Question Number: 15171

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/13/2007

RE: Competive Adult

Hans Jablonowski of Columbus, Michigan USA asks...

A lot of fouls are now being classified as VC violent conduct, where as before they were SFP serious foul play. I thought if the ball was right there and the player made some even minor attempt to play the ball, at worst it would be SFP. Now with slow motion replay instructors are claiming that the foul was VC. What is your take on these new classifications? Are we trying to more villifile the perps?

Answer provided by Referee Nathan Lacy

It has NOT been my experience that the line between these two has been muddied. However, without seeing the specific events to which you are referring it is difficult to render an opinion. I would not be surprised, however, to find that the opinions being offered are simply wrong and that challenges may be being misclassified. Said another way, just as in reffing the "opinions" that you get from instructors may/will vary depending on their level of expertise. While efforts are made to ensure that the information being passed along by instructors is consistent and accurate not all instructors maintain the level of expertise they should. I have personally seen instructors pass along old or just blatantly inaccurate interpretations of law which were, fortunately, corrected during the discussion time. While from your question it sounds like the specific aspect of how the foul should be classified is what is being discussed (i.e. SFP or VC), another point to consider is that oftentimes it is simply a matter of the wrong term being used because of carelessness in the terminology being used. I'm not sure this really helps answer your question but without actually seeing the clips and the suggested classifications as either SFP or VC it really is almost impossible to give a solid opinion. All the best,

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Hans,

I know what you're talking about. At several upper level clinics that I've attended I've noticed this "reclassifying" so-to-speak.

I have been getting this sort of information from National Instructors and instructors who were once referee's at the world cup. Here is what I have gathered from their discussion...

Put simply, it used to go that if a player appeared to be going for the ball and they killed the opponent this would be Serious Foul Play. Now, if a player commits a foul that rises to the level of a red card for Serious Foul Play, but instead of actually attempting to play the ball the opponent clearly misses the ball or makes such a poor attempt at the ball that they had no chance to actually make a play for the ball then this should now be classified as violent conduct.

A prime example is a defender who commits a tackle while going over-the-ball. He may slide in to a challenge for what appears to be a play at the ball, but instead he raises his foot with the studs exposed and the leg locked perhaps a foot or two above the top of the ball. Clearly the play wasn't made for the ball but instead it was done to hurt the opponent but they are trying to hide this fact by claiming they were going in for the ball. This player should be punished for Violent Conduct, though at one time this may have been considered serious foul play because the foul occurred against the player with the ball, and the defender made a "playing maneuver."

I think it is important to note that we should no long simply consider if the foul was committed against a player who had the ball but rather you should consider whether or not the action would have actually had a reasonable chance to win the ball. If the answer is yes then SFP seems right, if it's NO then VC should be the way you write it up.

Think about it this way, if a player was dribbling a ball down the field and an opponent came up to him and punched him in the face. You would have no choice but to write him up for VC. So, why write him up for anything less if the foul was committed to some other part of the body. Remember a player cannot commit SFP unless he makes a reasonable attempt to play the ball - if he doesn't do that, then it must be VC, it matters not if the opponent has possession of the ball!

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

A quick look at the currently published entry level presentation slides reveals an over the ball challenge "may" be serious foul play as well as kicking or attempting to kick. It's been so long since I've been to a clinic where national instructors have been presenting that I can say, for absolutely sure, that I haven't heard what Ref Montanino has. That said -- it doesn't mean it wasn't said. I'll investigate further...

This site has published previously there is a difference between serious foul play and violent conduct and it lays to the opinion of the referee as to what's happened. If I'm the match official and I see an over the ball challenge I'll start with serious foul play and a direct free kick but given the opinion it was a deliberate act to avoid the ball and harm the opponent I'll submit the sending-off as violent conduct in my match report. During the match it really makes no difference to the scheme of things whether or not he is off for serious foul play or violent conduct. The referee need only say to the player: "For that one you're off mate and show the red card."

Regards,