Dangerous play on Twellman?? You have a defender pulling his head back to avoid the bike..... http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/...d=14960&catCode=mls_game_tv&type=v_free&_mp=1
I realize that "dangerous play" is one of those gray areas where one ref may call it and another will let it go. However, when I saw this live I thought how could this not be a dangerous play? Twellmans foot is 5-6 feet in the air and the heads of 2 defenders are in the immediate vicinity (its amazinfg that he didnt kick either of them). I am sure the defenders were thinking about getting kicked when it happened and may not have gone into the challenge with full gusto for safety sake. Are there any rules of thumb for when a play becomes a "dangerous play?"
At that level of play, most would say no. However, IMO, if the defenders slow up because they don't want to get kicked, then you have to start considering it dangerous, no matter what the level (this is pretty much spelled out in the ATR I believe). In conclusion....ITOOTR.
I watched the game with a friend and, while we both agreed it was a great goal, it was clearly dangerous play.
I used to agree that this would have to be dangerous play on Twellman. However, my opinion has changed. I think this was a great no-call. If it would have been dangerous play on anyone, it would have to be called on the defender. I'll try to explain myself now. I recently attended a referee clinic where, ex-FIFA/MLS referee, Ali Saheli was the main speaker. We discussed a scenario very similar to this. Saheli says that the attacker has the right to play the ball in this manner (bicycle kick). With his back to goal, the bicycle kick is the the attackers best option to score a goal. So now the defender attemps to play the ball and gets kicked in the head in the process. Saheli says, the defender is the player playing in a dangerous manner. The attacker has the right to play the ball with his feet, right? Imagine that he ball was still on the ground and for some reason a defender, lying on the ground, tried to use his head to disposses an attacker. Now, who is playing is a dangerous manner? The defender. It's not so different from a bicycle kick. Anyways, that's how I feel now. Stott made a great no-call. And Twellman scored a fantastic goal!
This was a close decision. I can see it going either way, but I'm not totally convinced by what you said. The defenders, and Twellman, all were already in position near the place where this ball was coming down. It's not like Twellman was preparing to do the bicycle kick with 3 yards clearance around him, THEN the defenders moved in as he was in the kicking motion. That would be dangerous play against the defenders, not Twellman. But the way this play happened, it is a little less clear-cut.
If I recall, the Advice to Referees explains that playing in a dangerous manner will be different at different levels of play. What might be considered dangerous in a U-12 game might be considered okay in a professional game. Hopefully someone can post the relevant information; I don't have time to look it up right now.
My thoughts exactly. It was obvious that Twellman's only option to play the ball for the goal was a bicycle kick, & he has that right. That a defender tries to interfere with the kick with his face or arms or whatever would constitute dangerous play. The hypothetical question in my mind is, if Twellman's shot missed, would you THEN call DP on Chicago, awarding an IFK for New England? I'm not confident I'd have enough of my senses to do that in real time.... Best, Sandcrab
Wow, that is bizarre. My thought is if there is no safe way to defend the bike, it is dangerous. How would you propose the defender defend that ball if he can't head it?? Turn around and bike it out?? of course,if the defender is too far away to defend it is a different story.
So the defender has no right to try and play this ball? He must 'stand down' and let the attacker have a free shot at it? Or, if he tries to play the ball by heading it and gets kicked in the jaw, HE is at fault and he is essentially playing this ball at his own risk? Are the defender's rights trumped by the attacker's rights?
The ball was coming down where Twellman was. The defenders had to move toward the ball and Twellman. Thus Twellman has the right to play it. Suppose the ball was on the ground and Twellman was obviously about to shoot with his foot, and the two defenders dove headfirst to try to block his shot with their heads, getting in the path of Twellman's follow-through. Would you not call dangerous play on the defenders? Conversely, if the ball was falling out of the air directly to one of the two defenders, and Twellman did a flying kung-fu karate kick out of the air, would you not then call dangerous play on Twellman? The position of the ball relative to the three players had a lot to do with the non-call.
