serious foul play?

[KMJvet]

In the Earthquakes vs LA match, Tyrone Marshall kicked Chris Brown full on in the face. Brown's face was at typical face level....he was not bending over or diving for a header. Marshall was given a yellow card. Looking at the laws of the game, why is that a yellow card and not red?

Which of the 7 things on this list from FIFA site under cautionable offenses is this? And why isn't it serious foul play under Sending-off offenses?

LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
Cautionable Offences
A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
1. is guilty of unsporting behaviour;
2. shows dissent by word or action;
3. persistently infringes the Laws of the Game;
4. delays the restart of play;
5. fails to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick or free kick;
6. enters or re-enters the field of play without the referee’s permission;
7. deliberately leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission.

Sending-Off Offences
A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
1. is guilty of serious foul play;
2. is guilty of violent conduct;
3. spits at an opponent or any other person;
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area);
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick;
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures;
7. receives a second caution in the same match.

-KMJvet

[HoldenMan]

If a penal foul is committed in a reckless manner, or a play is made in a very dangerous manner, then it would be a caution for USB.

I haven't seen the incident so I can't comment on it. My thinking is that the referee thought the kick for the ball was made recklessly, but there wasn't anything excessive about it, nor was there any deliberate attempt to kick the opponent in the face. Basically, the player didn't mean to kick him in the face, but he should have acknowledged that there was at least some chance of it occurring and thus should have changed his approach to consider this possibility. By not doing so he was reckless.

SFP is usually reserved for blatantly deliberate attempts to seriously hurt the opponent.

[MassachusettsRef]

HoldenMan has pretty much addressed the issue, but I want to add a small caveat.

As he said, the referee probably deemed the kick "reckless", which warrants a yellow card for unsporting behavior. A kick would have to be made with "excessive force" to warrant a red for serious foul play. The caveat I add here is that "excessive" applies to the force needed to play the ball. This is why a clear full kick to the face (seemingly what you describe) CAN be only a yellow card and not considered "excessive" while something as (relatively) mild as intentionally stepping on someone's foot with your studs can be a red card.

And making such determinations can sometimes be complete guesswork for the referee. I have a real-life example from one of my games that illustrates the point. In a regional final this summer, a right back went to full-volley a bouncing ball out from his own end (he was standing almost near the touch line, facing away from the field). While he was lining up the volley, an attacking midfielder from the opposing team raced in and skillfully kneed the ball over the defender at the last second. As the defender had been watching the ball in the air the whole time, he kicked for the ball anyway (had absolutely no time to pull out of the challenge) and missed, but his follow-through caught the onrushing attacker squarely in the stomach. The attacker went down immediately and the foul looked terrible.

Luckily for me--and the defender--I had just happened to be positioned off the touch line in that quadrant (my quadrant, bench side) as there had been a throw-in deep in that area of the field. I was no more than three yards from the foul when it happened. Only because of my (lucky) positioning did I see that the defender never took his eyes off the ball and never knew the attacker was there. He was just trying to kick the ball and I got away with just a free kick (it helped that the coach of the attacking team saw the same thing I did and that his team was already playing 11 v 10). However, I realized immediately (because my positioning was so unusual), that if I had been in almost any other position on the field, I would have only seen the force of the kick and the violent result and would have definitely pulled a red card. It reinforced how important positioning can be and, unfortunately, how luck can play a deciding factor in getting game-altering decisions correct.

[KMJvet]

Thanks...I think that makes sense. Can someone direct me to definitions of serious foul play vs unsporting behavior?

And I have wto clarification type questions. One is about intent. I thought that the only time the referee was to judge intent was handball. I take it that's not true? As the referee is to judge intent to injure in this situation? And if that's true, is a player's reputation supposed to enter into the judgement of intent to injure?

Second clarification concerns this being a high boot. Isn't that reckless just by definition because it should result in an indirect free kick even if you miss the person's face. And so, if you don't miss, it's like double reckless or violent. I mean what's bothering me now that I have the explanation, is that this seems to set up a scenerio where a very significant injury can occur (concussion, broken facial bones, teeth out) and as long as the ball is somewhere in the vicinity the player inflicting the injury is protected by the worse punishment possible being yellow card because it takes a lot of momentum to get your feet that high into the air?

