What makes a charge a foul?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by CDM76, Oct 26, 2007.

  1. NHRef

    NHRef Member+

    Apr 7, 2004
    Southern NH
    We are getting caught up in something silly. Up til a year or two ago, the advice specifically called out dangerous tackles from behind. it was changed to just say dangerous tackles. This makes it stronger in that any tackle the ref deems excessive force can be red carded. It also stops (ya right) shouts about slide tackles from behind being illegal.
     
  2. ref47

    ref47 Member

    Aug 13, 2004
    n. va
    some of this may help.

    Instructions for Referees
    and
    Resolutions Affecting Team Coaches and Players

    From 2005 version, although 2007 is out.


    2. Tackling
    A tackle as such is not an infringement of the Laws of the Game. It becomes an infringement only if the tackler plays carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force, or places his opponent in danger.
    (a) A sliding tackle from the front or side, made with one or both legs, is permissible if, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous. If, however, the player making the tackle trips his opponent before, during, or after making contact with the ball, the referee shall award a direct free kick to the opposing team. The referee must judge whether an illegal trip occurred or whether the opponent fell over the leg of the player making a legal tackle.
    (b) Tackling with the foot lifted from the ground may be dangerous, whether contact is made with the ball or not. A player who lifts his foot should be penalized if the referee considers he is endangering an opponent by so doing. If the player deliberately plays over the ball and makes contact with his opponent's leg, this is serious foul play and must be sanctioned with a send-off (red card) and a direct free kick (or a penalty kick, if appropriate).
    (c) Tackling with two feet together, studs up, if uncontrolled and from a distance, could be judged as at least dangerous to the opponent and possibly reckless as well. If controlled and from a short distance, there may be no danger.
    (d) A tackle, regardless of direction, which endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sanctioned as serious foul play. The player must be sent from the field (red card) and play restarted with a direct free kick (or a penalty kick if committed by a defender inside his own penalty area).


    3. Charging from behind
    Charging from behind is permissible only if the opponent is intentionally impeding (shielding the ball). The charge, however, must be made fairly and under no circumstances to the back (spinal area).
     
  3. jclepp

    jclepp New Member

    Feb 28, 2001
    Georgia
    One of the simple "rules of thumb" that has been helpful to me is looking at the angle of approach. Was the initiator taking a Y or a V to the other player/ball.
     
  4. Nashvillian

    Nashvillian Member

    Jul 1, 2004
    Isn't it obvious?
    Benji, you always say things so well. I appreciate your insight.

    Your statement reminds me of a point made by Robert Evans about a hand in the back (although the point he was making was really about the limitations of the wording of the Laws of the Game).

    On a corner kick, two players are standing where the ball is coming down, but the attacker has a slightly better position. The defender, at just the right instant, gives a small push in the back so that the attacker misses the header or at least does not get his best shot on it. The push accomplishes its objective and the ball is cleared.

    The push was not careless - the defender did exactly what he intended to do.

    The push was not reckless - the defender (quite experienced at this maneuver) did not endanger the attacker; he didn't even knock the attacker down.

    The push was not excessive force - the defender only applied a small amount of force, just barely enough to make the attacker miss.

    So, while we all would agree this was a foul, it did not meet the literal criteria of being performed in a manner that was careless, reckless or using excessive force.
     
  5. Sandcrab Margarita

    Apr 22, 2007
    Arizona
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I dispute that it was not excessive force. A push that denies a player a position on the field to which he is rightly entitled is, by my definition, excessive force.

    Regards,
    Sandcrab
     
  6. ref47

    ref47 Member

    Aug 13, 2004
    n. va
    sandy, with that definition we cease to be a contact sport.
     
  7. Sandcrab Margarita

    Apr 22, 2007
    Arizona
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Depends on the definition of "entitled." In the scenario presented here, the defender is standing, not going for a 50/50 ball or moving in any way. Just there.

    If the defender were moving, I'd see it differently in the context of challenging for the ball.

    Regards,
    Sandcrab
     
  8. Nashvillian

    Nashvillian Member

    Jul 1, 2004
    Isn't it obvious?
    Would you then apply the penalty designated in the ATR for "excessive force," namely a send off (red card)?
     
  9. Sandcrab Margarita

    Apr 22, 2007
    Arizona
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nope. I'd whistle the foul & award a DK. It's clearly a push...I suppose if I had to explicate my reasoning, I'd choose careless or reckless, but as I've mentioned in another thread, I feel no obligation to explain my calls.

    BTW, one of the consistent criticisms I get about my games is that I "let 'em play" -- I really have to see something egregious, or done in direct contravention to a prior verbal warning, before I'll reach for a pocket.

    Happy Friday,
    Sandcrab
     
  10. Sandcrab Margarita

    Apr 22, 2007
    Arizona
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nashvillian,

    I've rethought my position, thanks to your well-meaning needling. I think it's somewhere between careless & reckless. I'd call the foul & award a DK.

    Let's say I decide that the best thing to do with myself this morning at 3:00 AM is to get to Las Vegas as quickly as possible. I hop in my vehicle, get to the 15, & then drive towards Nevada at 115mph. Cop pulls me over.

    My drive was not careless? I did exactly what I intended to do.

    My drive was not reckless? I didn't get into an accident. Not many others on the road at that hour to endanger.

    Thanks for the food for thought!
    Sandcrab
     
  11. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I see it differently. I'll use tripping as an example but the logic is the same for all fouls where "careless" is used.

    As a player I am not allowed to trip an opponent. As I play I should take care not to do that. If I still trip someone I have been careless (with some exceptions).
     
  12. AspireNatlRef

    AspireNatlRef Member

    Jul 13, 2007
    New Orleans
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I disagree with the concept of "careless" here. It substitutes the word intended for careless... Just because I intend to do something doesn't mean it was careful. The act of pushing the defender was not careful. It WAS careless, however it may be intentional.

    Other definitions of careless include showing lack of consideration. Was the defender considerate? No, he was careless... was he unconcerned or indifferent? Yes, he was careless.

    So the carelessness occured in that situation, however the defender may have intended to do it.

    I know a semantic argument, however, I dislike seeing something that tries to simplify a complex component of the LOTG by only looking at it on was.

    Its all good,

    ANR

    (and while I was typing Dadof6 said the same thing...)
     

Share This Page