Red or Yellow?

[Sport Billy]

Although the video is not great here it is: - http://www.womensprosoccer.com/video/index?pid=TjfxFT5Ae0vsJcGg02GX9FDFcost4yCp

At the 2:00 minute mark - Wambach takes out Daniela.

Is it a red or a yellow?

Although IMO resulting injury is not relevant to the call, Daniela was left with two injured knee ligaments and a cracked tibia.

My vote:

RED - serious foul play

Reasoning:
Two-footed, Studs-up, lunge with excessive force that endangered the safety of the opponent.

[hradilv]

Reasoning:
Two-footed, Studs-up, lunge with excessive force that endangered the safety of the opponent.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7307/womensprofessionalsocce.png (http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=womensprofessionalsocce.png)


IMHO the studs are not up. Daniela's leg was just stuck to the ground. I think it was reckless, but not excessive force.

My vote: Yellow

[brainer 99]

Agree with the red. Although there may have been no intent, she was reckless and wild in the challenge. Two footed challenge on a player often puts you in a position of potentially harming them.

[boylanj64]

From the view we got, it looked like Wambach slid in with studs down, from relatively close distance, which is supposed to be an indicator of red v yellow, and was not coming at her opponent but rather slightly in front of her - no excuse, but I'd say it is yellow over red.

[PVancouver]

Although both feet became involved in the tackle, and both feet were involved with the seriousness of the injury, I would not call this a two-footed tackle.

Wambach attempted to plant with her left foot and strike with her right foot. No sane person would have expected Daniela to be able to reach out as far as she did with her right foot to cut the ball back, which resulted in her getting stepped on by Wambach's left foot.

Despite Daniela being able to cut the ball back a considerable distance, Wambach was still nearly able to play the ball with her right foot. It wasn't like Wambach had little chance to play the ball. She very nearly did.

[Soccer7947]

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7307/womensprofessionalsocce.png (http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=womensprofessionalsocce.png)


IMHO the studs are not up. Daniela's leg was just stuck to the ground. I think it was reckless, but not excessive force.

My vote: Yellow

From the view we got, it looked like Wambach slid in with studs down, from relatively close distance, which is supposed to be an indicator of red v yellow, and was not coming at her opponent but rather slightly in front of her - no excuse, but I'd say it is yellow over red.

Agree, to me that is the def. of Reckless tackle. There was no excessive force, and we have to make the call with out knowing the injury.

[oldmanreferee]

Red card she is making this tackle spread legged and Just after a goal has been scored to make it 3-2. As well as she is a international player that knows the proper way to tackle. If that was her receiving the tackle we would all be saying hhhhhhhhhmmmmm maybe. As well as what if that tackle was in the MLS would we be talking about it like that? IHMO

[CDM76]

My instinct on the original viewing was a yellow. Very aggressive tackle that resulted in strong contact.

After watching the replay 5 or 6 times and pausing at and about the moment of contact, I would not change the call.

Obviously the angle and resolution are not ideal but I did not see "studs up" and there was a clear attempt to win the ball. Daniella's clever touch moved the ball away from the tackle effectively but Wambaugh missed the tackle by a millisecond.

IMO, the tackle was reckless in the sense the fouled player received significant contact and the tackle was attempted without reasonable concern for the consequences of coming in aggressively and missing the ball.

Unfortunately, the reach by the attacker left her unbalanced with the majority of her weight on the leg that was clattered into.

I dumped an opponent last night on a similar tackle where I won the ball. His momentum carried him into me as much as mine took him down. Simple careless foul in my misreading his momentum at a men's rec league level. No foul at all in most professional matches.

[boylanj64]

As well as he (sic) is a international player that knows the proper way to tackle.

Since when is that a consideration?

[Wahoos1]

Since when is that a consideration?

At my last recert where the instructor kept repeating, "now these are professionals, so they know exactly what they are doing and this must be taken into consideration."

[boylanj64]

At my last recert where the instructor kept repeating, "now these are professionals, so they know exactly what they are doing and this must be taken into consideration."

There's a difference between saying you should treat professionals differently than you treat youth players - they're playing different games. To say Wambach should get different treatment than the other professionals out there because she plays at the international level is wrong. If a professional comes on to a U14 field, he'll get reffed the way they do - if a 14 year old comes on to a USL field, I'll ref him the same as everyone else. What your instructor was saying was view professional matches differently, but within the same match you have to treat everyone the same.

[Sport Billy]

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7307/womensprofessionalsocce.png (http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=womensprofessionalsocce.png)


IMHO the studs are not up. Daniela's leg was just stuck to the ground. I think it was reckless, but not excessive force.

My vote: Yellow


I disagree - the studs are up IMO and comedown directly on top of Daniela's foot. She then brings in the second leg. That's why I think it is excessive.

