped Was the direction of the ball as judged by the AR after the challenge and who played it. Anyway who knows what the thinking was here. Had the referee been challenged about reckless challenges by goalkeepers going unsanctioned previously? Was the series of foul by Trinidad and Tabago influencing. Did a player going off for a blood injury just before on a challenge influence the call?
Anyway it should have been a free kick to the goalkeeper and a card for the attacker. That card is a matter of opinion and it is most certainly a caution for being reckless by the attacker. I would have no issue if a referee dismissed for this although I believe that the player raised her leg to control the ball and the momentum of both players caused the heavy contact. The attacker does not at any time look away from the ball and I would give her the benefit of doubt on the excessive force part yet she is reckless by not looking and the raised leg.
It is interesting that no card was shown to either player? I fail to understand that with a penalty award why the GK was not carded if she was the offending player with such a promising position. Injury to an offender is not an exemption from a card. Also the attacker did not need to leave the field of play here after treatment and it would have been interesting if she was the penalty taker. Maybe they did not ask to stay on which is strange.