Tackling Question

[Bill Schmidt]

I'm not a referee, but I thought I would invoke your knowledge of the rules. I've never played on a coached team, so I've just picked up the rules over about 18 years of playing and watching soccer.

For purposes of this question, assume the tackling player in the video below did not make contact with the attacking player until after the tackling player touched the ball. If so, is this tackle legal?
[Warning: the video includes a post-call obscene gesture from the player who the ref sent off]

Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vqsnKXL5BHE)

I would never try something like this because of the general ban on tackling from behind. However, I thought the more important rule was that, as long the tackling player makes contact with the ball before touching the attacking player, later (incidental) contact with the attacking player was fine. I am probably both incorrectly stating the rules, and missing some finer points of what actually happened in this video.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

[campton]

It was cautionable, then his second yellow. He wasnt given a straight red for Serious Foul Play.

[IASocFan]

One of the myths of soccer: if you get the ball first, it can't be a foul.

[code1390]

One of the myths of soccer: if you get the ball first, it can't be a foul.

Correct. If you make the tackle in a dangerous and reckless manner, it is a foul and possibly a caution or sending off.

[Another NH Ref]

One of the myths of soccer: if you get the ball first, it can't be a foul.

Funny, I had a 15-yr-old boy try that argument on me not even 2 hours ago. Needless to say, it didn't work.

[Wahoos1]

I'm not a referee, but I thought I would invoke your knowledge of the rules. I've never played on a coached team, so I've just picked up the rules over about 18 years of playing and watching soccer.

For purposes of this question, assume the tackling player in the video below did not make contact with the attacking player until after the tackling player touched the ball. If so, is this tackle legal?
[Warning: the video includes a post-call obscene gesture from the player who the ref sent off]

Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vqsnKXL5BHE)

I would never try something like this because of the general ban on tackling from behind. However, I thought the more important rule was that, as long the tackling player makes contact with the ball before touching the attacking player, later (incidental) contact with the attacking player was fine. I am probably both incorrectly stating the rules, and missing some finer points of what actually happened in this video.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Let reword your statement.

"If I get the ball first I can do anything I wish to the other player.."

Does that sound legit?

[Sport Billy]

I don't really see the foul here - the player in red is losing his footing and leaning hard to the left. The tackling player slides along the left - not directly behind. It was not violent or reckless IMO. He does make contact with ball and then the players legs come together.

I definitely would have cautioned that fish flapping around on the ground like he had been shot.


That being said, what a horrible display.

We have a sign of the cross followed immediately by flipping the bird.

It appears that he went to the bench and then was leaving - unless something was missing, I cannot figure out why the police in riot gear became involved. They were obviously playing at the red team's stadium. It looked like the police just wanted to come down on the away team.

Additionally, there is someone on the field in a red stripe jersey (I don't know if it was a player or not) getting in his face as he is being escorted out. That should never happen.

[intechpc]

I don't really see the foul here - the player in red is losing his footing and leaning hard to the left. The tackling player slides along the left - not directly behind. It was not violent or reckless IMO. He does make contact with ball and then the players legs come together.

I definitely would have cautioned that fish flapping around on the ground like he had been shot.


That being said, what a horrible display.

We have a sign of the cross followed immediately by flipping the bird.

It appears that he went to the bench and then was leaving - unless something was missing, I cannot figure out why the police in riot gear became involved. They were obviously playing at the red team's stadium. It looked like the police just wanted to come down on the away team.

Additionally, there is someone on the field in a red stripe jersey (I don't know if it was a player or not) getting in his face as he is being escorted out. That should never happen.

Really? You don't see the foul?? He goes through the player from behind to win the ball. The fact that his outstreched foot taps the ball a fraction of a second before his trailing leg takes out the opponent doesn't save him here. It was a dangerous tackle and certainly one I'd caution anytime I saw it.

As far as the police in riot gear, I think they were actually there for his protection as much as anything. He flipped off the crowd (as you mentioned a stadium full of opposing fans) after fouling one of their star players. Then he refuses to leave and makes a huge scene about being escorted off. The fans were ready to jump him, he should thank his lucky stars for the riot police.

[Sport Billy]

Really? You don't see the foul?? He goes through the player from behind to win the ball.

