I'm not a referee but would really like to understand this and would appreciate comments from experienced referees out there: Scenario 1: If someone blatantly rams someone with his shoulder not even going for the ball in that split instant, is it a foul? I see this called a foul many times in DA games especially if the kid doing the shoulder is much bigger than the other kid. Scenario 2: If the lower arm makes contact after the shoulder I know that's a clear foul -but it was not called here (see video below) in the US U20 game vs Qatar: http://sendvid.com/vjncjus3 Scenario 3: What if there's a shoulder and the elbow goes up after that but the elbow does not make contact? That should not be a foul right? I see this called a foul about 50% of the time in DA games. My son goes to play D1 soccer this fall in the Ivy league - How do refs in that league tend to see shoulder calls? Is it similar to my observations in the DA? Thanks in advance.
In officiating never say never and never say always . Especially in soccer. That scenario 2 you have is completely different. The player in white is bigger, and initiates the contact. The fact that he lost the challenge is his own damn fault. And if he wanted a foul for the slight contact on his back, I'd laugh him off the field. So long as it's a valid attempt to play the ball (say, 5-7 yards and two guys are running after it). But you can't shoulder check a guy like this is hockey. Scenario 1 is right, and I'd have to see Scenario 3 to help you out. Also realize the level: I rarely see shoulder charges in female games, and unless it's a college game, it's gonna be a foul, otherwise someone is going to clear that girl out. Grown men playing? Hell, unless it's obvious he's not going for the ball, it's likely going to be a play-on. Especially at the world cup level. College? They are reining it in. It used to be the wild west of officiating, with cards coming out for blood. But expect a physical game.
Thanks. In scenario two, correct that Durkin (player in white) did initiate the contact but the arm was used (hard to judge how strong the push was) and it threw Durkin off balance. I took this quote from USSF which was made in the context of a shoulder charge: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/parameters-of-the-fair-shoulder-charge/ "The arms may not be used at all, other than for balance—which does not include pushing off or holding the opponent"
"In life", not just officiating. The most clear thing i recall from my CPA test review classes almost 30 years ago taught by an attorney, was on the Business Law portion of the test, eliminate the 'always' and 'never' answers and then your down to two choices for the correct answer.
Back in the days in which a lot of players did the A-League/NPSL (indoor) double to make ends meet, there was a rough-and-tumble guy named Scott Schweitzer. Among his gamesmanship highlights: There was an argument at midfield. An opposing player was walking away from it while the ref was still engaged at midfield. Schweitzer walked up alongside him, then flung himself to the ground as if he'd just taken a face kick from Holly Holm. One time, Schweitzer came sprinting across the field to challenge an attacker who was shielding the ball. Schweitzer SLAMMED into this guy. The ref blew the whistle. Schweitzer half-heartedly pointed at his shoulder, as if to say, "But it was shoulder-to-shoulder," but he knew he had no case.
I'm a little more confused after reading that. Seems like they're saying, "Your friend is right, although a shoulder-to-shoulder charge can indeed be made with excessive force that would merit a whistle." Along these lines -- the Laws don't explicitly say anything about the shoulder. Is it simply an unwritten rule? I learned it when I was a U12 nearly 40 years ago.
look at slide 10 https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf
It has a prohibition against any part of the body but the hand and arms, or it allows any contact whatever if arms and hands are also involved. Which do you think ifab meant? Consider that only four of those people speak English as a first language ( some doubt the Scots do) I suspect if the hands or arms are also involved, you are to call holding. Note that holding can be called, according to the wording, if no hands and arms are used, according to slide 13.
From the glossary in the laws of the game: Charge (an opponent) Physical challenge against an opponent, usually using the shoulder and upper arm (which is kept close to the body)
"Usually" provides an interesting loophole. (Yes, being a journalist married to a lawyer can make someone rather pedantic.)
The technical answer is when the charge becomes careless or reckless. The real-world answer is akin to Potter on pornography--"I know it when I see it." I had a 16U game recently in which an attacker had possession in the PA and a defender simply lined him up and drilled him with no remote attention to the ball or space. Reckless. Caution. Outraged touchline. My AR on that side says that a couple of the outraged parents finally agreed loudly that it was "an AYSO foul"--by AR turned around and said "I do club and high school and club--that's an easy foul in any of them." Moral of the story: from the touchline, any shoulder to shoulder contact by my team is inherently legal, but any shoulder to shoulder contact by the other team that affects my player is obviously a foul.
Remember that even though it is with the shoulder, it sill has to be within control and not Careless/Reckless. I had a call once where a visiting team player was shielding the ball out of play right in front of the home bench. A home player came in and -- shoulder to shoulder -- took a running start and absolutely leveled the guy hockey check style. I blew the whistle and was reaching for the YC when I heard the home coach yell "oh come on..." I started to stiffen up and get ready for the inevitable chat with the coach. But he was actually laying into his player..."come on (player's name), that was crazy. why did you do that?!?" Even some coaches recognize that just because it is with the shoulder, doesn't mean that it is legal...