PK call in Sheff United v Liverpool - Intent ?

[Dr Jay]

In last Saturday's EPL game - Sheffield United v Liverpool, a PK was awarded to Steve Gerrard after a run into the box that resulted in a weak shot has Gerrard was falling. At full speed, it looked like he got clipped but the replay showed he there was no contact.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=376588&cc=5901

From the article ... "David Unsworth has accused referee Rob Styles of making excuses for the error that marred Sheffield United's return to the Premiership.


Captain Chris Morgan was adjudged by Styles to have clipped Steven Gerrard in the penalty area, resulting in Liverpool's equaliser in the 1-1 draw at Bramall Lane.


But Styles then opened up a can of worms by claiming players can be penalised for simply intending to foul an opponent, even if there is no contact."

Isn't the center correct ?

[bluedevils]

The Laws of the Game say that 'attempting to trip' is a direct free kick foul, just as actual 'tripping' is. It does not seem to be called very often, and I would say not often enough. If a player jumps to avoid being tripped and loses his balance, the referee is acting within the LOTG to award a direct free kick.

[Wahoo]

The Laws of the Game say that 'attempting to trip' is a direct free kick foul, just as actual 'tripping' is. It does not seem to be called very often, and I would say not often enough. If a player jumps to avoid being tripped and loses his balance, the referee is acting within the LOTG to award a direct free kick.

And coaches and fans love to shout and scream if it is called.

But from the Laws of the Game...
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent


Reminder that if the intent is there, there doesn't actually have to be contact - but it often is hard to say someone attempted to trip the person rather than they tried to play the ball or that the no-contact took away an advantage.

[Englishref]

I think this was the classic case of using the letter of the law to try and justify a mistake tbh. There's no way a sliding tackle to win the ball can be classified as an attempted trip, as Rob Styles suggested. Anyone who's played football know when you slide in to tackle an opponent, you're not attempting to trip them.

The only real argument is whether or not there was any contact. I don't think there was, but I think Steve Gerrard was put off balance by having to hurdle the tackle to stay on his feet, which suggests to me his progress was impeded, and the technically correct restart would have been an IDFK.

Although more worrying was the lack of a second yellow card, or straight red, depending on whether you saw it as simply USB or DOGSO. :rolleyes:

[bluedevils]

I think this was the classic case of using the letter of the law to try and justify a mistake tbh. There's no way a sliding tackle to win the ball can be classified as an attempted trip, as Rob Styles suggested. Anyone who's played football know when you slide in to tackle an opponent, you're not attempting to trip them.

The only real argument is whether or not there was any contact. I don't think there was, but I think Steve Gerrard was put off balance by having to hurdle the tackle to stay on his feet, which suggests to me his progress was impeded, and the technically correct restart would have been an IDFK.

My interpretation of this scenario is different than yours. If a player slides in to tackle the ball but makes contact with the opponent and no contact with the ball, and the opponent falls down or otherwise loses ball possession, it is likely a foul has been committed. This foul is almost surely of the 'tripping' variety.

If the player slides in to tackle the ball and makes no contact with the ball, and also makes no contact with the opponent...it is less likely that a foul has occurred, but still very possible. If the opponent loses balance by having to hurdle the tackle to stay on his feet, this to me is clearly a case of 'attempting to trip' and NOT a case of impeding. 'Attempting to trip' is written in the laws of the game. If this Gerrard example isn't the type of thing that FIFA had in mind for 'attempting to trip,' then I don't know what is.

Regarding "Anyone who's played football know when you slide in to tackle an opponent, you're not attempting to trip them." In most cases, yes - you aren't attempting to trip them. But sometimes, you end up tripping them anyway. Not all tackles are successful.

[Wreave]

If a player slides in to tackle the ball but makes contact with the opponent and no contact with the ball, and the opponent falls down or otherwise loses ball possession, it is likely a foul has been committed. This foul is almost surely of the 'tripping' variety.

Not to be too picky, as I agree with everything else you said, but this foul seems to be of the "tackling an opponent, and making contact with the opponent before making contact with the ball" variety. It's still a DFK.