Here's a picture a split second before the one you post - studs are up on the left foot IMO.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/pjmad/Soccer/wamb.png

IMO, she has exceeded the force necessary to make a clean fair play for the ball and put Daniela at a considerable risk of injury.


Obviously the angle and resolution are not ideal but I did not see "studs up" and there was a clear attempt to win the ball. Daniella's clever touch moved the ball away from the tackle effectively but Wambaugh missed the tackle by a millisecond.


While the "studs up" is a factor,

Attempting to play the ball; a clever move by the attacker; and being late by a millisecond; - none of that matters - if you're late you're late, if you're reckless you're reckless and if you're using excessive force you're using excessive force.

When determining excessive force and recklessness - those other factors do not matter.

Even if a player wins a ball, it doesn't change the nature of the attack. One who touches the ball first can still be carded for serious foul play.

[todler]

I've got a decent back and forth going on from a girls game right now. Local messageboard, which I watch to get a feel of what the players thought, has a debate going about a PK I called in my girls HS game. Keeper slid, missed the attacker, and took her out. Raining like mad, feels was a mess, and she slid more than normal because of the wet conditions.

This kind of dovetails with your comment Billy, the keeper was late, so its a foul, it was in the box, so its a OK, and that's all there is. Naturally, most of the players disagree, but ce la vie.

So my question is, do you consider late as late, always, or is there conditions to be considered as well?

[ColumbusSoccerRef]

I'm surprised noone has mentioned the big picture in the match. Consider. . .Daniela had already scored two goals and was clearly the team's playmaker in the center of the pitch. If I'm the center referee, I'm certainly keeping this in mind when I look at this challenge and decide whether it's intended to send a message.

I don't know whether I would have gone with a yellow or a red, but given the incident and the big picture of the match I definitely would have been strongly leaning toward the back pocket.

-- CSR

[Sport Billy]

I've got a decent back and forth going on from a girls game right now. Local messageboard, which I watch to get a feel of what the players thought, has a debate going about a PK I called in my girls HS game. Keeper slid, missed the attacker, and took her out. Raining like mad, feels was a mess, and she slid more than normal because of the wet conditions.

This kind of dovetails with your comment Billy, the keeper was late, so its a foul, it was in the box, so its a OK, and that's all there is. Naturally, most of the players disagree, but ce la vie.

So my question is, do you consider late as late, always, or is there conditions to be considered as well?

Late is late --- if your playing in the rain, the player needs to adjust accordingly - rain is no excuse for a foul.

[todler]

interestingly, I had the exact same thought. and so did the coach who's team I called it against. Always makes you feel better to hear the caoch yell out "you missed the ball but got ALL of the player, move on" as a ref, IMO.

[oldmanreferee]

Since when is that a consideration?

Red card she is making this tackle spread legged and Just after a goal has been scored to make it 3-2. As well as she is a international player that knows the proper way to tackle. If that was her receiving the tackle we would all be saying hhhhhhhhhmmmmm maybe. As well as what if that tackle was in the MLS would we be talking about it like that? IHMO

Boylan
I apologize for the misspelling.
THe comment should have been since she is a professional/international player she knows better and how to do it. They do not make "tackles or fouls" by mistake. As well as she has been known to commit reckless tackles.
Let me ask everyone this. If this had been Eddie Robinson/Adrian Serioux/ Clearence goodson/OKWUGBA Felicia, would we be saying the same thing?

[boylanj64]

Let me ask everyone this. If this had been Eddie Robinson/Adrian Serioux/ Clearence goodson/OKWUGBA Felicia, would we be saying the same thing?

Well, that's a good consideration. If a male player went in to a tackle that slowly, I would certainly not be thinking red. Honestly, from the view we have, I still think it'd be yellow, taking just the play in to consideration, because her studs seem down to me, she seems to go for the ball, and she is coming in from fairly short range. Now, taking in to consideration the big picture, can I see red? Considering it is off a kickoff, the recipient has scored twice, and Wambach is known to commit dangerous tackles, I think so. I could see it being a message tackle, in which case it clearly necessitates a send off, and as you rightly say, Wambach is playing at a high enough level that a message tackle could be cleverly disguised, as this one may well have been. With male players, you expect open aggression; with women, I could see Wambach noticing a planted leg and giving it the nudge it needed. I don't want to assume here, and I am still leaning yellow, but it was something you had to be there to judge properly.

[CDM76]

While the "studs up" is a factor,

Attempting to play the ball; a clever move by the attacker; and being late by a millisecond; - none of that matters - if you're late you're late, if you're reckless you're reckless and if you're using excessive force you're using excessive force.

When determining excessive force and recklessness - those other factors do not matter.

Even if a player wins a ball, it doesn't change the nature of the attack. One who touches the ball first can still be carded for serious foul play.
No disagreement that a player can commit serious foul play and still get a touch on the ball (even prior to the contact with the player).

