I disagree. But ITOOTR. However, while not a tell-all, the attacker gets the ball and it's not a violation to come in "hot" - I didn't see carelessness, recklessness, or endangering. But that aside, why not a foul on the keeper? She came out strong and didn't get ball which would be an indication of carelessness on her part.
I think it would be akin to a player that runs in at such a reckless speed that they might get the ball first but there is no way to do so in a safe manner. The speed at which they come in is inherently going to cause a collision with the opponent whether they get the ball or not. Most challenges have a risk of contact but not contact at speeds and intensities that the risk of injury is elevated.
I get that, but it's not like she led with a knee, a foot, etc. I really do not think we should be telling players how fast they can run towards a ball, especially one they get to first. I simply don't see the foul here, except for maybe the late arriving keeper. When the ball is last touched, the attacker is even with the PK mark and the keeper at her line. Both run approximately 6 yards. We shouldn't be determining who ran faster, harder, hotter when doing so isn't even a prescribed foul. I can not say either here were PIADM.
I think it’s a combination of the speed and the leaving of the feet by the attacker. Had she stayed on the ground and “in control” of her movement and momentum then maybe we have less argument for a foul. But having left her feet going at that speed really takes any argument away that she is moving with any consideration for the consequences of her actions. She going in reckless and someone is going to walk away the worse for it.
I think there's something to that. It's hardly a "straight up" attempt at a header either. Let's recall that "I got the ball" does not absolve all sins. On reflection and re-viewing, I believe in my game, realtime, real speed, that's a foul by the attacker and almost certainly a caution.
Video 1: I believe both players’ challenges are not intrinsically reckless. So at its core this scenario is no different than so many challenges (especially when gk comes out) in which contact is inevitable unless someone pulls out. We judge those based on timing. In this case, the attacker does play first. But the gk does indeed in her challenge block the attacker’s header as well. If either player had played first and tipped the ball away so that the other player had not played the ball at all, it would be certain foul contact by the late player. This scenario is an effective block of a header by the keeper, and so I have no foul. It is a sickening collision, but neither of these players got to where they are today by going half assed into challenges.
This is where I keep ending up. I want this to be a foul on someone, but I can't say who. Both are being aggressive and/or reckless. Either could pull back and avoid the contact, but without saying the keeper has special protection, I don't know how you can say someone should pull back. Can you get away with cautioning both players for both being reckless? That seems the most equitable, but I don't know if the laws allow that.
Well, if you go that route, you are saying there were simultaneous fouls by both players. And under the newer LOTG (I know nothing about college rules), that would mean you are giving a PK, as the PK is a more serious sanction than the DFK (a result I've never found quite equitable for simultaneous infractions).
That was what I was suggesting earlier would be the likely "appropriate" result... even though that's DEFINITELY not what the game would want or expect here.
Ask yourself, do both players stay in control of their bodies and movements up to the challenge or does one give up that control I order to just make it there first. That’s what the attacker does. They give up control for speed and reach by jumping. And that’s what makes this a foul. You can’t go into a challenge at speeds like this without control. It’s reckless to both yourself and the other players.
I get what you are saying but i don’t see that. The attacker yes is off the ground but she did not leave her feet well before the header that I equate with loss of control/being a projectile. I would say also, to clarify, I don’t think the near simultaneity (simultaneousness?) excuses either player, and it’s a little bit of a cop out to call it so. I feel the attacker won the ball and the keeper blocked it. The players collided. This is a common soccer occurrence.
Let's expand on this. In this situation you are advocating for a yellow card because the keeper was in control but the attacker wasn't. What happens if they are both in control? What happens if they are both out of control?
Then we default to either a no foul and nothing situation. Or as @socal lurker said you end up with simultaneous fouls, the more severe being the one on the keeper as it results in a PK.
Thanks to everyone who has weighed in. The vid has been viewed over 700 times and I only posted here on BS. That's a lot of people watching and re-watching. Thanks.
@socal lurker Hypothetical for my understanding. Law 5 states: - (The referee) punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time. What happens if the ref declares a double foul, both reckless and worthy of a yellow, but the attacker's to be more sever so DFK coming out? Is that an unsupportable call by the laws?
Like many things from IFAB, it could be written more clearly . . . My impression was that it is more or less in order. So sanction (card color) is considered first, then restart IFK vs DFK vs PK), and if those are equal we get to physical severity, and last to tactical impact. I don't recall if that is from formal guidance or impression. But in practical terms, collisions where both players deserve a yellow are pretty rare. And in this context (PK or no PK), I think practical refereeing says you give one yellow and call that foul. And if you are convinced the FK coming out is the right call, I would definitely not also caution the keeper, as there is (at least arguably) an error of law for not giving the PK over the DFK. (With another thanks to IFAB for taking what was simple and making it convoluted . . . .)
That's formal guidance. If the referee deems both cautionable, then you move to tactical, so the PK wins out.
Oh well, I tried. Thanks for the insights. I suppose the injuries are a decent enough sanction to drive the point home that this is dangerous play. Threat of other sanctions won't deter the challenge anyway.