I don't like the phrasing of "attempt to trip" as it leans in the direction of intent, which referees cannot judge without being mindreaders. Referees are supposed to judge whether an action was deliberate, not whether it was intentional.

If a defender deliberately slides into the path of the opponent, and for whatever reason (skill of the attacker or poor execution by the defender or malice) misses the ball, that defender puts himself in a real tough situation where the attacker might be disadvantaged, either through direct contact or by having to avoid that contact. In either case, a DFK/PK is the appropriate response.

[sidis]

But from the Laws of the Game...
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

Yeah, and if a player touch the ball before the player but enter with excess of strength you have a foul too.

[bluedevils]

...this foul seems to be of the "tackling an opponent, and making contact with the opponent before making contact with the ball" variety.
Actually, I think you misread the scenario. I said the player never makes any contact with the ball, so it couldn't really be of the variety you said.

I don't like the phrasing of "attempt to trip" as it leans in the direction of intent, which referees cannot judge without being mindreaders. Referees are supposed to judge whether an action was deliberate, not whether it was intentional.
I know what you mean about not wanting to judge intent, but I have always had a hard time seeing the distinction between 'intentional' and 'deliberate' and the effectiveness of that as the explanation why we don't judge intent. If those 2 terms aren't synonymous, then they are darn close.

If a defender deliberately slides into the path of the opponent, and for whatever reason (skill of the attacker or poor execution by the defender or malice) misses the ball, that defender puts himself in a real tough situation where the attacker might be disadvantaged, either through direct contact or by having to avoid that contact. In either case, a DFK/PK is the appropriate response.
Great explanation. I really like the way you described this.

[tmaker]

Not to be too picky, as I agree with everything else you said, but this foul seems to be of the "tackling an opponent, and making contact with the opponent before making contact with the ball" variety. It's still a DFK.

I don't like the phrasing of "attempt to trip" as it leans in the direction of intent, which referees cannot judge without being mindreaders. Referees are supposed to judge whether an action was deliberate, not whether it was intentional.

If a defender deliberately slides into the path of the opponent, and for whatever reason (skill of the attacker or poor execution by the defender or malice) misses the ball, that defender puts himself in a real tough situation where the attacker might be disadvantaged, either through direct contact or by having to avoid that contact. In either case, a DFK/PK is the appropriate response.
Obviously you refereed the Italy-Australia match in the World Cup... What does the attacker's "maybe being disadvantaged" have to do with anything, if you're so hard against "intent"?

The origin of the "contacting an opponent before the ball..." foul had nothing to do with such challenges, and in fact was meant more for SFP tackles from behind players and such.

You may not like "attempting to trip/strike/kick" whatever, but it's in the Laws for a reason, and the reason has little to do with "intent" that cannot be read quite obviously. A player throws a punch and misses--are you going to avoid calling a foul because there was no "attempt to strike"? Let me see that one in a Hispanic league men's game. It doesn't take a genius to infer the attempt to strike or kick or trip in most cases. Having said that, I'd say that the tackle under consideration was not such an instance, and Styles bottled it.

[Shackleton]

If the player slides in to tackle the ball and makes no contact with the ball, and also makes no contact with the opponent...it is less likely that a foul has occurred, but still very possible. If the opponent loses balance by having to hurdle the tackle to stay on his feet, this to me is clearly a case of 'attempting to trip' and NOT a case of impeding.

I disagree with your interpretation. "Attempting to trip" necessarily looks at intent. If a player attempts to trip, then it is a foul regardless of whether or not the other player loses balance. If a player attempts to play the ball (i.e., not trip), then it is not "attempting to trip," regardless of whether or not the other player loses balance. The result of the action is not relevant to an "attempting" foul.

I haven't seen the play in question, so I can't comment on whether it was a good call or not. But, absent any circumstantial evidence that the defender attempted to trip rather than play the ball, then it would seem a bad call.

'Attempting to trip' is written in the laws of the game. If this Gerrard example isn't the type of thing that FIFA had in mind for 'attempting to trip,' then I don't know what is.

How about any situation away from the ball?

[Shackleton]

I don't like the phrasing of "attempt to trip" as it leans in the direction of intent, which referees cannot judge without being mindreaders.