[MassachusettsRef]

Thanks...I think that makes sense. Can someone direct me to definitions of serious foul play vs unsporting behavior?Unsporting behavior and serious foul play are not "defined" in the laws of the game. The FIFA Additional Instructions to Referees has a passage on what constitutes serious foul play and the USSF ATR and 7+7 documents have numerous examples of what can be classified as USB. Basically, insofar as fouls go, serious foul play has to involve "excessive force", "violence" or "brutality" (whereas "excessive force" is found in the laws and the other two are found in other documents). Meanwhile, unsporting behavior must involve a "reckless" or "tactical" foul (with "reckless" found directly in the laws).

And I have wto clarification type questions. One is about intent. I thought that the only time the referee was to judge intent was handball. I take it that's not true? As the referee is to judge intent to injure in this situation? And if that's true, is a player's reputation supposed to enter into the judgement of intent to injure?You don't judge intent when determining whether a foul occurred. However, intent certainly is a factor in deciding whether or not misconduct occurred and whether or not a card should be shown for the misconduct.

Insofar as taking a player's "reputation" into account, that gets fuzzy. Theoretically, all things being equal and objectively speaking, should it come into play? Probably not. But, in some circumstances, reputation could be a deciding factor (subconciously) in making a call that a referee is only 70 or 80% sure of.

Second clarification concerns this being a high boot. Isn't that reckless just by definition because it should result in an indirect free kick even if you miss the person's face. No, because a high boot by itself isn't a "dangerous play". And, if it is dangerous, it's only a technical infringement.

I mean what's bothering me now that I have the explanation, is that this seems to set up a scenerio where a very significant injury can occur (concussion, broken facial bones, teeth out) and as long as the ball is somewhere in the vicinity the player inflicting the injury is protected by the worse punishment possible being yellow card because it takes a lot of momentum to get your feet that high into the air?True, but significant injuries can happen on absolutely fair plays. Take your scenario and change it around a little. In MLS (last year I believe), Taylor Twellman attempted a diving header to score a goal and was kicked ("violently") in the face by his opponent, causing a substantial injury. Now, because Twellman was the one who committed the dangerous play, should he be further sanctioned with a card for misconduct because of the result? And, turning the play back around, if a high boot had caused the injury, would you really want a red card when a defender was merely trying to clear the ball out of his area (leaving aside the possible DOGSO circumstances)?

In my view, if the law was interpreted the way you want it to be, you'd be seriously cutting into a defender's ability to simply play soccer. It is true that dangerous high kicks are illegal, but on the other hand, high kicks (volleys, bicycle kicks, etc.) are part of the game and perfectly legal when not dangerous. Sometimes a defender (or any player) thinks he is executing a non-dangerous play and, because of circumstances that develop around him (like in my example above), the play becomes dangerous or careless. The sanction of a free kick for such an accidental infraction is penalty enough in my eyes. If you made such plays an automatic caution or send off, defenders would be much more hesitant to play the ball AND attackers would be much more inclined to go into challenges without regard for their own bodies, knowing that a lucky break might be a defender sent off.

[KMJvet]

Unsporting behavior and serious foul play are not "defined" in the laws of the game. The FIFA Additional Instructions to Referees has a passage on what constitutes serious foul play and the USSF ATR and 7+7 documents have numerous examples of what can be classified as USB. Basically, insofar as fouls go, serious foul play has to involve "excessive force", "violence" or "brutality" (whereas "excessive force" is found in the laws and the other two are found in other documents). Meanwhile, unsporting behavior must involve a "reckless" or "tactical" foul (with "reckless" found directly in the laws).

Thanks....that helps. Sounds like it's a lot of "case law." I have one additional question, though, which is a clarification of what is meant by "tactical." There's a lot of situations where a certain striker or winger is fouled to take them off their game and force a team to go to other players....very sucessfully....but my guess is that although that's highly tactical fouling, it's not considered as such?


No, because a high boot by itself isn't a "dangerous play". And, if it is dangerous, it's only a technical infringement.

What does technical infringement mean?


