PVancouver
18 Jul 2008, 12:58 PM
Referee Week in Review: Week 16 (http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_16_2008.htm)
100% Misconduct
Situations involving 100% misconduct have been common themes in multiple “Week In Reviews.” This past week is no exception. When the topic of 100% misconduct is examined, examples are provided that intended to clearly identify situations in which the referee has no leeway when determining whether a yellow or red card should be issued. These are fouls or incidents in which a player must be cautioned or sent off.
Thorough review of the examples provided regularly, should help steer officials toward consistency and clearer identification of actions classified as misconduct. Both 100% misconduct clips involve challenges from behind and are “reckless” and, therefore, must be cautioned.
100% misconduct? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? And in the case of Clip 5, false? Of course, the reckless tackle in Clip 5 should not only be cautioned, but the player was to have been sent off. Curious.
Video Clip 4: TFC at Chicago (52:36)
The referee is close to play. Key to the referee’s ability to identify the defender’s action is that the referee does not turn immediately follow the ball as it is played away by the attacker who is eventually fouled. The referee anticipates a late challenge based upon the defender’s body language and run up to the attacker as the attacker passes the ball. This is not the typical sliding tackle. This is a form of reckless challenge that involves a defender who stays on his feet. Late contact is made with the upper thigh/leg of the defender as well as the attacker’s foot to the back of the attacker’s leg/ankle. The referee must recognize this as unsporting behavior and issue a yellow card. Note, key to identification is the tardiness of the challenge, the fact the challenge is from behind, and the fact that the ball is not within playing distance.
I agree this looks like misconduct, but it certainly isn't very clear what happened, exactly, and the player was indeed carded, which wasn't made clear in the text. It looks like Carl Robinson got an extra knock in on Blanco. Still, this was not a good example to use.
Video Clip 5: Colorado at San Jose (76:45)
This clip represents a tackle in which the tackler/defender utilizes “excessive force” and “endangers the safety of an opponent.” Both of these components are provided in the Laws of the Game as factors that make challenges serious foul play and offenses for which a player must be red carded. The defender lunges at the opponent – from behind – using excessive force. The attacker is unaware of the defender’s uncontrolled challenge and is unable to protect himself from the tackle. Notice how a scissors-type tackle is used. The defender’s trailing leg connects with the back of the attacker’s ankles and Achilles. Consequently, the defender should be sent off for serious foul play. Keys to identifying the tackle as a red card are: ball gone, challenge from behind, no opportunity exists to cleanly dispossess the opponent of the ball, and two legs are used in defender’s lunging at the attacker. This type of tackle does not belong in the game at any level. Note, the AR should be prepared to provide assistance to the referee as the foul occurs near the touchline. The AR should feel empowered to use the visual signal referenced in video clip 2 above to signal his opinion of the tackle and to reinforce the seriousness of the foul.
Let's examine the statements made here one by one:
This clip represents a tackle in which the tackler/defender utilizes “excessive force” and “endangers the safety of an opponent.”
Endangering the safety of the opponent? Maybe. Excessive force? I do not see it.
Both of these components are provided in the Laws of the Game as factors that make challenges serious foul play and offenses for which a player must be red carded.
True.
The defender lunges at the opponent – from behind – using excessive force.
Well, he did lunge at the opponent. With excessive force? Again, I disagree.
The attacker is unaware of the defender’s uncontrolled challenge and is unable to protect himself from the tackle.
I am not sure how this is an uncontrolled challenge. Omar Cummings seemed to me to be fully aware of and in complete control of his actions. I do agree that Ryan Johnson was probably somewhat unaware of Cummings.
Notice how a scissors-type tackle is used.
I disagree with this characterization. Shouldn't a "scissors-type tackle" have both legs extended? Cummings reaches out with his right leg to block the ball, but kept his left leg bent and made no "kicking motion" with this left leg at all. Even the right leg was only extended to block the ball. There was no sweeping motion into the body of Cummings with either leg. If Johnson made any contact with the right leg at all, it was incidental.
The defender’s trailing leg connects with the back of the attacker’s ankles and Achilles.
True, there is a connection, with the back of both calves, but I don't see a connection with ankles or Achilles (tendon). Most of the force was probably into the back of Johnson's knees. I was unable to discern a significant amount of force in any case.
Consequently, the defender should be sent off for serious foul play.
Keys to identifying the tackle as a red card are:
ball gone, -- no it wasn't -- Cummings deflects the ball out, killing a potential counter attack
challenge from behind, -- one could argue it was from the side
no opportunity exists to cleanly dispossess the opponent of the ball, -- considering that he nearly did, it is a bit of a stretch to say he had no opportunity (contact with the ball was made at about the same time as contact with the opponent)
and two legs are used in defender’s lunging at the attacker. -- I would say only the right leg was "used", the other was basically just in the way
This type of tackle does not belong in the game at any level.
What if Cummings performs the same tackle, but manages to avoid contacting Johnson with his left leg? Then would it be OK?
Note, the AR should be prepared to provide assistance to the referee as the foul occurs near the touchline. The AR should feel empowered to use the visual signal referenced in video clip 2 above to signal his opinion of the tackle and to reinforce the seriousness of the foul.
Does the USSF want the AR to essentially make the call if the CR doesn't make it, despite the fact that the CR saw and called the foul, was closer to the play, and had a better overall angle? If the AR goes to his back pocket, doesn't this practically require the CR to go to his back pocket as well?
To call this tackle 100% misconduct is quite a stretch. Even if it was redcarded, it would be SFP, as declared, not VC, since the ball was within playing distance.
While I agree the tackle was unnecessarily dangerous for the conditions of the game at the time, I don't agree that Cummings should have been sent off. What is even more annoying are the excessively harsh characterization of a play that in all likelihood was fully intended to be sporting.
