I don't know if any referee could make such a hair-splitting determination in such a short timeframe. It looked to me that the defender would have touched the ball if Twellman suddenly had become invisible. Whoa nellie. Please explain what you mean here. You mean the players' reaction should play a role in whether or not we decide to call something? I don't think that's what you mean, but that's what it sounds like. Players often get upset about correct calls. Just because a player does not get upset, it does not mean that the call was correct. Just speculating here...the players' reaction in this example may be telling insofar as it shows the Chicago defender thought Twellman's actions were NOT dangerous -- even though the LOTG may say otherwise. In other words, this supports the argument that this play should NOT have been calling as PIADM at the professional level.
The dangerous play decision seems pretty involved, but how come nobody is discussing the high kicking?
Yes this is exactly what I meant. Usually a trip is a trip, a hold is a hold, but PIADM is not the same everywhere. We all have discussed in the past that a good referee reads the game AND the players (reactions, comments, etc.) to judge if something needs to be adjusted in the way they are calling the game. Considering the fact that a pro player will usually lobby *coughwhinecough* for a call in almost all cases, it is very telling that Chicago did not seem to for this particular call, both during and after the match.
lets give some major props to the officiating crews in these playoffs for getting two massive calls correct (twellman's bike and gomez' handball). good to see our refs coming through.
The problem is that regardless of the players' reactions or non-reactions, the play seems to fit, almost to a tee, the wording for PIADM in the ATR. Players don't ALWAYS complain. Take the example the other day with the Dallas GK, Burse, getting beat for a goal on that shot from long range while an attacker in offside position was standing somewhere around the goal area...the GK did not seem to complain about that decision but I still think it was an offside infringement.
Yeah but offside they really can't see if the player was off or not....this one, the defenders were part of the foul. I understand what your saying, nothing is 100%. However, I think the best people to know if they feel something is "dangerous" or the player himself. The ATR explains that we, as referees, need to interject on behalf of the players at lower levels because they may not know they are in danger.
Sorry but "NO" "Absolutely NOT" I honestly hope somehow what he was saying was misinterpreted if you came away with this belief. No where in the written (or unwritten) rules of soccer does it say any player has the right to play the ball with his feet. You are "allowed" to use your feet, just like you are allowed to use your chest, head, shoulder, back, butt, etc. Since this statement was false, the rest of the argument falls apart. Also, there is no right to play the ball in "the attackers best option to score a goal". If so you have just declared the law of the game against playing dangerously no longer applies. Bottom line, if the way you play endangers any player - including yourself - it is playing in a dangerous manner and should be called. Stott may have believed that no defender was close enough for it to be dangerous, but I honestly doubt that the attacker had the "right" to make such a play. I for will never call it this way.
Not sure if you're just trolling, but I'll take the bait & respond that there's no specific foul of high kicking. It's a form of PIDM, that's all, assessed in context of other players' positions & movements. Sandcrab
Notice the little "wink" at the bottom of his post He was kidding (not trolling and not serious). I almost missed it myself. I'm sure he knew "high kick" isn't a foul/offense by itself. Now, playing on the ground, that's one we should talk about
Fascinating read, and interesting to have read the thread before going back to see the clip. Not surprisingly, Bluedevils has already said most of what I would have said. I have to say the concept of a defender (or any player for that matter) being called for PIADM for trying to play the ball with his head when the ball is at head level or above doesn't make any sense to me, and would never have crossed my mind (and still doesn't). Twellman had no inherent "right" to play the ball on goal, nor did he have to as he could have headed the ball backwards or sidewards to a teammate or he could have taken the ball down with his chest playing it away from goal and then passed or otherwise tried to turn. So, he had other options, he simply preferred this one. From my observation, I agree with the conclusion of others that the defender pulled back because of the foot, and that's enough to warrant the call (although a decent argument that it can be considered trivial if you conclude he couldn't have gotten there anyway), but it's clearly a judgment call that has to be made from a single angle without the benefit of replay and that was certainly close enough to warrant going the other way, particularly if you take into account, as you should, the player's skill level and athleticism, which is entirely appropriate as it is the ability to go up like this and contact the ball with the foot without swinging wildly that allowed him to strike the ball on goal in a controlled manner in the first place. The other part that of course cannot be ignored is that the bicycle kick goal is always awesome, and when you don't have any injuries/contact and end up with a goal, it is at least understandable to me to not hear the whistle. I'm not saying that justifies it, but it might explain some leniency that is given in this circumstance. If this same play happens at midfield, it's a much easier call on Twellman. And just as some referees have a slightly higher requirement for fouls on defenders in the area that are going to result in a pk, I believe the converse principle applies for some referees as well. I'm neither arguing for or against, just observing.