No, but what constitutes "playing in a dangerous manner" is different at different levels of play. See 12.13 in the ATR.
There is simply no way in the world you could argue for a PIDM on the defense. They have just as much right to a free ball as Twellman and the ball was above head level so playing it with a header is the right way. Twellman on the other hand has several options: header, chest it down, trap and turn or bicycle kick. Any and all are legit options at that point. I agree with the non-call here, all players made legit moves on the ball, none pulled out. At this level, in this game, that's a goal.
The correct call was no call. If his foot had gone to the left or right, then yes. As it was, he hit the ball between two people.
An excellent observation. Yes, Twellman hit the ball within the boundary of his body. The defenders were close, but it did not appear they were ever in any danger of being kicked. Great goal and a good no call by Kevin Stott. Now on to the more important issue why can't Twellman do the same thing at the national team level?
additional instructions and guidelines for referees - 2007/8 lotg. page 114 piadm: "piadm is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. the action becomes an offence only when an opponent is adversely affected. a scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, itootr, it is not dangerous to an opponent." did we see chi avoid playing so as not to get hurt? the chi defender nearest the camera tried to head the ball, did not appear to avoid playing, but grimaced as he stuck his head in as if expecting to get kicked. the chi defender behind twellman does not seem to be in a position to fear anything. only stott's opinion counts. at this level of play, does the defender need to approach playing the ball but then retreat, to get the piadm call? kicking at the ball that high off the ground is not the same as playing a ball near the ground. once you use feet that high you open yourself to the piadm call, in my opinion.
I find this to be one of the most difficult calls to make as recognizing whether the opponent is disadvantaged is not at all easy. ATR 12.13 lists three criteria for PIADM: dangerous to someone (including the player committing the action) committed with an opponent close by caused the opponent to cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play With the benefit of the replays and different angles it is clear that Robinson turns his face away and brings his right arm up to protect his head. What more does a player have to do to "cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play"? Photos from another angle show that is also clear that Twellman's foot makes contact with Robinson's shoulder immediately after he kicks the ball, and his chin appears to contact Pause's leg as he comes down. ATR then goes on to say that we should take into account the skill level of the players and the competition. Which gives ITOOTR plenty of leeway, so one can't really find fault with the call. Might a different referee - or the same referee in a different position on the field - have called it differently? Certainly. But that is part of what makes the beautiful game a beautiful game. I think it would be a PIADM call in the lower-level games that I do (U14 and below). And I hope I would have the wherewithal to recognize and blow for it.
Here is the problem with that argument: the defender would be putting his head in an unnatural position to play the ball while on the ground. In the Twellman case, he put his foot in an unnatural place to play it. Sure, Twellman has the right to play the ball, but that right ends when it puts the Chicago defenders in danger. As previously mentioned, one of the Chicago defenders clearly grimmaces when he sees Twellman's foot come up to play the ball. This should have been called as a foul against Twellman, no goal.
If a player has the ball, he may play it in any legal manner he deems fit. The burden is on the opponent to not challenge for the ball in a manner that places himself or anybody else in danger. In my mind, Taylor has possession of the ball in this situation. It is within his playing area, and the defenders have to challenge him to take possession away. Therefore, a bicycle kick is a perfectly legitimate means to play the ball. The burden is on the defenders to not stick their heads in there and create a dangerous situation. You could argue that the defenders did create a dangerous situation, but it did not impact the outcome of the play. Either way, there isn't anything to call.
In my opinion, it is a HUGE stretch to say that Twellman has possession of the ball in this situation. The ball was up in the air and coming down. You could say that Twellman was positioned closest to where the ball was going to land on the field, but to say that he had possession? The ball coming down thru the air toward where he is standing...this is not my definition of possession, or an example of possession or anything resembling possession. It was a free ball, not in possession of any of 3 players involved. From what I recall, all 3 were close enough to play the ball as it was coming down thru the air. One final point of clarification -- I do not see 'free ball' and 'in possession of a player' as mutually exclusive.