In this instance (based on the angle and quality of the video), I saw a reasonable attempt to commit an appropriate tackle. The attempt on the ball was made with the lead leg. The trail leg's position was consistent throughout the challenge (never whipped forward or wrapped around the opponent). The tackle was very nearly successful. An extremely skillful play moved the ball beyond the challenge at the very last moment.

Despite this, late is late and there was certainly a foul.

Was the foul careless? IMO, no. Too much force brought to a marginally winnable ball (highly skilled player in controlled possession with little element of surprise).

My discussion of the move and the timing goes into my interpretation of FIFA definitions of reckless and excessively forceful fouls in the 2009 Laws of the Game (p.108):

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard
to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.

If both players had made simulataneous contact with the ball, Wambaugh brought enough force to "win" the ball. The collision was not violent (despite the tragic injury). Wambaugh's momentum stopped almost at the point of contact.

Was the foul reckless? IMO, yes. There was a lack of regard for the danger and consequences to Daniela if the tackle were not successful. The tackle was equally likely to take Daniela to ground as it was to win the ball but going to ground is not in danger of injury.

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the
necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.

I did not feel the tackle was committed in "far" excess of the necessary force. I saw nothing in the angle of the video that suggested Wambaugh brought the type of force that would normally induce injury. In fact, after watching the video, I was quite surprised that a significant injury resulted.

Again, I would attribute the injury more to Daniela's awkward postion than Wambaugh's force. This does not negate the recklessness of the challenge but in a "normal" play (leg not awkwardly extended while bearing the majority of the player's weight-a condition which could not, IMO, be reasonably anticipated at the moment the tackle was initiated due to a very clever and atypical move) the risk of injury to Daniela would be minimal.

I certainly understand how another referee might see this play differently. Injury did occur but consider Rafa Marquez blowing out his knee with an awkward step while unchallenged.

No more than a touch on the ball rules out an excessively forceful foul does injury define one.

SB, perhaps we can agree to disagree?

[Sport Billy]

No disagreement that a player can commit serious foul play and still get a touch on the ball (even prior to the contact with the player).

In this instance (based on the angle and quality of the video), I saw a reasonable attempt to commit an appropriate tackle. The attempt on the ball was made with the lead leg. The trail leg's position was consistent throughout the challenge (never whipped forward or wrapped around the opponent). The tackle was very nearly successful. An extremely skillful play moved the ball beyond the challenge at the very last moment.

Despite this, late is late and there was certainly a foul.

Was the foul careless? IMO, no. Too much force brought to a marginally winnable ball (highly skilled player in controlled possession with little element of surprise).

My discussion of the move and the timing goes into my interpretation of FIFA definitions of reckless and excessively forceful fouls in the 2009 Laws of the Game (p.108):

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard
to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.

If both players had made simulataneous contact with the ball, Wambaugh brought enough force to "win" the ball. The collision was not violent (despite the tragic injury). Wambaugh's momentum stopped almost at the point of contact.

Was the foul reckless? IMO, yes. There was a lack of regard for the danger and consequences to Daniela if the tackle were not successful. The tackle was equally likely to take Daniela to ground as it was to win the ball but going to ground is not in danger of injury.

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the
necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.

I did not feel the tackle was committed in "far" excess of the necessary force. I saw nothing in the angle of the video that suggested Wambaugh brought the type of force that would normally induce injury. In fact, after watching the video, I was quite surprised that a significant injury resulted.

Again, I would attribute the injury more to Daniela's awkward postion than Wambaugh's force. This does not negate the recklessness of the challenge but in a "normal" play (leg not awkwardly extended while bearing the majority of the player's weight-a condition which could not, IMO, be reasonably anticipated at the moment the tackle was initiated due to a very clever and atypical move) the risk of injury to Daniela would be minimal.

I certainly understand how another referee might see this play differently. Injury did occur but consider Rafa Marquez blowing out his knee with an awkward step while unchallenged.

No more than a touch on the ball rules out an excessively forceful foul does injury define one.

SB, perhaps we can agree to disagree?

Except for this line, "No more than a touch on the ball rules out an excessively forceful foul" I agree to disagree.

That's all we can do --- I'm not about to take any of this personal.

But a touch on the ball does not rule out "excessively forceful".

But really, I see the challenge as excessive. You don't. It's that simple. That's why ITOOTR is so important. In front of one official it's a red in front of another it's a yellow.

No big deal.

Here is where we differ in opinion - I think - I'll agree that Daniella's positioning contributes to this injury. But my position is that the person with the ball can put themselves in any position they want. It is the challenger's job to take factors like body position, wet turf, etc in to account.

But, IMHO, that is the point of "excessive force" - if Abby wasn't 100% certain she could come in like she did, win the ball, and not put Daniella at risk for injury -- then she shouldn't come in with that force.

IMO, this was the typical frustrated player challenge. The excessive force combined with the situation makes it a RED in my book.

I must say, however, how a couple people can say this wasn't even a foul is beyond me.