Question Number: 31733

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/25/2017

RE: Pro Professional

Steve of San Diego, CA USA asks...

Your thoughts on the first video on the top of this page for the collision. I can see arguments for all options.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/ffa-cup/up-for-the-cup-moments-you-might-have-missed-from-round-of-16-ffa-cup-action/news-story/edb611ab7f9559aa04ae3dce02f421d4

The defender got the ball first after a bad dribble by the attacker but there was a rough collision afterward. This could have all been avoided if the defender slid. Would have been an easy no call where defender slides and gets ball first and attacker trips over after losing the ball, but because the defender remained standing, now it looks like a red card for the defender to some.

If the same situation was flipped and the defender flew back and the attacker remained standing after 'plowing through a defender that poked the ball out from him', people would have said it would look like an obvious red for the attacker. Nothing has changed in that hypothetical except for who fell to the ground after the contact.

I've always thought that a slide tackle was a more dangerous, reckless option than standing up tackles; but in this case, the slide would have been safer. I know the argument that the defender made the tackle in a manner that would have endangered his opponent whether he won the ball or not, but I also know that there are many clean tackles where incidental collisions/trips after the tackle can happen and depending on the speed of play, they can cause injury.

All that being said, in real time with no replay, I probably would have whistled for a reckless tackle arguing that all the force originated from the attacker. Can you help me work through a situation like this, what should I consider, what is the line between incidental contact after won tackle and a reckless tackle. To what degree do seeing who ends up on the floor weigh in on a decision?

Thanks in advance.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Steve
Sometimes in the game we have players coming together with no blame on either player. We look at context, body shape etc to make the call. Accidents are part of the game although many times it can be clear that one party may have been the more likely cause of contact such as being a tad late, etc. Now I have watched this a few times and at speed this could have been be a tough call for the referee depending on his location and what he was looking at. Red plays the ball yet with action replay there is one action in there that I did not like in that Red deliberately turned his shoulder into Blues as he came into the challenge which for me makes the challenge reckless. Yes he got the ball yet he knew that his body angle was always going to crash / charge his shoulder into Blues chest in an aggressive manner. So for me a foul for a reckless challenge and a caution.
This opinion is premised on the following statement in the Laws and I quote
** Although accidents occur, the Laws should make the game as safe as possible. This requires players to show respect for their opponents and referees should create a safe environment by dealing strongly with those whose play is too aggressive and dangerous. The Laws embody the unacceptability of unsafe play in their disciplinary phrases, e.g. ‘reckless challenge’ (caution = yellow card/ YC) and ‘endangering the safety of an opponent’ or ‘using excessive force’ (sending-off = red card/RC).**
This for me was an unsafe play and overly aggressive challenge so Red needed to be sanctioned for that As it is in the 15th minute the referee also needs to send out a signal that such aggressive play will not be tolerated. Had the ball been played normally and both players naturally ran into each other there might not have been a foul. Having said that I have also called such folks against the attacker for the sane reason. The type of coming together normally would be obvious.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Steve,
What I see here is a player who has challenged an opponent in a reckless manner, in that he has ''act[ed] with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent.'' According to the laws, if the referee sees it this way, the player ''must be cautioned.''

I agree with ref McHugh that the player turns his shoulder into the opponent in what I judge to be a reckless manner and I could even see an argument that this might constitute excessive force although I'm leaning towards yellow as I feel that at least some of the force involved is due to the closing speed of the two opponents rather than the actions of the defender alone.

In judging this kind of incident, I think you have to take into account the actions of the players involved and the manner in which the challenge was conducted. The Laws of the Game give us the following definitions to help us decide:

''Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off ''

For me, who ends up on the floor does not necessarily factor in to deciding who is at fault. Quite often in fact, the player committing the foul is the one that comes off worse.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Steve,
that was in my opinion at minimum a yellow caution for a reckless action but easily could be red if the CR was convinced the force involved was excessive. The mitigating factors here is the speed of both opponents the ball was there to be challenged and the dribbler had his head down. What was NOT a good idea in my opinion was to consider this a fair challenge, doubtful or trifling. I see this CLEARLY as a charging foul with no thought or concern to the opposition's safety
Cheers