Good post. I'm not sold on the above reasoning. This is a very good point and I believe it has merit. It is the first time I've ever heard it anywhere, not just in this thread. I continue to be open to having someone convince me, or convince myself, that a no-call was proper in this case. But my own 'process' requires me to feel that there are good reasons, not just 'a great goal was scored so we should never take that away.' If the player had handled the ball, surely we would feel the goal should be disallowed. PIADM should be no different. Perhaps the threshold for calling PIADM should be higher in the penalty area or when someone is trying to score a goal, but PIADM shouldn't just be thrown out the window when someone is trying to score a goal.
I don't have any other comments to add other than I am glad these decisions are left up to the opinion of the referee. In my opinion, Taylor has enough "possession" to freely perform the kick without having to worry about a dangerous play. The defenders are challenging him in a dangerous manner by using their head. However, the challenges have no impact on the play and thus there is nothing to call. Again, this is my opinion and it is well within the LOTG. Others have differing opinions, and they are well within the LOTG as well. This is not a call that everybody has to be in agreement on
I have to ask, and hope you'll respond... Is this (a bicycle kick) any different from any other kick where the foot is high up and close to the defenders face/head/chest? Seeing as how you claim "the defenders are challenging him in a dangerous manner by using their head", what's the difference if I stick my foot straight up in the air while FACING the goal? Is there any? Or is any high foot the problem of the person trying to get their head on the ball? Honestly I don't see both opinions as well within the LOTG and I do think this is something people should agree upon. The rule I've known for the last 30 years is that if the head goes down below chest height, then its in an atypical position and is thus guilty of playing in a dangerous manner. If the foot goes up to a realm over the opponents midsection/chest then it's in a atypical position and is dangerous by the person trying to put their foot near a head. These have not changed over the years as I've read the rules or seen them applied.
Every situation is different. The determining factor is which player creates the dangerous situation. If one guy is already going to kick the ball and the other then comes in with his head, the latter is creating the dangerous play. If the latter guy comes in with his head first and another play then tries to kick the ball, then the kicker is the one creating the dangerous play. See above. It is if the person already was in the act of kicking the ball. I've never seen any laws that say players cannot put themselves in an "atypical position." What you are citing is a general rule of thumb taught in grade 8 clinics for youth referees. Generally speaking, a player kicking way up high in a pack will get called for dangerous play. However, the fact he is kicking high is not in of itself enough to warrant a call. He may only do so if, a) The other players are not making a challenge on the ball that makes the kick dangerous, and b) the act does not prevent the challengers from following through with their play on the ball. My argument is that at the time of the kick, the other players are not making a challenge on the ball that makes the kick dangerous. After the kick is started, the defenders try to head the ball, creating a dangerous situation. However, nobody is prevented from carrying out their act and thus there is nothing to call regardless. This is going to be my last post on the thread, I think I've made my position clear enough now.
This reasoning has entered my mind, too. Although, if you consider that, you have to also consider the exact opposite reasoning. Namely that a decent argument can be made that Twellman would never have been able to get a shot off--nevermind score a goal--unless he executed an inherently dangerous play. In the end, I'm on the fence. I think you [blech] have made an excellent overall post. I'm also right with bluedevils, opposing anyone who is trying to claim that Twellman had a "right" to the ball in this play. In the end, I think it was a judgment call and I think it was very close. As it happened in real-time, I thought that I wouldn't call it. I'm not sure if that is the inherent bias of giving an attacker more leeway in the penalty area (I don't think it is, because I've called attempted bicycle kicks as dangerous more often than not when there's a crowd around) or if it's the above reasoning I've quoted (that the defender wouldn't have gotten the ball anyway). I really think it's just a judgment call that could have gone either way. And I do think that, in a game such as this and at this level, a referee is going to err on the side of the attacker if the call is truly borderline. I don't mean to suggest that Stott would put his whistle away just to allow the goal if he truly thought it was dangerous. I just mean that, if a referee (Stott here) actually needs more than a split second to think about it, he's probably going to (and probably should) allow the goal.