But he doesn't "go through the player" at all and it is definitely not "from behind"


He is along the right side of the player - no player contact yet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/pjmad/Soccer/Picture1.png

Still along side the player - just striking the ball - still no player contact
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/pjmad/Soccer/Picture2.png

Now starting to cut in front - player contact does not come until well after the the ball has been cleared.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/pjmad/Soccer/Picture3.png


How is this a foul?

[bdndyc]

Have to agree I wouldn't have blown for a foul there, let alone considered a caution.

Not through the player, in full controll of the challenge and no risk of injury for the player on the ball.

Poor decision if I cautioned every player who made a challenge like that I'd never end games with more than 9 players a side.

[DadOf6]

But he doesn't "go through the player" at all and it is definitely not "from behind"


He is along the right side of the player - no player contact yet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/pjmad/Soccer/Picture1.png

Still along side the player - just striking the ball - still no player contact
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/pjmad/Soccer/Picture2.png

Now starting to cut in front - player contact does not come until well after the the ball has been cleared.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/pjmad/Soccer/Picture3.png


How is this a foul?

First, the criteria for a card is any tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent.

Second, the laws state that it is a foul when the tackler make contact with the opponent before getting the ball. That is not the same as saying that there is no foul if you get the ball first.

For me, any tackle that begins from outside of the peripheral vision is a candidate for a card. This is a "tackle from behind." Than I look at the rest of the play to make a final decision. It's possible to make a clean tackle from behind so I won't call those. But if the player is taken out (before or after getting the ball) it's going to be a card.

Another way to look at it is to draw a line through the player's ears. If the tackle starts from behind that line the referee should start thinking about showing a card. It doesn't matter if most of the tackler's body slides alongside his opponent; the tackle originated from behind and such tackles are almost always dangerous.

[Sport Billy]

First, the criteria for a card is any tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent.

I agree


Second, the laws state that it is a foul when the tackler make contact with the opponent before getting the ball. That is not the same as saying that there is no foul if you get the ball first.

Completely understood.



For me, any tackle that begins from outside of the peripheral vision is a candidate for a card. This is a "tackle from behind."

So you can never catch a player who beat you and tackle him?

It's not where it begins that matters, it's where the tackle occured. This was clearly from the side. He didn't even swing his far leg. This was just a poke with his near leg.



Than I look at the rest of the play to make a final decision. It's possible to make a clean tackle from behind so I won't call those. But if the player is taken out (before or after getting the ball) it's going to be a card.

So you'd let the fact that this guy flopped around like a fish influence your call?


Another way to look at it is to draw a line through the player's ears. If the tackle starts from behind that line the referee should start thinking about showing a card. It doesn't matter if most of the tackler's body slides alongside his opponent; the tackle originated from behind and such tackles are almost always dangerous.

That is not the law or what the majority of officials are taught. It matters greatly if the slide is along side and not from behind.

[DadOf6]

So you can never catch a player who beat you and tackle him?

I can never do it because I'm too slow :rolleyes:

Other players can as long as they do it safely. A tackle that starts from behind and take out the opponent is most likely dangerous.

So you'd let the fact that this guy flopped around like a fish influence your call?

Non sequitor

That is not the law or what the majority of officials are taught. It matters greatly if the slide is along side and not from behind.

It matters not a bit.

This link is from a source that has the approval of the USSF:
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=206

Please note the "unseen direction" language. That is what I was talking about when I refered to preipheral vision or an imaginary line through the ears. I've heard it both ways.

The exact language I used may not be taught to most officials but the concept I am explaining had darn well better be taught to all referees.

[Sport Billy]

It matters not a bit.

This link is from a source that has the approval of the USSF:
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=206

Please note the "unseen direction" language. That is what I was talking about when I refered to preipheral vision or an imaginary line through the ears. I've heard it both ways.

The exact language I used may not be taught to most officials but the concept I am explaining had darn well better be taught to all referees.

I completely understand the "unseen" argument - but in the case at hand, the two had been running together for some distance. He was well aware of the defender.

I should also note that the link you cite also says:


A slide tackle is legal, provided it is performed legally. There is nothing illegal about a slide tackle by itself‹no matter where it is done and no matter the direction from which it comes. In other words, it is not an infringement to tackle fairly from behind‹if there was no foul committed. [Emphisis Added]

That last line describes this situation to a T.

