You Make The Call - PK or Not?

[bluedevils]

what kind of striking are we talking about -- a closed-fist punch or the GK leans in with his upper body and bumps the opponent as he is jogging by, or... It makes a big difference. So does the level of game and context / previous activities in the match. Even without having been there, I'm inclined to say that an IFK for the attacking team and caution to the GK is a poor resolution and arguably lawful.

Similar situation -- PDL game, GK claims ball in goal area and is moving very slowly or stopped. Attacker moves calmly thru the goal area as it is clear the GK has the ball wrapped up in his arms. His path takes him within a yard or so of the GK's location. GK takes the opportunity to 'chuck' the attacker out of the way by leaning into him and bumping him. Sure, ref could have called a PK but at this level I do not believe that would be appropriate. Ref called nothing and moved thru the goal area, told the GK to relax and everybody else to keep going. Players were okay with it and the game continued without any blow-up.

[Gary V]

Actually Gary, in the ATR 12.1 USSF defines a foul as "an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play." They go on to say "If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul, however, the action can still be misconduct."
Correct - although I count 4 criteria
by a player
against an opponent
on the field
while the ball is in play


So, while we are not to judge intent, we are to judge the fairness and safety as to whether it was a foul or not.
So you seem to be counting 2 criteria - unfair or unsafe - and would call it a foul if either one of them were met? AtR does have "or" that I bolded.

So in our scenario, if the keeper takes a swipe at an opponent and it is neither unfair or unsafe in our opinion, it is not a foul, therefore no PK, but it could still be misconduct. Caution or send off, show the appropriate card and restart with an IFK.And when you write up your report for the misconduct, you're going to describe the action without any reference to a striking foul? You'd just say they committed some generic unsafe activity and you cautioned for that. Seems as that wouldn't hold up too well in an appeal process. We've been told time and again in recert classes that the most frequent reason for letting a player off is an improper or incomplete report - either the facts weren't included or there was too much commentary and analysis.

I wasn't there and obviously didn't see it, but it sounds as though this ref invented a technicality to avoid giving a PK. The IFK for misconduct without a foul was not meant to relieve the ref of making a hard and courageous decision. That's akin to the ref who won't call a foul in the PA so as to "not change the game", but wimps out with DP or impeding. The players committing the action are the ones that change the game; our job is to recognize them and make the calls appropriately. The IFK restart is only for those issues that are not associated with fouls whatsoever - dissent, for example.

[DadOf6]

I think an IFK and a caution to the 'keeper can be defended.

e. Commits an act which, in the opinion of the referee, shows a lack of respect for the game (e.g., aggressive attitude, inflammatory behavior, or taunting)

If ITOOTR he took a swipe at the other player but the ref didn't think attempting to strike was appropriate, he could still rule that it was aggressive or inflammatory enough to be USB.

I have seen calls similar to what was described. In a RSL game this season an two players were chasing the ball to the goal line. Just inside the field one of the players shoved the other, who went into the boards. He turned and pushed the other player back. No foul was called and both players were cautioned for USB.

I do not believe that MLS is the gold standard for refereeing, especially for youth and amateur games, but we can learn something from this example.

[whipple]

Curious, but to which "three criteria" do you think the passage is referring?


"an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play... If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul, however, the action can still be misconduct."

The three requirements, to me, are:

1) against an opponent or the opposing team
2) on the field of play
3) while the ball is in play

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but you seem to be implying that one of the requirements is it's an "unfair or unsafe action."

No, you are not misinterpreting me. the foul is the subjcect and the unfair or unsafe action is the predicate of all so to make each prepositional phrase (criteria) a separate complete sentence one would say:

1) A foul is an unfair and unsafe action against an opponent or the opposing team.
2) A foul is an unfair and unsafe action on the field of play.
3) A foul is an unfair and unsafe action while the ball is in play.

Or you can make it a compound sentence as they have done in the ATR. In either event, unsafe and unfair define the foul. So, yes, this is exactly what I am saying.

SW