Question Number: 34282

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/2/2021

RE: Adult

KFritz of Hoboken, New Jersey USA asks...

In the US vs Canada Olympic semifinal, the Canadian player ran between the American player and the ball she was already beginning to kick at. If the American had begun her kick a second later or could see the Canadian and then tried to kick the ball through her leg, a foul would certainly be correct. But the sequence of events makes me believe the foul and penalty were incorrect. Can someone please explain the official's interpretation of the rules, as best you can? Thank you for any replies.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi KFritz,
you are not alone in your thinking
From my opinionated view, the fast pace caught the American defender off guard.
Intent plays no real part in deciding if there is a foul. We look at that more as a misconduct action which is why no card was shown because there was no intent to wipe out the Canadian as in a cynical calculated foul to stop an attack, she just was late clearing the ball. I saw it as a careless trip created by being a bit too nonchalant on the clearance. No real argument in that the ball was NOT contacted by the American she just swept the Canadian off her feet. The defender could have shielded more with her body rather than get sideways. Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
Thanks for the question.
One of the penal offences listed in Law 12 is kicking an opponent in a careless or reckless manner. In this instance the US defender kicked the foot of the Canadian attacker which happened inside the penalty area. As a result the only possible decision with VAR was to award a penalty kick.

As to timing in challenges there is an onus on players to show attention and consideration when making a challenge and to act with caution. In this situation and in other similar situations the defender was somewhat slow to the ball allowing the attacker to get to the ball first and as a result she kicked the foot of the attacker rather than the ball. That is deemed to be careless.

It might seem harsh yet I have seen this type of foul on many occasions where a defender is late in kicking the ball and ends up kicking an opponent. Some are more obvious than others and in this instance the use of VAR made it obvious that the attacker was kicked. Without VAR I believe tne onfield decision would have been a goal kick yet video evidence showed that the attacker was clearly kicked.

In this video the Red player has the same intention of kicking the ball yet ends up making heavy contact with his opponent. The decision there was a foul and a red card as the referee deemed the contact to have endangered the safety of an opponent.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Bq9Z5sRsc
The red card caused a lot of debate yet little if any about the actual foul award. The exact same argument can be made as the US / Canada decision on timing etc. intent was removed from the Laws many many years ago and now it is a decision on what happened.