Question Number: 32530

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/20/2018

RE: Rec Adult

Nate of Searcy, AR United States asks...

Scenario 1: Attacker advances with the ball at speed in a straight line towards the goal in the center of the field. A defender steps into his path to intercept, but the attacker touches the ball away before colliding with the defender. The defender is not malicious and is in fact going for the ball. The attacker is just quicker. The defender is knocked down and the collision stops play.

Foul on who?

Scenario 2: Attacker advances with the ball at speed in a straight line towards the goal in the center of the field. His touches push the ball forward enough to entice a defender to attempt to intercept in a straight line towards the attacker (collision course). However, the attacker is able to catch up to the ball and meets the defender at the same time as the ball. Both parties are not malicious and are clearly going for ball. The defender is knocked down and play stops.

Foul on who?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Nate
On question 1 I wonder if you saw the Uruguay v Saudi Arabia game where what you describe occurred in a challenge involving Cavani and a Saudi defender. To my amazement the referee did not give the foul as in my opinion Cavani was clearly prevented / blocked from going after the ball by the actions of the Saudi defender. It is viewed as holding through the use of the body. Now if the refeee viewed that Cavani the attacker ran deliberately into the Saudi defender to win a foul then that is illegal charging against the attacker. That is rare but does happen.
So in your example the defender has arrived late to the ball, fails to play the ball and fouls the attacker through a body check, holding. As it is not malicious or perhaps intentional there is no need for a card.
On your second one it is much more difficult and it can be viewed as a coming together at speed which is no foul. Generally though one player can be a tad later or maybe has to hurry up to get get to the ball which can be seen as perhaps *late* to the ball. Sometimes the referee may take into account circumstances such as playing advantage, the players may both just get up, the direction of the challenge, etc.
A number of years ago I recall a battle between two midfielders which was getting testy. I had spoken to one player earlier and on a particular 50 / 50 challenge both players lunged for the ball, together at the same time I would say both were equally guilty of an offence yet I decided to give the free kick against the player I had warned earlier. Both players knew that their tackles were over the edge and had to accept my decision although as you can imagine one player was not too happy to which I reminded him of my earlier words.
In titration example the referee might give nothing and see it as a coming together or he may decide that one player was more aggressive in the contact than the other. He might give the foul to the defender who was knocked to the ground.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Nate,
It's a bit tricky to call either of these examples definitively one way or another, based simply on a written description. For many, if not most offences involving a physical challenge between two opponents going for the ball, it's a case of YHTBT (you had to be there) to make the judgement. Also the question of the players' intent in making the challenge (i.e. whether they were being malicious) is not relevant according to the law. The element of intent in relation to physical challenge fouls was removed from the law in 1995. Rather, the referee has to judge whether a challenge was careless (or reckless or involves the use of excessive force).

So the question is not whether the player was being malicious, but whether the player was careless (or reckless or used excessive force). Having said all that, in your first example, if I had to make a call without seeing it, the fact that the defender has stepped into the forward's path would probably be the most influential factor in the decision. However, depending on exactly what happened, it could be seen as the forward committing a foul by charging into the defender though this sounds less likely.

In the second example it's even trickier to make the call and as ref McHugh suggests, it might be seen as simply a 'coming together' where neither player has committed an offence. Remember, not all contact between players necessarily involves a foul (even if one of the players ends up on the ground) and so if the referee judges that neither player's actions even rises to the minimum level of carelessness, the correct call could just be to let play continue.

If on the other hand the referee sees this as being two identical, simultaneous fouls (very rare, but it could happen) then the Law says, ''the referee punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact.'' So if, for instance the referee feels one player has used more physical force than the other, that could be the deciding factor in how to call the foul. If the two offences are identical in all other respects, the referee has to decide based on the tactical impact. According to the FAQ at the end of Law 5 on the IFAB website, ''an offence which stops an opponent's attack is more important than one which ends a player's own team attack'' so as I read that, if the offences are truly identical in terms of sanction, restart and physical severity, the free kick should go to the attacking team.