Send-off for Professional Foul

[falcon.7]

I was looking over FIFA.com's history of the Laws, and something caught my eye:

"Law XII - Fouls and Misconduct
Mandatory Instruction of the IFAB ("professional foul")
If, in the opinion of the referee, a player who is moving towards his opponents' goal with an obvious opportunity to score a goal is intentionally and physically impeded by unlawful means, i.e. an offence punishable by a free-kick (or a penalty-kick), thus denying the attacking player's team the aforesaid goal-scoring opportunity, the offending player shall be sent off the field of play for serious foul play in accordance with Law XII (n)."

Now, I see all the time in box scores and on television cautions for professional fouls, but this understood this as meaning an obviously deliberate foul after an attacker has beaten a defender, but when said defender is not the last (which would be considered DOGSO). I see that this decision does have "denying...goal-scoring opportunity", but why are the words "professional foul" used to describe this? Has the definition of a professional foul changed since then?

Further down in the history (1995), it has a bullet point about "re-editing of offenses". Is this the point where the definition/punishment changed?

[bluedevils]

I'm no historian.

Lots of people have lots of different meanings for the term 'professional foul.' Some feel it is a sendoff offense a la DOGSO, some feel it is a tactical, cautionable foul, some feel it is a dirty over-the-ball type cautionable foul, etc etc.

It might be possible to glean how FIFA's definition of a professional foul has changed, but the term 'professional foul' has been used to mean different things by different people over the years -- so I don't think a single universal definition can be established at any point in history.

[Alberto]

A professional foul has always meant a tactical foul committed to stop an attack. It is a cynical play that should be punished with a caution. It may be DOGSO only if the criteria for DOGSO is met. Professional fouls were committed and rarely sanctioned back in the old days, meaning before the 1990's. FIFA felt that they had to sanction this cynical play since it was destroying the game. I can recall watching professional soccer matches in the 1970's and 1980's where the term was used as described above.

[mw26]

hmm...i first heard the phrase 'professional foul' used to mean a bad tackle meant to look innocuous, like rolling the studs over the ball and into another player's ankle. a tactical foul, to me, is just that, a 'tactical foul'

[bluedevils]

That's the point -- a professional foul means different things to different people.

[USSF REF]

Wikipedia - Professional Foul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_foul)

Interesting bit of history... however it is totally unsuported by sources. Still, this seems right with what I had known the case to be.

Professional Foul has taken on numerous meanings lately. Still refering to tactical fouls but now also to plays deliberately designed to injure another player (typically a high scoring player of the oposing team) so that person is no longer a threat against your squad.

The thing to note is the term "professional". It implies that these are the types of fouls that professionals commit. They want to win at all costs and are willing to commit certain types of fouls to obtain those ends as their very livelihood is at steak in those games.

Not all serious foul play is a professional foul, but certainly the term now extends unto amateurs also.

[bluedevils]

The thing to note is the term "professional". It implies that these are the types of fouls that professionals commit...certainly the term now extends unto amateurs also.

I have always felt the term 'professional foul' was a misnomer. I know of NO types of fouls that professionals commit which amateurs do not. Amateurs do the same junk as the pros. Some amateurs are not quite as good at committing these types of fouls, but they ARE committing the same sorts of fouls.

[refmike]

A professional is willing to "take one for the team". Hence the term used for a deliberate foul that should always draw a card but is worth the price.

[macheath]

A professional is willing to "take one for the team". Hence the term used for a deliberate foul that should always draw a card but is worth the price.

Right; lots of examples, but one noteworthy one was in the Germany-South Korea 2002 World Cup semifinal, when Michael Ballack committed a professional foul on a Korean breakaway, and got a yellow which kept him out of the final due to accumulated cards.

[JohnR]

The thing to note is the term "professional". It implies that these are the types of fouls that professionals commit. They want to win at all costs and are willing to commit certain types of fouls to obtain those ends as their very livelihood is at steak in those games.

That sums it up nicely.

