Is a sandwich a foul? Two defenders simultaneously shoulder charging an attacker. Legaly if taken individually, but more than the opponent can possibly play through, if done by two. I know it used to be considered in the ATR as a version of 'holding'. But, I think they took it out before the ATR's official demise. The reasoning was that there is some unfair about calling a foul for something that is legal if done by one, but is illegal if done by two. I had it in the penalty area, last night. U17B, attacker moving towards goal in the area. Two defenders vigorously shoulder charge. Neither touches the ball. Attacker goes down hard. In the instant, I blew the whistle for the foul. (PK) Of course the defenders complained. I did not use the term 'sandwich' because I did not know how the Laws consider that term. Not sure I would call that foul every time. Opinions?
Literally, same situation, same gender and age group for me yesterday - State Cup play. I called it right away - though I did use the sandwich term.
I thought they changed the Law or the guidance or whatever some years ago to make it definitely NOT a foul, assuming a fair challenge on both sides ... ?
I'm confused... if two players are making "legal" contact with another player, why would it suddenly be illegal? If whatever they did was illegal, it sounds like it would've still been illegal if they did it individually.
So all three players were within playing distance? Not impossible. But for me when that happens it’s usually that one of the defenders was not able to challenge fairly.
I believe ( but am not positive) that it was IFAB theat initially said that simultaneous charges from both side was holding. That went away with the idea as long as neither is careless it is not a foul.
Any source for this - I would love to check that out - in my case, luckily, the team that was awarded the foul and PK for their 4th goal ended up winning easily 5-0, so my decision in this was not match-deciding - but I'd hate to have it be so in the future. Thx
My understanding is that it went away and they said that it is not a foul as long as neither challenge individually is a foul.
What caused the attacker to go down hard? If both defenders hit him at the same time and were within playing distance of the ball, it would seem that their force would cancel each other out some. A hard fall by the attacker would lead me to suspect more than just shoulder contact, like tangled legs.
So if a car gets hit by two semis coming from opposite sides simultaneously nothing bad will happen? #physicsisreal #newton
Long-winded version of my understanding... Yes, just because Blue player has a Red on both shoulders doesn't mean an automatic foul. Perhaps a little bit of NASCAR's "Rubbin's Racin'..." However, if one Red player is firmly against Blue's shoulder and another Red simultaneously drives into Blue's other shoulder in a manner that is just under the foul threshold in a 1v1 situation, it MIGHT still elevate to a foul... A legal charge involves challenging an opponent for the space they occupy and possibly displacing them from that space in a legal manner. (Assuming it's to play the ball, shoulder-to-shoulder, not generally careless/reckless, etc, etc...) But, if a teammate is actively preventing an opponent from being displaced when charged by another teammate, sort of holding them in place with their shoulder, then they have possibly created a crushing contact situation (aka sandwich). I think it depends on the contact of the charge when there is nowhere for the opponent's body to be moved to during the charge. Similar to charging an opponent whose opposite shoulder is already at/on the goalpost. At least that's what I try to decide... was the situation more of a crush than a charge between the two players. Lemme get my flak jacket on - the way I worded that probably came out wrong...
I think it still boils down to if you think it reaches the level of careless (shows lack of consideration). Which for me I think it does or at least is much easier to consider it careless when a second player is involved. The same applies to upgrading fouls to excessive force when we take other considerations or details into account. A reckless push could/should be upgraded to excessive if the push ends up sending the fouled player into a goalpost or bleacher as an example. I think the same is applied here. While one players act on their own may not have constituted a foul, doing so in conjunction with another player performing a similar level of contact increases the odds that we have an unfair level of contact and force involved. And as a result a foul of careless severity.
Yes to all of the above. But I have a pretty clear recollection that there was a time when the so-called sandwich was considered a foul more or less per se, without regard to the careless standard or anything else, and that there came a time when that changed and it was plainly stated (by somebody ... IFAB? USSF?) not to be a foul in and of itself. But I can't find anything in my "archives" to confirm that recollection.
I know when I started refereeing in the late 90's the "sandwich" was definitely considered a foul, but that may have come from a Jim Allen official USSF interpretation. I don't have a clear memory of that going away, but nothing (that I'm aware of) in the LOTG or associated documents appears to support it as a foul.
Here is the text I was remembering, from 2004: THE “SANDWICH” [LAW 12] Your question: A recent quiz in Referee Magazine has started some discussion among the referees in my house. By reference, I am a level 8 ref, normally working U18 and down recreational games and currently up to U14 competitive leage games. In the quiz, the question was asking for the correct restart when B1 fairly charged player A1, who was already being charged by player B1. The given answer (which I later found backed up by the policies for referees document) was a direct kick. The policies discussed this as being holding. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this called, but may have never known to look for it. Is this something which is routinely called, and how quickly should this be called in a youth match? USSF answer (March 1, 2004): We are not familiar with any document about policies for referees, other than the Referee Administrative Handbook. Could you possibly mean the Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game? Yes, this foul is holding, also called a “sandwich,” as the player is sandwiched between two opponents, both of whom are/may be charging fairly. Restart is a direct free kick for the sandwiched player. Why is it a foul, even though neither of the players making the “sandwich” commits a foul individually? Because they have worked together, against the spirit of the Law, to hold and thus physically restrict, with their bodies, their opponent’s ability to play the ball. If it is not called routinely, it should be. There is no need for a caution, but a word of warning and explanation to the two players involved would go a long way toward preventing repetition.
Ha, just found the same, but nothing else on his site referencing "sandwich." And then there's this, undated, quoting an ATR to similar effect: http://asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/7521/ Ah hah ... and this, dated in 2010: http://asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/23951/ And then this one tracks it down specifically to the 2006 Q&A: http://asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/23158/
I was taught that the sand which was a holding foul way back in the 70s. I think it was in the Decisions of the Internatuonal Board, which was the predecessor to the Q&A, which was the predecessor to the guidance at the back of the Laws. I think was how it got into the ATR. And things change, leading to the change in the ATR referenced above.
2013-2014 ATR (p. 43): “It is not a violation of Law 12 for two players to charge the same opponent simultaneously, provided that each charge considered individually is conducted fairly and legally.”
Which then leaves it to the final judgement of the Refereee as to decide whether either both or one of the two who sandwich did so carelessly,recklessly, or using exessive force, as to penalize or not. Ref's decision is final...