True, but significant injuries can happen on absolutely fair plays. Take your scenario and change it around a little. In MLS (last year I believe), Taylor Twellman attempted a diving header to score a goal and was kicked ("violently") in the face by his opponent, causing a substantial injury. Now, because Twellman was the one who committed the dangerous play, should he be further sanctioned with a card for misconduct because of the result? And, turning the play back around, if a high boot had caused the injury, would you really want a red card when a defender was merely trying to clear the ball out of his area (leaving aside the possible DOGSO circumstances)?


I remember the Twellmen issue very well. I think I came here to ask why a foul wasn't called for dangerous play by Twellmen.


In my view, if the law was interpreted the way you want it to be, you'd be seriously cutting into a defender's ability to simply play soccer. It is true that dangerous high kicks are illegal, but on the other hand, high kicks (volleys, bicycle kicks, etc.) are part of the game and perfectly legal when not dangerous. Sometimes a defender (or any player) thinks he is executing a non-dangerous play and, because of circumstances that develop around him (like in my example above), the play becomes dangerous or careless. The sanction of a free kick for such an accidental infraction is penalty enough in my eyes. If you made such plays an automatic caution or send off, defenders would be much more hesitant to play the ball AND attackers would be much more inclined to go into challenges without regard for their own bodies, knowing that a lucky break might be a defender sent off.

I don't disagree with this, except look at the flip side. If you err on the side of letting players play (on the chance they might not have realized the potential consequences) and risk more injuries, you create a game with more fouls and more dissent and more injuries. And at the MLS level, that creates a game that's not as good for fans. There are a few fans that come to see injuries and hope players lose their tempers and abuse refs and get in fights....but not most of them. Most fans want a free flowing game with few fouls, no fights, no bickering with the ref, short stoppages and few to no injuries.
Critics of the MLS say it's slow and they're right. Part of that is speed of play. But much of it is because of all the stoppages for fouls, restarts, injuries, it taking forever and ever for the wall to get in place for free kicks, goalies dilly dallying about to get goal kicks back in place.
All of what makes for a game that's "ugly" to watch, is perpetually giving the players too much license with everything including assuming they're just playing the hard for the ball. Cause, honestly, many times they're not. They're taking a risk in hopes of giving someone a knock, sending them into the bench, etc to gain advantage because they've learned over the years they'll get the benefit of the doubt. In contrast if you have fewer fouls and fewer free kicks, and players get 10 yrds back promptly (or they get the card the rules say they should get so they stop delaying and they get a 2nd if there's dissent and off they go) , the game becomes a lot better for fans after that first incident of proving we mean what we say.

If players, attackers or defenders, realize that they are not going to get the benefit of the doubt to the extreme, they'll foul less. They don't stop playing hard, they'll just adjust to playing a more technical and enjoyable style for fans to watch. If they know they really will get cards for persistant infringement, they'll stop doing it. If they learn that carrying that first yellow doesn't protect you from a second one, they'll commit fewer fouls that risk that second one, instead of the opposite which we have now of "since I've got one, I can do anything I want short of an offense that would warrant a straight red" ...which of course, means more fouls, more delays, and slower, uglier game.
If the referees start giving cards for players that don't get 10 yrds back within a reasonable amont of time, we can cut out the delays on free kicks in a matter of a week. Players do things that make the game less attractive to fans because now they have incentive to. But this league should have evolved now beyond hack, grab and kick someone in the face. In professional leagues, there just has to be a motiviation of making a good game for most fans because that's what pays the bills that allow the league to exist.

-KMJvet

[Chubbywubby]

I have one additional question, though, which is a clarification of what is meant by "tactical."
To me, it usually means a foul that is clearly committed with the purpose of stopping attacking play -- like pulling down an opponent as he blows past you with the ball on his way to goal. Clearly more than just "careless" (i.e. using poor judgment) but not rising to the level of a sendoff for DOGSO.


What does technical infringement mean?
Generally, it means those minor infringements for which the restart is an IFK: offside, PIADM, the various keeper handling violations, preventing the keeper from releasing the ball, etc. The obvious exception is when the game is stopped solely to administer a caution or sendoff to a player (IFK restart but definitely not a minor infraction!).