Why can't referees judge intent? Of course, minds cannot be read, but actions can be observed and intent inferred from those actions. If two players are yelling at each other and one takes a swing at the other, but barely misses, then, IMHO, there was intent to strike. This is a much easier call to make, than a really close offside call.

Referees are supposed to judge whether an action was deliberate, not whether it was intentional.

I do not understand the distinction you are making between "intentional" and "deliberate."

[bluedevils]

I disagree with your interpretation. "Attempting to trip" necessarily looks at intent. If a player attempts to trip, then it is a foul regardless of whether or not the other player loses balance. If a player attempts to play the ball (i.e., not trip), then it is not "attempting to trip," regardless of whether or not the other player loses balance. The result of the action is not relevant to an "attempting" foul.

I've never heard it explained this way before. Your explanation makes some sense, and has me reconsidering the meaning of the words 'attempts to trip' in Law 12, but in the end I still disagree fundamentally with the idea that 'attempting to trip' requires intent to be evaluated. I think you are getting too hung up on word games here.

Sadly, I don't recall any guidance from FIFA regarding the 'attempts to trip' part of Law 12. Has anyone seen such guidance? If so, please point us to it. The 2006 ATR mentions it, but only briefly: Section 12.4, TRIPPING.
"Tripping or attempting to trip is an offense if it is clearly directed at an opponent and causes the opponent to falter or fall."

A little more telling is the 2nd, final paragraph of section 12.1, WHAT IS A FOUL? "Except for a handling offense, it is not necessary for the player's action to be considered 'deliberate' in the sense that the player intentionally set out to kick, push, trip, hold or otherwise foul the opponent. If that were so, the referee would have to be capable of reading a player's mind. Under Law 12, the referee makes a decision based upon what he or she sees a player actually do -- the result of the player's action -- not upon what might be in the player's mind." The key part for me is, the referee makes a decision based upon...the result of the player's action...


If this Gerrard example isn't the type of thing that FIFA had in mind for 'attempting to trip,' then I don't know what is.

[quote]How about any situation away from the ball?
Well, for me a player trying to trip another player away from the ball would typically be a violent conduct sort of thing, not a garden-variety DFK tripping foul. So I don't think that is what the law writers had in mind when they crafted the 'attempts to trip' language in Law 12 as one of the DFK fouls.

[bluedevils]

The origin of the "contacting an opponent before the ball..." foul had nothing to do with such challenges, and in fact was meant more for SFP tackles from behind players and such.
This is getting a bit off topic, but interesting to me nonetheless...

Admittedly, I am not a LOTG historian but I never imagined the 'contacts opponent before contacting the ball' language had anything to do with SFP type tackles, and I don't buy it. Quite the contrary - for me, this language is meant to clarify when a player makes an otherwise clean play on the ball (non-violent, non-dangerous, etc.) but touches the opponent first. As distinguished from an equally clean tackle in which the opponent is contacted second, i.e. after the ball is contacted. In both cases, the amount of contact with the opponent is similar and may be very minor. It is simply a matter of the sequence of events.

Do you have some sort of evidence to back this up, or is it just your personal opinion?

[Statesman]

The attempting to do X variety of foul is a byproduct of the absent V8 clause stating that we only whistle deliberate breaches and ignore trifling or doubtful breaches. The major shift away from judging intent left a hole regarding cases where an opponent WOULD foul the player had the player not moved out of the way. Without the "attempting" clause, we would be left with only those fouls that make contact.

This does not promote the "Safety" part of Safety, Equality, Enjoyment, as it places the burden on the fouled player to NOT move out of the way of a dangerous challenge to earn a free kick at the expense of his health.

Obviously that would not be ideal, so the attempting clause gives referees the power to punish what WOULD be a contact foul had the player not moved out of the way. I'm not sure if that's the case in our scenario for this thread as I haven't seen the play, but it is a perfectly legitimate call.

[bluedevils]

This does not promote the "Safety" part of Safety, Equality, Enjoyment, as it places the burden on the fouled player to NOT move out of the way of a dangerous challenge to earn a free kick at the expense of his health.
Great way of looking at it, and well said.

[Wreave]

Why can't referees judge intent? Of course, minds cannot be read, but actions can be observed and intent inferred from those actions.

