Question Number: 31713

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/15/2017

RE: Competitive Adult

Jack Smith of Sydney, New South Wales Australia asks...

Do you believe that the tackle by Shaughnessy on Piazon in the recent Leeds vs Fulham Championship match was legal (based on the scissoring contact delivered to the ankle)? It can be viewed here: https://streamable.com/ye5xs

Not that it's a consideration for judging the legality of the tackle, but it appears that Piazon has suffered a suspected broken leg due to this challenge.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jack
These are never easy for a referee because they get one look at it in real time from their angle of view. Many referees are still swayed by clear contact on the ball and tend to ignore momentum.
I personally do not think it is a red card tackle as the White player clearly plays the ball and there is no obvious deliberate scissor motion. It is certainly bordering on reckless which means that the player has made the move with complete disregard for danger to, or consequences for, his opponent
FIFA when advising referees pose the following question in evaluating same
# Does the player show a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge?
# Does the player act without precaution when making the challenge?
# Does the player make fair or unfair contact with the opponent after touching the ball?
# Does the player act with complete disregard of the danger to his opponent?
# Does the player act with a complete disregard of the consequences for his opponent?
# Does the player have a chance of playing the ball in a fair manner?
# Is the challenge putting an opponent in a dangerous situation?

I think the contact is unfortunate as it looks like the left knee made inadvertent contact on the opponents ankle. Have a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_jwKCeAYM
Some feel that this merited a red card and I also think that it is a matter of opinion ITOOTR on the day. The referee on the day felt it was reckless which was a caution.
Sometimes injuries just happen and that many times is accidental and my personal view is that if they were red card offences they would be seen as harsh. The outcome by way of injury while perhaps somewhat of a consideration is not the decisive factor. Neither of these challenges will look like stonewall reckless challenges on the field of play. I could see players getting up from these challenges at other times with no injuries.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Jack,

For me this tackle is illegal. Getting the ball first doesn't mean a foul has not occurred - and the change in the laws a few years back to include 'tackles an opponent' as a Careless/Reckless/Excessive Force foul indicates that IFAB/FIFA want it made clear that a poorly conducted tackle which gets the ball first is still a foul.

A tackle that gets the ball first but ensures the body is thrown at the opponent certainly fits into this category - and we can also judge the risk in the incident.

This is an extremely poorly conducted challenge - every player knows how to tackle here, and it's not like that. There was absolutely no reason for his body to be thrown at the opponent like that. Trapping the opponent's leg beneath one's body carries inherent risk as it places a lot of weight on the lower part of the leg with no opportunity for the opponent to minimise the impact.

The only saving grace for this tackle is that there wasn't a great deal of momentum behind the challenge (the defender didn't wind up too far 'past' the attacker), and the defender didn't carry through with the scissor motion by closing his legs and flipping the opponent over - as seen in the video posted by Ref McHugh (personally, I think that video is a clear red card).

Given the risk to the opponent I personally believe it was reckless and a caution should have been issued. I don't think the foul carried enough inherent danger to the opponent to warrant a red card for serious foul play - incidentally, usually when I've seen a broken leg it's from a completely fair challenge!

I expect this is the sort of challenge where if you asked this to a room of referees, you'll hear every answer from 'no foul' through to 'red card'.

I couldn't abide by 'no foul' being the decision, but I could see arguments for 'foul only', 'yellow card' and 'red card', though I believe the tackle was reckless and carried some unnecessary risk but not a likely risk of injury. The fact that injury may have occurred doesn't necessarily indicate that it was a likely outcome of the tackle - even considering it an extremley unlikely outcome of a tackle means, by the laws of mathematics, that it's going to have the worst possible outcome occasionally.