Boy I know played last month in Argentina against youth professional teams, as part of a Regional ODP tour. The professionalism of these kids jumped out at him. These kids were HUNGRY, and they were prepared to do absolutely anything to win the match and to win the approval of their coach. Their future and their families' futures depending upon their success. In such a climate, conventional notions of sportmanship were utterly absent. He said he was fouled like never before, constantly and deviously, from the moment the game started until it ended.

[bluedevils]

A professional is willing to "take one for the team".

So is an amateur player.

[Martininho]

That sums it up nicely.

Boy I know played last month in Argentina against youth professional teams, as part of a Regional ODP tour. The professionalism of these kids jumped out at him. These kids were HUNGRY, and they were prepared to do absolutely anything to win the match and to win the approval of their coach. Their future and their families' futures depending upon their success. In such a climate, conventional notions of sportmanship were utterly absent. He said he was fouled like never before, constantly and deviously, from the moment the game started until it ended.

One of my observations regarding U.S. soccer's slowness in development has been that soccer here is a game played largely in organized leagues of suburban, comparatively wealth kids. They aren't playing to get out of poverty, and therefore have the luxury of multiple interests and other options, and (hopefully) sportsmanship is taught as an integral part of the experience.

The best historical parallels in the U.S. to Argentine youth/pro development were (and may remain) basketball and boxing.

I have also played with and against players from Argentina. They indeed play as if their lives (or at least livelihoods) depend on the outcome, and there is no such thing as a "casual" scrimmage or match. As competitors, they can either drive your rapid improvement or run you off the pitch (assuming you can still run...or walk).

In a "casual" match, one should recall that there is no such thing to the product of the Argentine youth system (no matter how many years removed), and take precautions accordingly. It took me a long time to over my "anti-Argentine" bias, and to understand that it was a cultural difference in ethics around the sport; something to be understood and appreciated, if not approved of.

My two cents on the "professional foul", as taught to me by professionals; A professional foul is one as said earlier "taken for the team". In most cases this is to prevent a scoring chance, and the true professional would commit such a foul with the intent and effort of avoiding injury to the opponent.

The second type of "professional foul" is properly done in retaliation to reckless or vicious play by the opposition. A prime example is in retaliation on behalf of a teammate (most often your vulnerable players, such as a scorer or goalkeeper). It can often be done to assert your own "place" on the pitch, in response to a "test foul" designed to see how you respond to contact and/or provocation.

This retaliation is neither kind nor gentle, and is intended to send a definite message. When done by a skilled player it can and should be a measured blow that doesn't inflict serious injury, but that conveys the message "there's more where this came from if you don't back down". Rarely is more required.

As a player born and raised in the U.S., I had many such encounters, as I was tested in every new venue. I can attest that the unspoken language translates beautifully in spanish, catalan, french, and a host of eastern european and african languages. As strange as it may sound to some, knocking each other about with a degree of restraint and skill is often a bonding ritual between players; it takes some skill, experience, and good mentoring to engage in this "conversation", and one can quickly appreciate quality when encountered.

[bluedevils]

...knocking each other about with a degree of restraint and skill is often a bonding ritual between players; it takes some skill, experience, and good mentoring to engage in this "conversation", and one can quickly appreciate quality when encountered.

Great post. The last part "one can quickly appreciate quality when encountered" is a great line. It definitely requires skill to commit many of the more severe, dirty, or nasty fouls. For example, I consider myself a pretty good player, but was never very good at the scissors tackle.

[USSF REF]

Also, remember that in all these other countries most teams play only 12 -14 players per match. So you have to fight for those XI shirts all the time.

[Martininho]

Great post. The last part "one can quickly appreciate quality when encountered" is a great line. It definitely requires skill to commit many of the more severe, dirty, or nasty fouls. For example, I consider myself a pretty good player, but was never very good at the scissors tackle.

That's a great example. A scissor tackle can be done legally and with little risk of injury. It can also end an opponent's career (or your own, so one had better know what they're doing for both's sake).

