No call on Ching injury, US v. Ecuador

[Justin Z]

I'm sure most of you saw this game, but for those who didn't, a quick recap.

Basically, a cross was sent into the box and Ching leaned over a bit, quite similarly to the way John Terry leaned when he got a boot to the brain, but the difference was, Ching got a shot off before taking the Ecuadorian's foot in the head. Now the Terry "was it dangerous play?" thing was talked about ad nauseam and I don't want to get into the issue of whether or not it might have actually been a foul. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume it was a foul.

My question for the referee experts would be this: Assuming the official saw the entire play clearly and came to that conclusion -- that there was, indeed a foul -- did he, in essence, make a split second advantage call because Ching got the shot off at just about the same moment he got hit in the head with the boot? In other words, if Ching had been kicked in the head and did NOT get a shot off, then if it was a foul, it was also a PK, but in this case, since he did get a shot off, would the correct call (again, assuming it WAS a foul) be to allow play to continue as the player got his shot off?

True, it did not go into the goal, but that shouldn't factor in, right? Thanks.

[MassachusettsRef]

I didn't see the match and this call really can't be dissected without video. Do you know if the play is up on YouTube?

[IASocFan]

...For the sake of this discussion, let's assume it was a foul.
...In other words, if Ching had been kicked in the head and did NOT get a shot off, then if it was a foul, it was also a PK, but in this case, since he did get a shot off, would the correct call (again, assuming it WAS a foul) be to allow play to continue as the player got his shot off?

True, it did not go into the goal, but that shouldn't factor in, right? Thanks.

If the referee thought, it was a foul, he should have called a PK. If the shot had gone into the goal, the goal would stand. If the shot had missed, then no advantage and PK.

I remember the play, but not how low Ching's head was. Like the Terry's play, a lot of these are not called.

[garbaggio]

Ching should buy Hurtado dinner. He was almost invisible before getting kicked in the face but was the 2nd best player on the field, after Donovan, once he got his nose bloodied.

[USSF REF]

Not having seen the play I assume the timing goes something like this...

Shot, foul, ball goes out of play.

If that is the case, the shot is taken before the foul - so there isn't really a second bite at the apple argument here. This is because the foul came after the ball was already on its way but before it had gone out of play. If the foul had come first, maybe its a different story.

If I'm the referee then and before I whistle and I see the ball goes in the goal, I ignore the foul and award the goal - and maybe caution- I didn't see it I don't know?

If I don't see it go in the goal, I give the whistle and point to the spot.

[Justin Z]

Not having seen the play I assume the timing goes something like this...

Shot, foul, ball goes out of play.

If that is the case, the shot is taken before the foul - so there isn't really a second bite at the apple argument here. This is because the foul came after the ball was already on its way but before it had gone out of play. If the foul had come first, maybe its a different story.

If I'm the referee then and before I whistle and I see the ball goes in the goal, I ignore the foul and award the goal - and maybe caution- I didn't see it I don't know?

If I don't see it go in the goal, I give the whistle and point to the spot.
That is close. It was actually shot/foul just about simultaneously, perhaps within a quarter of a second, and then the shot was saved by the keeper.

So from what I can gather from what you're saying, even with that slight of a time difference between the shot and the foul, because the foul occurred after the shot, a PK should've been awarded because the result of the play was not a goal.

Thanks!

By the way, I have not been able to find the foul on YouTube, just the goals. If I come up with a clip, I will add it.

[chrisrun]

I didn't see the match and this call really can't be dissected without video. Do you know if the play is up on YouTube?

You can see the highlight of the play on ussoccer.com now.

[KMJvet]

I think the play was basically John Terry gets kicked in the head deja vu all over again.

[chrisrun]

At full speed, it's hard to make that call, as Ching is diving in while the defender is trying to clear. Very similar to John Terry. No protests for a PK. Of course, Ching did get the shot off. Here is a still of the contact.

http://referee.riehlplace.com/pics/Ching_face_kick.jpg

[intechpc]

I've watched the clip and the full match and I have to say if I'd seen it I'd have called it. That foot is WAY too high regardles of where Ching's head was at the time. Look at the still photo above, it's well over his waist level and in fact he's contorting his body to bring it as high as possible.

Now the big question is would I have seen it. Definitely a tough one given the amount of traffic and the speed at which the ball was moving around inside the box. Gotta give the referee the benefit of the doubt that he simply missed it here.

[blech]

I've watched the clip and the full match and I have to say if I'd seen it I'd have called it. That foot is WAY too high regardles of where Ching's head was at the time. Look at the still photo above, it's well over his waist level and in fact he's contorting his body to bring it as high as possible.

***

if we're talking about awarding a PK for kicking an opponent as i think most are if a foul is called, then i'd note that it doesn't really matter how high the foot was. whether the foot is too high is part of the dangerous play analysis, and once the foot (whether too high or not) makes contact with the opponent you would generally shift from a dangerous play call to the direct kick for kicking an opponent. stated another way, he can kick him in the shins, the knee, or the head, and all probably "should" be a direct kick if he gets there late and doesn't get the ball (and might be a kick even if he does get some ball depending on the circumstances).

the reality is that the fact that this play occurs in the penalty area probably unconsciously factors into analysis, particularly when the player actually does get his shot off. how many times have you seen a player shoot and then get tripped or kicked by a sliding defender and the ref award the goal kick - yes, you got fouled, but you got your shot off first so it didn't really effect play. not technically correct, but there is a practical side to this thinking, depending of course on the severity of the late tackle.

similarly, move the play to midfield instead of in the area, and perhaps change it to an attempted tackle by two players racing to the ball. the bang-bang aspect of the play in Ching's case was noted above, but the fact that he gets the shot off would indicate it was shot then kick to head - Ching got there a moment before the kick as opposed to a moment after. if the same thing happened at midfield, and two players are swinging a foot for the bal and player A gets to ball first and pushes it down line before being kicked/tripped by defender trying to play ball - whistle - foul - sorry lad, you might not have meant it, but you got there late - and depending on the play a card for your troubles just because it was reckless even though you really were trying to play the ball. it all seems fairly standard and an easy call.


slight digression, but for what it's worth, and i can't say that i completely agreed with the call, i saw a player receive a red card for a similar play that occurred in the middle of the field a few months back. i frankly thought it wasn't warranted where the player was clearly attempting to play the ball, but the ref in that instance apparentely viewed the kick to the head as striking an opponent and so dangerous that he didn't want the player on the field any further. for all the talk of not judging intent, i think you still have to at least to some extent in these kinds of situations because that's what separates a punch to the head from an attempted bicycle kick clearance to the head, but anyways, just more to think about....

[intechpc]

Blech, you are correct that the height of the kick really has no bearing since this is not a Dangerous Play situation. The reason I brought it up though is that it helps put some perspective on where this falls in the spectrum between trifling (let it go) and a cautionable offense. Now I KNOW this is going to be an unpopular stance on this board, but to me the height of the kick and the fact that it's in a crowded PA area makes this borderline careless to me. Now I'm not suggesting that I'd caution for this particular incident necessarily but it definitely pulls it to the more serious side of the "Spectrum" if you will. No way can I call it trifling just because the shot got off. He's endagered the safety of another player and that has to factor into the decision over whether to give it or not.

Regarding the last scenario you mentioned. A RC seems a bit stiff but I guess if the referee sees it as excessive force or something of that nature SFP is still a possibility.