[nsa]

One of the myths of soccer: if you get the ball first, it can't be a foul.The ball does not absolve you of all sin. ;)

I can never do it because I'm too slow :rolleyes:
...That's what the shirt tail is for. :D

[DadOf6]

I completely understand the "unseen" argument - but in the case at hand, the two had been running together for some distance.

Replay the video. At 0:18 the defender is not even in the frame. He was catching up from behind. The foul was at 0:19

He was well aware of the defender.

That does not negate the danger of the tackle. Tha attacker cannot see when the tackle started, where is started from, or where it was headed.

The defender could have been yelling "Here I am! Here I am!" and it would not have changed the danger of the tackle.

That last line describes this situation to a T.

The replay at 0:33 shows contact at or just below the knee. The leg moved away from the point of contact and he fell how I would expect him to fall. It was a twisty mess and he is lucky not to have sprained his ankle the way he landed and slid on it.

There was no flop.

[Sport Billy]

This guy made contact with the ball before contacting player. As such, it can only be deemed a foul if it was done in a reckless or dangerous matter.

Even if this were a tackle from behind, which it wasn't, that alone is not enough to make it reckless.

Here, he comes along side the player and pokes the ball away and he does so with a "closed" foot. - there is nothing reckless about it.

If you call and card this, you'll be blowing the whistle non-stop and end up with 7 cards given.

BTW, if your having trouble finding the flop, rewatch the first 3 seconds. He does two complete sommersaults.
(Maybe that's where the card should have gone) ;)

[DadOf6]

This guy made contact with the ball before contacting player. As such, it can only be deemed a foul if it was done in a reckless or dangerous matter.

Even if this were a tackle from behind, which it wasn't, that alone is not enough to make it reckless.

Here, he comes along side the player and pokes the ball away and he does so with a "closed" foot. - there is nothing reckless about it.

I am at a complete loss trying to see how you still assert that it was not from behind. The defender wasn't even in the frame less than a second before the foul. He hadn't caught up with the attacker when he left his feet to make the tackle. When contact was made his body was still behind the attacker, it wasn't alongside until after the contact.

"Behind" does not mean "at 6 o'clock," even 4 o'clock can be "behind," 5 o'clock is certainly "behind."

I'm sticking with reckless.

If you call and card this, you'll be blowing the whistle non-stop and end up with 7 cards given.

Not in my experience. Over the years I have learned that if I jump on them the first time the players know not to do that in this game. If I let it go they assume that they have the referee's permission to do it again and maybe even a bit worse until they find the line. By the time they find the line, the game is out of control, a player may be injured, and I get to see how many cards I have to throw in an often vain attempt to regain control.

BTW, if your having trouble finding the flop, rewatch the first 3 seconds. He does two complete sommersaults.
(Maybe that's where the card should have gone) ;)

Are we watching the same clip? He rolled once, at the end of the roll he landed awkwardly. That caused him to roll away. You did see him change direction, didn't you?

It isn't a flop if the contact made him fall down. Now if he would have rolled several times (without the awkward landing) a case could be made for embellishment, but it wasn't a flop.

[Sport Billy]

You keep arguing "it was from behind."
So what ?????

Assume for a moment that I agree that it was from behind.

He got ball first - so in order to call this a foul, it has to be reckless.

Simply being from behind does not equate to reckless (there has to be something more than that).

What was reckless about it?

[DadOf6]

You keep arguing "it was from behind."
So what ?????

Assume for a moment that I agree that it was from behind.

He got ball first - so in order to call this a foul, it has to be reckless.

Simply being from behind does not equate to reckless (there has to be something more than that).

What was reckless about it?

I keep going on about it being from behind because you keep saying that it wasn't.

He was coming from behind. He was airborne when the contact was made. The contact was near the knee. The totality of the foul was reckless.

If he would have slid on the ground and his leg had clipped a foot or ankle after he got the ball I'm not sure it would have been a foul.

If he were coming 2 or 3 o'clock, went airborne, and made the same contact at the same height, it would be at least a foul. Same airborne foul from 12 o'clock with contact could have been anything from no foul to a straight red.

If he had caught up with the attacker, poked in his foot, got the ball, then clipped knees it would not have been a foul.