For the professional foul type 2, catching someone's leg between yours and then NOT doing the follow through is a great way of sending the "how 'bout throttling things back a bit so we don't have to take this to the next level, eh mate?" message. Simple, direct, gets their attention toot sweet.

[Doug the Ref]

Martiniho, I liked your post of yesterday, referencing a bit of a "bonding ritual" between players. As a player I was fortunately taught by my coaches that there were certain times on the pitch that I was going to be fouled, and I should prepare myself for it. There were also times when I was going to have to inflict the foul. Oftentimes ther were varrying degrees of force in the contact.

As a referee, I wonder if those lessons are being taught to players. It seems many today think the defenders should part ways so they have an uncontested attack at the goal. God forbid that there be any contact. But isn't it beautiful when 2 players are really having a battle throughout the game, recognizing each other's talent and skill, and not screaming about every contact, but rather working through the contact and having a nice go at the goal.

[Martininho]

A side note: the best referees understand that it's not possible for them or the linesman to see everything that happens in a match. They will often be aware of the "conversations" taking place, and to the extent that they don't get out of hand, allow them to take place.

More than once in my career, I was discretely approached by a referee during a lull in the match or at the half to inquire whether "things have gotten worked out" between the players/teams, and to confirm that there won't be any need for further "conversations" that could lead to bookings (either way).

This all might sound a bit barbaric to the uninitiated, or a rationale for condoning "dirty" play. IT IS NOT. It can take serious skill to commit a "professional foul" without injury to your opponent or yourself. If you take the risk of commiting a "professional foul" and negligently hurt your opponent, that foul will be long remembered, and long resented. Retaliation is almost a given.

Whether you happen to believe that there should be an ethical code to the sport for its own sake (I happen to believe that there should be), practicality demands that there be one. Understanding how to assert yourself without diving, whining, or descending into butchery can prolong your career and those of your peers, because less playing time is lost recovering from the injury due to endless retaliation.

By the same token, that ethic imposes responsibility on the
individual and team to be intolerant of their own reckless or dirty play. If you happen to be a standout player for your team and condone or defend dirty play by your teammate, you can also bet that the retaliation will focus on you, not on the otherwise useless thug that happens to wear the same strip as you. If nothing else, enlightened self-interest demands that you keep tabs on your conduct and that of your teammates. More than one such thug has been weeded out of a league when his own teammates refused to retaliate on his behalf.

Finally, when the officials understand that you are working with them to keep the match under control, and that you don't whine (or let your teammates do so) over every other call, you're more likely to get the benefit of the doubt on close calls, or when you need the officials' help in controlling an opponent's "thug" player. Referees appreciate professionalism, and will return the courtesies. Part of what made Pierluigi Collina so effective as a referee was his respect for players' ability to police themselves and the match, so that when he did assert his authority, the need was understood and respected by the players.

The bottom line on the "professional foul". Like any other aspect of the sport, there's an art and ethic involved, and knowing how to handle the contact and conflicts can make the difference to your game, season, and career.

[Doug the Ref]

In fact, I used this approach last night in my men's open indoor game. Player 1 player was running along the boards and ran into Player 2. Player 2 was not happy with the contact and on the next play made certain to add a 2-handed push to player 1. A couple of other players yelled for a foul, (which would have been the obvious easy call for the 2-handed push), but both opponents were happy with playing on. I made it a point to talk to both player 1 and player 2, advising that "You both got your shot in and now we are even and good to go, right?" They agreed and the game finished without incident.

I could have called the foul on Player 2 for the push, but he would not have been satisfied because he felt that he was fouled. I explained what happened, that he actually put himself in the position of the attacker, along the lines of obstruction. He was very pleased with the explanation and the no call. Player 1 was happy with everything also.

I love it when a plan comes together. I do understand that this is a quite risky management of a game and things like this can blow up in a moments notice. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good? :D

[Martininho]

But isn't it beautiful when 2 players are really having a battle throughout the game, recognizing each other's talent and skill, and not screaming about every contact, but rather working through the contact and having a nice go at the goal.

Absolutely! :D