100% Misconduct
Situations involving 100% misconduct have been common themes in multiple “Week In Reviews.” This past week is no exception. When the topic of 100% misconduct is examined, examples are provided that intended to clearly identify situations in which the referee has no leeway when determining whether a yellow or red card should be issued. These are fouls or incidents in which a player must be cautioned or sent off.
Thorough review of the examples provided regularly, should help steer officials toward consistency and clearer identification of actions classified as misconduct. Both 100% misconduct clips involve challenges from behind and are “reckless” and, therefore, must be cautioned.
100% misconduct? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? And in the case of Clip 5, false? Of course, the reckless tackle in Clip 5 should not only be cautioned, but the player was to have been sent off. Curious.
Video Clip 4: TFC at Chicago (52:36)
The referee is close to play. Key to the referee’s ability to identify the defender’s action is that the referee does not turn immediately follow the ball as it is played away by the attacker who is eventually fouled. The referee anticipates a late challenge based upon the defender’s body language and run up to the attacker as the attacker passes the ball. This is not the typical sliding tackle. This is a form of reckless challenge that involves a defender who stays on his feet. Late contact is made with the upper thigh/leg of the defender as well as the attacker’s foot to the back of the attacker’s leg/ankle. The referee must recognize this as unsporting behavior and issue a yellow card. Note, key to identification is the tardiness of the challenge, the fact the challenge is from behind, and the fact that the ball is not within playing distance.
I agree this looks like misconduct, but it certainly isn't very clear what happened, exactly, and the player was indeed carded, which wasn't made clear in the text. It looks like Carl Robinson got an extra knock in on Blanco. Still, this was not a good example to use.
Video Clip 5: Colorado at San Jose (76:45)
This clip represents a tackle in which the tackler/defender utilizes “excessive force” and “endangers the safety of an opponent.” Both of these components are provided in the Laws of the Game as factors that make challenges serious foul play and offenses for which a player must be red carded. The defender lunges at the opponent – from behind – using excessive force. The attacker is unaware of the defender’s uncontrolled challenge and is unable to protect himself from the tackle. Notice how a scissors-type tackle is used. The defender’s trailing leg connects with the back of the attacker’s ankles and Achilles. Consequently, the defender should be sent off for serious foul play. Keys to identifying the tackle as a red card are: ball gone, challenge from behind, no opportunity exists to cleanly dispossess the opponent of the ball, and two legs are used in defender’s lunging at the attacker. This type of tackle does not belong in the game at any level. Note, the AR should be prepared to provide assistance to the referee as the foul occurs near the touchline. The AR should feel empowered to use the visual signal referenced in video clip 2 above to signal his opinion of the tackle and to reinforce the seriousness of the foul.
Let's examine the statements made here one by one:
This clip represents a tackle in which the tackler/defender utilizes “excessive force” and “endangers the safety of an opponent.”
Endangering the safety of the opponent? Maybe. Excessive force? I do not see it.
Both of these components are provided in the Laws of the Game as factors that make challenges serious foul play and offenses for which a player must be red carded.
True.
The defender lunges at the opponent – from behind – using excessive force.
Well, he did lunge at the opponent. With excessive force? Again, I disagree.
The attacker is unaware of the defender’s uncontrolled challenge and is unable to protect himself from the tackle.
I am not sure how this is an uncontrolled challenge. Omar Cummings seemed to me to be fully aware of and in complete control of his actions. I do agree that Ryan Johnson was probably somewhat unaware of Cummings.
Notice how a scissors-type tackle is used.
I disagree with this characterization. Shouldn't a "scissors-type tackle" have both legs extended? Cummings reaches out with his right leg to block the ball, but kept his left leg bent and made no "kicking motion" with this left leg at all. Even the right leg was only extended to block the ball. There was no sweeping motion into the body of Cummings with either leg. If Johnson made any contact with the right leg at all, it was incidental.
The defender’s trailing leg connects with the back of the attacker’s ankles and Achilles.
True, there is a connection, with the back of both calves, but I don't see a connection with ankles or Achilles (tendon). Most of the force was probably into the back of Johnson's knees. I was unable to discern a significant amount of force in any case.
Consequently, the defender should be sent off for serious foul play.
Keys to identifying the tackle as a red card are:
ball gone, -- no it wasn't -- Cummings deflects the ball out, killing a potential counter attack
challenge from behind, -- one could argue it was from the side
no opportunity exists to cleanly dispossess the opponent of the ball, -- considering that he nearly did, it is a bit of a stretch to say he had no opportunity (contact with the ball was made at about the same time as contact with the opponent)
and two legs are used in defender’s lunging at the attacker. -- I would say only the right leg was "used", the other was basically just in the way
This type of tackle does not belong in the game at any level.
What if Cummings performs the same tackle, but manages to avoid contacting Johnson with his left leg? Then would it be OK?
Note, the AR should be prepared to provide assistance to the referee as the foul occurs near the touchline. The AR should feel empowered to use the visual signal referenced in video clip 2 above to signal his opinion of the tackle and to reinforce the seriousness of the foul.
Does the USSF want the AR to essentially make the call if the CR doesn't make it, despite the fact that the CR saw and called the foul, was closer to the play, and had a better overall angle? If the AR goes to his back pocket, doesn't this practically require the CR to go to his back pocket as well?
To call this tackle 100% misconduct is quite a stretch. Even if it was redcarded, it would be SFP, as declared, not VC, since the ball was within playing distance.
While I agree the tackle was unnecessarily dangerous for the conditions of the game at the time, I don't agree that Cummings should have been sent off. What is even more annoying are the excessively harsh characterization of a play that in all likelihood was fully intended to be sporting.