Question Number: 34239

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/6/2021

RE: competitive High School

Paul Weaver of Napier, Hawke’s Bay New Zealand asks...

A player makes a reckless effect to challenge an opponent but misses the ball and makes no contact with the player. Their opponent senses them coming and jumps aside avoiding the contact. However possession is lost. What is the referees decision?
An indirect free kick for dangerous play because no contact? Should the tackler receive a caution for the reckless tackle despite there being no contact?

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Paul,
The referee will make a decision based on their judgement of whether an offence has occurred and based on the provisions in the law. The fact that no contact was made is not necessarily definitive.

Law 12 says it is a direct (not indirect) free kick offence if a player, "kicks or attempts to kick," "tackles or challenges" or "trips or attempts to trip" an opponent, "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force."

So if the referee judges that the player has done any of these things and even if there's no contact, it's at least a direct free kick.

It's always difficult to tell, based purely on a written description but given that you say the player's actions caused the opponent to take evasive action and lose the ball, this certainly sounds like a direct free kick offence to me. If in addition, the referee decides it was a reckless challenge (though there's less direct evidence of that in your description) then it would be a caution as well.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Paul,
just like the aphorism, "I got the ball referee!" before a cleanout tackle goes through the opposing player, the phrase, *I never touched him!", as an opposing player evades a reckless or dangerous tackle or charge, plays no weight in the decision.

The referee must determine the extent of fault in the player performing ANY unsafe action and its possible consequences. Failure to act on that incident could cause repeated incidents with far more severe consequences.

Often when a player skis - in and under in a vicious looking tackle the opponent should they be aware or have time to react, will jump up and try their best to land on the incoming tackler with a good stomp of the cleats to remind him that was a cheap shot.

If it's a bailout resulting in a fall or dive to avoid the tackler or there is some contact in the resulting tangle and the opponent was simply fortunate not to be hurt that is not to say there would be no hard feelings or perhaps an accidental stud descending aftermath.

My colleague ref Groves quotes the applicable LAW 12 concepts emphasizing the DFK restart thus potential PK not INDFK for PIADM!

Consider the aspects that make up the incident.

The player performing already on the radar, the speed it occurs, the direction, the force involved, the location, the awareness of the opposition, the timing, the clear intent, the methodology, studs out, legs locked, arms grabbing, legs flailing?

What do your GUTS tell you?
Was it a simple mistimed tackle easily avoided or was it by the skin of his teeth the opponent was lucky he was not destroyed?
Can you say, watch it # so in so & allow play to continue?
Can you say that thinking DFK but apply advantage?

Is it cardable? You used the term reckless!
The terms careless, reckless, or excessive are the 3 criteria judging the content of a DFK foul, one with a yellow card and the other a red card send off reduce the team a player

I want to emphasize you really can perform a tackle in any direction fairly but every tackle is looked at in its entirety. I have seen great tackles from all directions but scything along the ground at full speed or a jumping missile launch in the air where contact would occur well up into the body is cause for alarm. ?

Was it from behind, the opponent clueless of the danger until a last-second scream?
Coming in sideways out in front but easy to jump over or it was always a drive-through?
Was it eyeball to eyeball headed in, up, and under? A bit of mano eh mano?

As my colleague suggests armchair refereeing in assessing situations without actually viewing them is speculative.

I have ONCE shown a direct red card & sent a player off for leaping into a player with two straight legs where the player athletically avoiding them was a full 4 feet in the air. It was a malicious vindictive effort to send the opponent into the hospital and despite zero contact, I threw his ass out of the game.

I have to the best of my recollection twice doubled cautioned then shown a red card to players who after being warned and carded still persisted in stupid air tackles!

I have occasionally cautioned & shown a yellow card to a player for what was in my opinion a reckless bid to win the ball and endanger the opponent but resulted in no or little contact due mostly in part to the athleticism of the opponent.

I have mostly sighed and usually verbally said, "What in the hell were you thinking?' on many more occasions.

I have also laughed while the opponent feet come down on the tackler into his guts as he was sliding by asking for a foul of being stomped on just as I recognized that the opposition foot as it rested on the leg of the tackler beneath, the ground in a twist was a deliberate act of retribution.

A referee with integrity sees what he sees. His match, his decision, his reputation!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Paul
Thanks for the question.
It is a judgement call for the referee based on the actual circumstances. It could be a direct free kick for tackling or trying to kick an opponent “in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.". It could also be an indirect free kick for playing in a dangerous manner although once a card is required that for me elevates it to a penal offence punished by a direct free kick.
Have a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZJn4UgpjY4
In the view if the referee the tackle was reckless hence the yellow card and the restart would have been a direct free kick.
Players will say *I never touched him ref* or *I got the ball ref* which does not exonerate a player in committing direct free kick offences.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Paul,
It's a good question.

Typically I'd expect it to be a direct. As you say, it's also a reckless challenge. So, I'm picturing a slide straight at the player and never at the ball, or maybe a wild swing. That sort of thing is going to fall under 'attempts to kick/trip an opponent'.

Even without it being reckless, if we're talking about an attempted tackle that misses the ball and the player had to take evasive action, this will almost always be a direct for me.

If, say, the player pulls back because there are high studs across his path or in his vicinity, then I'd probably consider that PIADM. If he has to jump because the high studs are coming straight at him, attempted kick.