I do not understand the distinction you are making between "intentional" and "deliberate."

If actions are observed, intent does not have to be inferred.

"Deliberate" means the action was under the player's cognitive control, while "intentional" means he had a particular outcome in mind.

We don't have to (nor should we) attempt to determine what *outcome* a player had in mind. The tripping example is the easiest: a player, by deliberate action, extends his foot into the path of an opponent. Was he trying to play the ball - i.e., the outcome he desired was to kick the ball away from his opponent? Or was he trying to trip his opponent? Or was he trying to make it look like he was playing the ball while actually tripping his opponent? Or was he trying to mostly play the ball while keeping an option of tripping the opponent open in case he missed the ball? IT DOESN'T MATTER. The player deliberately put his foot into the path of the opponent, and the opponent tripped. It's easy.

The case you cite of a player taking a swing at an opponent and missing, either because the opponent got out of the way or because the player just missed, is exactly why it's written as "strike or attempt to strike". Maybe the player didn't really want to hit the opponent - maybe he intended to miss him, but scare him. You know, teach him a lesson without actually hurting him. Maybe he started the swing in anger, but caught himself in mid-strike and managed to avoid hitting the opponent. Do you know for sure the intent? Does it matter? Of course not. You saw what happened: the player's arm was well under his control and a clear case of "attempting to strike" is at hand.

If it helps, here's what it says in the USSF ATR:
Under the terms of Law 12, the word "deliberate" in the sense of deliberately committing a foul does not mean that the player intentionally set out to kick, push, trip, hold or otherwise foul the opponent. If that were so, the referee would have to be capable of reading a player's mind. Under Law 12, the referee makes a decision based upon what he or she sees a player actually do — the result of the player’s action — not upon what might be in the player's mind.

[Statesman]

The origin of the "contacting an opponent before the ball..." foul had nothing to do with such challenges, and in fact was meant more for SFP tackles from behind players and such.Bluedevils called on this already, but I also wanted to question how you come to this conclusion. From my background, all this law says is, "You can't wipe out the opponent to get to the ball." There's no reference to SFP or VC, or has been from my recollection. Instead, ANY of the listed fouls that reach a certain level of brutality in the opinion of the referee were sanctioned as SFP or VC. The only major relationship between this specific law and SFP is that the types of illegal acts this law disallows tend to result in SFP more often than the others.

[Statesman]

If actions are observed, intent does not have to be inferred.You would have made Johnnie Cochran so proud...

[sandaroo]

If a defender deliberately slides into the path of the opponent, and for whatever reason (skill of the attacker or poor execution by the defender or malice) misses the ball, that defender puts himself in a real tough situation where the attacker might be disadvantaged, either through direct contact or by having to avoid that contact. In either case, a DFK/PK is the appropriate response.

On the one hand that is true.
However, on the other hand we are taught to call fouls based upon age and skill level, and the playing conditions of the field.

I hope that a player the caliber of Steven Gerrard would be able to play through an attempt to trip.

I taught at several intro and upgrade clinics this summer. One thing I emphasized if teaching a module on Fouls and Misconducts is that we as youth and/or recreation level referees cannot call the same type of game that FIFA referees call in a men's international level game.

Yes, Rob Stiles is well within the LOTG to award a PK for this. But to call a PK on an attempt to trip in an English Premiere League game....wow. I thought players were expected by this time to jump over an opponent without losing their balance.

Englishref brought up an excellent point....Morgan was the last defender before the goalkeeper when this foul was called. Why wasn't he at least cautioned for the play.

[Wreave]

Yes, Rob Stiles is well within the LOTG to award a PK for this. But to call a PK on an attempt to trip in an English Premiere League game....wow. I thought players were expected by this time to jump over an opponent without losing their balance.

Englishref brought up an excellent point....Morgan was the last defender before the goalkeeper when this foul was called. Why wasn't he at least cautioned for the play.

I haven't seen the play in question, but those who say the explanation was a weak justification for a simple bad call do make sense to me.

My comments are more general - to the point that, yes, an attempt can (and sometimes should) be called. If a player *tries* to play through, but is unsuccessful, he shouldn't be penalized for trying rather than simply going down.