Question Number: 15800

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/15/2007

RE: travel teams Under 16

dee of middletown, nj usa asks...

Am truly enjoying the nuances of your opinions and how they improve my own understanding and job on the field.

My question involves the penalty area (though it would apply elsewhere as well). Two players challenging for the ball. Defender slides toward ball from a short distance clearly at the ball. Attacker moves from a right angle (side) and gets to the ball with his foot inches ahead of the defender. The shot is kicked and off target (no goal). The defender's momentum catches the attacker and sends him to the ground.

From my perspective, the defender was focused wholly on the ball as was the attacker. The attacker was simply inches quicker in getting himself to the ball. I saw the fall as a consequence of two efforts neither careless, reckless, nor excessive (though contact did cause a fall).

The term "late hit" came from everywhere. Admittedly, the defender did not contact the ball first ... it was gone the moment he got there. It looked more like the ball disappeared than a late hit. I did not signal a DK/PK, but to be honest I felt stuck in brain neutral.

Did I miss a textbook foul for a DK/PK?

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Dee, thanks for your support. I find that answering questions
helps my game as well.

Did you miss a textbook foul? Yes, technically you did. Law 12 says it is an offense if a player "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball."

But there is another aspect here. At the time of the Great Condensation Rewrite of the Laws of the Game (1997), it was decided that Law 5 Decision 8 could be removed from the text, as "everybody knew" the principle. USSF's Advice to Referees documents it as still being applicable:

"The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalise only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators."

Did something happen in your game? Certainly. Was it trifling - that is, had little or no effect on play? You obviously decided that was true. Well done. We need referees who can think, not just apply the text of the Laws.

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

Without seeing this, I cannot tell you exactly what my decision w0uld have been. This sounds like a situation where the attacker ran into the legs of the defender, causing him to fall to the ground. Most likely you will get no call from me here.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Dee,
we always puff up when we get a good review but humility aside I agree with Ref Voshol. LOL! ;o) It is as much a journey for understanding for us as it is an explanation to those like yourself when we respond to a query. Each reply increases our awareness of why we do what we do and replies like yours reinforces the benefit.

Foul recognition is as much art as science and the political will to sell it to all concerned! You will often hear us introduce the concept of, "your match, your decision, your reputation!" that as a MATCH condition players must adapt to what you do as you try and glean just what they need and the game requires!

Technically almost every physical contact is in essence a breech of the law but if we called every technical breech the frustration levels would likely reach unacceptable levels very quickly. Just as ignoring the fundamental non negotiable breeches lead to all out anarchy. The Doubtful or Trivial nature of any contact foul or situation rests on the tolerance for fairplay and the acceptance by referee and players to what degree of contact will pass for that today!If a player will play through or want to retailiate as referee you need to read the incident so that doubtful in reality means you missed something that was not trifling to the player!

Late tackles or wipeouts after a shot are often misconduct as the ball has gone out of play. Was the contact cautionable? As in reckless? Was it a legitimate play for the ball and only marginally offensive? If it was only careless you could warn the player lucky for you ball was out of play!

I despise cheap shots where the intent clearly is to wipeout the player in retribution for shooting or scoring. Late, nasty and with desperation! That said there will be close calls and you must DECIDE based on instinct as much as by what you see just what needs to be acted on!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Dee,

Unfortunately, this is one of those "you had to be there" type of questions. Without seen the foul myself I cannot offer you the correct answer. In fact, only you know the correct answer as you were the referee at that field, in that game, at that time.

Technically speaking you may have missed a foul. As law 12 states it is a foul to make contact with an opponent before the ball, while tackling for the ball. Yet, I may have viewed this foul as trifling because the player taking the shot got his chance at goal anyway. In essence, the foul did not have any impact on the game. However, I'm only guessing a solution without having seen this play in person.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

I wonder, given the answers of three panelists, it the word trifling is what we should think about as referee, doubtful absolutely but trifling -- I tend to think not... Why because what is trifling to us may not be so to the player concerned. This player missed a shot on goals. That is never trifling, especially when helped by an opponent. Here, the way you state the sequence of events Dee, doubtful is really a consideration as is accidental meeting of the two players. You describe a controlled, desperation slide for the ball where in at the last instant the opponent gets a boot in and crunch goes the tackle. The fact when tackling a player has made contact with the opponent before the ball is there without doubt. BUT, the instant before contact with the ball a boot showed up. Honest mistake, I lean towards that. Accidental, surely, but this is one of the direct free kick fouls that needs only happen for foul play.

That is how I think through the events. 20/20 hind sight, as written and read. What would I do? That's not the issue, what you did is the issue. Given you made the decision based on what you saw then the decision is correct. Could you have been closer, had a better angle, have thought it through before hand? Only you can answer that one. At least you have thought it through for the next time. Bottom line, you made a decision, it was correct for the match and hang the spectators. Its your match, your decision and your reputation.

Regards,