Ref decision

[kazaa]

Question for any football refs out there.

If a player is in the box running with the ball, loses his footing and on the way down is deliberately 'fouled' by an opponent mistiming a tackle and kicking his foot really hard - pretty much in order to make sure there was no chance of recovery, then is that a foul or is it not a foul as the player was already falling over?

Law 12 suggests it could be a foul (therefore a penalty) but I am not sure.

Thanks

[redsturgeon]

My first thought would be yes a definite penalty.

Looking at Rule 12

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... igRp7VH.99

then it confirms my original thoughts. I can't see how the fact that the player is potentially already going down has any relevance to the kick.

Imagine if the player had fallen over completely and is then deliberately kicked...penalty.

John

[didds]

looking at it another way...

same attacking player trips over his own feet in the box and starts to fall.

same defender kicks him in the head.

is that a foul?

Assuming that it is (!!??) why should kicking him in the foot/ankle area be any different?

The offense is for foul play, not the _trip_ surely?

didds

[Lootman]

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

There's a little bit of a contradiction there. Your last sentence indicates that actual contact is required, but further up it says "kicks or attempts to kick" and "trips or attempts to trip" etc.

My understanding has always been that actual contact isn't necessarily required. So to take an extreme example, if one players throws a punch at another player and misses, that's still an offence punishable in the same way.

In other words the rule isn't just to punish actual contact but also aggressive intent.

[redsturgeon]

There's a little bit of a contradiction there. Your last sentence indicates that actual contact is required, but further up it says "kicks or attempts to kick" and "trips or attempts to trip" etc.

My understanding has always been that actual contact isn't necessarily required. So to take an extreme example, if one players throws a punch at another player and misses, that's still an offence punishable in the same way.

In other words the rule isn't just to punish actual contact but also aggressive intent.

Not my last sentence, it's a direct quote from rule 12.

John

[didds]

My understanding has always been that actual contact isn't necessarily required. So to take an extreme example, if one players throws a punch at another player and misses, that's still an offence punishable in the same way..

Is this true in football (aka soccer) ?

I'm in a discussion elsewhere about swing and misses in rugby so I'm truly iunterested in a non-judgemental manner

(FTR IMO a swing and a miss should be treated exactly the same as a connect).

didds

[redsturgeon]

redsturgeon wrote:

My understanding has always been that actual contact isn't necessarily required. So to take an extreme example, if one players throws a punch at another player and misses, that's still an offence punishable in the same way..

It wasn't my quote but Lootman , unfortunately the quoting here seems to make it look as if I said it.

If I am correct even when a kick or a punch aimed at an opponent in football misses by a mile, the player still goes down like a sack of potatoes, clutching his face! (not that a sack of potatoes has a face to clutch)

John

[PinkDalek]

redsturgeon wrote:

My understanding has always been that actual contact isn't necessarily required. So to take an extreme example, if one players throws a punch at another player and misses, that's still an offence punishable in the same way..

It wasn't my quote but Lootman , unfortunately the quoting here seems to make it look as if I said it. ...
John

I hope you don't mind my mentioning it but I have noticed that you do not name the person you are quoting after the initial quote square brackets, thus giving rise to potential misunderstandings. If you use the " without amendment the name should show.

[redsturgeon]

Thanks PD, I didn't bother since my response was directly below the post responded too but your point is well made.

I am averse to getting too many nested quotes with a post as it seems to take up lots of space though.

John

[PinkDalek]

Thanks PD, I didn't bother since my response was directly below the post responded too but your point is well made.

John

Yes, I see what you mean but if you don't quote the name, the person to whom you are replying doesn't get a notification (such as in the instance ).

Hah and you amended your post as I replied. Yes that is a consideration!

[kazaa]

Thanks to all,

The question was prompted by what I thought was a strange decision at a youth game at the weekend.

I'm never aggressive towards the refs as they have a tough job but this one had me quietly seething as when I asked him after the game why it wasn't a penalty he said " 'cos the lad was already off balance under his own steam"

The opposition coach said to me 'definite penalty' and the opposition players were joking at the end about it being a penalty and getting out of jail so pretty much everyone had a different opinion to the official but c'est la vie.

I suspect it was due to the fact it was the last minute of injury time with the scores level.

[Scott0966]

My understanding has always been that actual contact isn't necessarily required. So to take an extreme example, if one players throws a punch at another player and misses, that's still an offence punishable in the same way..

Is this true in football (aka soccer) ?

I'm in a discussion elsewhere about swing and misses in rugby so I'm truly iunterested in a non-judgemental manner

(FTR IMO a swing and a miss should be treated exactly the same as a connect).

didds

Yes, a swing and a miss is considered the same as making full contact.

[didds]

cheers scott.

didds

[modellingman]

I suspect it was due to the fact it was the last minute of injury time with the scores level.

If this is true (and you will probably never get to know this) this is a much greater transgression by the referee than his error in incorrectly applying the laws of the game by not penalizing the foul. A good referee will not be influenced in his or her decisions by either the scores or the amount of time remaining. A referee who does so has effectively allowed him/herself to show bias in favouring one team over the other. That is not good in any sport.

mm
(qualified waterpolo referee)