Question Number: 35773

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/23/2024

RE: Adult

Rob of Preston, United Kingdom asks...

RB Leipzig v Liverpool

Darwin Nunez bursts into the penalty area and reaches the ball before defender Orban, he knocks the ball past him and Orban clearly kicks his shin as a result

The ref waves away the pen and var looks but clears it. Commentary think it's a pen but suggest maybe the ref thought Darwin would not have reached the ball before it went out (it was clearly not out at the time of the contact, would he have caught it? Unsure)

My questions isn't so much "would you give it" as much as.. Where is it written, what rule number says the ref can deny giving a foul if the ball may or may not have later been kept in?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Rob,
this thought has recently been bouncing about within the questions posed, should a referee excuse careless fouls if they are not truly impacting play in situations where the ball is headed into touch or was overhit with a hard touch to lose control so the opposition can retrieve it?

I recently commented that often when an attacker is in on goal and misses the chance by booting it wide or high into touch or the ball deflects off the keeper in a save then goes into touch, we seem to permit these late tackles to go unpunished. As if punishment for missing the goal is part of the price you pay for not scoring!

The timing of the foul is just as the ball is in the process of exiting or perhaps just before as we await the result of the attempted shot! Now we all go whew, if a goal is scored as it lessens any dissent about the possible foul or misconduct of that tackle/challenge just as the ball is exiting the FOP.

If we as the official have determined the contact had no impact on play and there is no subsequent follow up opportunity do we go with the technically that it was an offence, does this decision that has no bearing on the outcome of a game going to matter whether given or not?

Certainly a reckless or excessive foul SHOULD be called but the coming to together type actions, once the shot is away or he realizes oops he has over hit the loose ball and is unlikely to recover often the attacker slows up and the defender in behind catches up. The fact is messing up but then trying to manufacture a foul to save you from your mistake you go down or try to draw the foul rather than sell the contact!

You are 100% spot on though, there is no LOTG that says ignore the foul if the ball is in play but no outcome will change or the ball might not have been saved from going into touch. That said cheap or rather incongruous soft fouls with little meat to saviour a feast of undeserved PKs. We might call a midfield teapot to set an example but match control really is a blend of clamping down to prevent blowups and also not creating them!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Rob
Thanks for the question.
To answer your question it is not part of the Law that a ball has to be kept in or a player being able to retrieve it for a foul to be awarded.
Whether the ball was not going to be retrieved should not be a factor in the decision. The Law is clear in that if the ball is in play a foul can be committed. If the ball is out of play at the moment of the contact it cannot be a foul.

In addition referees should call what matters that is what offences give the offending player or the offender’s team an unfair advantage? One of the most fundamental principles at the core of the Laws of the Game is that an offense, all other things being equal, should generally not be called and play stopped if the offense is doubtful and/or trifling which older referees will recall being part of the Law book at one time. “Doubtful” means it may or may not occurred and a referee lacks the facts to know for sure, “Trifling” means that the offense occurred but didn’t affect either team one way or the other. Both concepts have been at the core of the game for more than 50 years.

For what its worth I detect what I feel is a toughening up of what constitutes an offence in the game at higher levels including UEFA and maybe a return to *doubtful and trifling*
In the Barcelona v Bayern game I felt that there was a slight nudge on a Bayern defender for Barca’s second goal. It was not a strong push yet enough to nudge the defender and he makes poor contact with the header. Did the defender feel it and move accordingly? Again it was not given and VAR went with the on-field decision.

On this one I suspect that the referee thought it was more a coming together than a foul and a trifling one. I looked at it again and I could not say it was a kick to the shin yet rather a trip of legs coming together. The commentator described it as clumsy by the defender.
The referee did not look 100% certain maybe even depending on VAR and then I believe that if it would have to be a clear and obvious error to ask for an on-field review.
One could opine that the Liverpool player may have slowed his run knowing that the defender is coming across with probable contact and that he is not retrieving the ball nor trying to avoid the defender. The defender sort of motions incidental contact and points at the Liverpool player suggesting going down easy.

So for me it would have been a very soft penalty and Pro referees know how adept players are in generating contact maybe even getting a few wrong in the past. The referee is close to it and I suspect senses the limited contact which is why it was not given particularly if referees hear instructions at briefings about perhaps not giving soft decisions in key match incidents.
If the defender came across boot up into the shin of the Liverpool player it would be a red card and a penalty no matter whether the ball is being retrieved or not.