Just getting into this thread. I can say with a fair degree of authority that there is a way to defend against a bike. It's not pleasant because it entails running or diving face first into the ball. The defender isn't going to get kicked. That's not the danger. It's putting one's face/head onto the ball as it is being kicked (either that, or standing there a bit further away and taking a rocket in the face). The point is, neither defender was in line with the trajectory of Twellman's foot or the subsequent ball trajectory. Their fault and they suffered the goal-against consequences. To me, this was an absolute no-brainer. I saw a truly dangerous goal scored in a European pro game several years ago on a diving header. The person scoring headed a ball dropping into the PA. He was horizontal when his head contacted the ball about 12-18" off the ground just has a defender was swinging his foot at it. The attacker was whaled in the side of the head by the missed kick. He was hurt, but jubilant that he had scored. That's the pro game and the ref had no hesitation whatsoever in allowing the goal. I just said, Wow! That header took guts!
Same type of play in Sunday's Chelsea v. Everton match...90th minute overhead by Tim Cahill....you can see the Chelsea defender (Bridge) pull away as the overhead flashed by him...a fantaastic goal! Probably a top ten of the year, and at this level it is quite expected to be allowed. Rog
I think your analysis is WAY off on this. What do you mean when you say a defender is not going to get kicked defending a bicycle kick? Each situation is different, and the defender most certainly CAN get kicked while trying to defend a bicycle kick, i.e. trying to win a ball that the opponent is attempting to bicycle kick. I really hope I'm misunderstanding what you said or what you didn't say, because the way I am interpreting it...your statement is way off base. What do you mean, 'not in line with the trajectory'??? The defender flinched and held back because he didn't want to get kicked by foot (or, perhaps, ball). Are you disputing that? If I recall, the replay actually shows some minor contact on the follow through between Twellman's foot and one of the defenders' shoulders??? 'Their fault' -- for not being in line with the trajectory of Twellman's foot? So if they had been in line with Twellman's foot, according to your explanation they could have blocked the ball but never would have gotten kicked? Sorry, but your post just doesn't add up. Wow. I think this is a very close decision, as do most of the people who have posted here -- regardless of which side they are weighing in on (dangerous play or valid goal). Would this have been a no-brainer no-call on a top-level U18 match? What about a mid-level U13 match?
Wahoo--a bicycle kick IS different from most other kicks because it is performed with the back to the goal. That means the kicker's body is between potential defenders goalside and the swing of the foot. The follow-through on the kick barely goes beyond the kicker's own body. If it did, the kicker would probably land on his own head. The only way a defender can really get kicked in these situations is to come at the ball face to face with the kicker. If the defender then goes for the ball with his head, he risks an upward kick in the face or chest as the bicycle kick is getting started. If the defender approaches goalside, from the kicker's back, the defender will virtually never be kicked because the ball is between the kicker's foot and the defender. Also, the defender either is approaching directly in line with the ball's eventual trajectory or he is not. If not, then he will not be kicked either. Note that this assumes the ball is struck properly and goes straight at the goal. If the foot glances off the ball, then there is a real possibility of the defender getting kick, in part because the missed kick would create an uncontrolled follow-through. The bottom line is that, in my experience as a player, it is actually extremely difficult for a bicycle kick, properly performed, etc. to hurt a defender. The ball, however, can easily break a nose and it takes real ba!!s to defend a bike properly.
Of course the defenders flinched! Probably cost them the game. But they certainly didn't flinch because of Twellman's foot. They flinch because they knew the ball would be coming off his foot right at their faces. The defender's job is to block shots. In this case, the only way to have done it would have been to stick one's face/head directly in line with where the ball would go. That takes incredible guts as a defender. And yes, you understood me correctly. If a defender had done that, he would not have been kicked. He would have taken the ball in the face unless his head arrived after the ball was gone. Twellman's foot might still have been in contact with the ball as the ball contacted the defender's face, if he had stuck his head in. These kicks are difficult to do, but even more difficult to defend both because of the positioning/ball visibility issues and because of the high likelihood that the defender will be hurt (again, not by the foot, but by the ball). And yes, it should be a no brainer at any age level. In my view, it's more likely the kicker will put the ball hard in his own face than in the defender's.
Yes...a decision against the big four, but I think Chelsea is not held in the same regard when it comes to dodgy calls as Arsenal, ManU and Liverpool. Liverpool got the benefit of a late "penalty" in their match against Fulham when Boconegra got called for a trip that was ruled inside the area but actually occured outside the area....
At this level of play, no referee in his right mind would call back this kind of goal. The defenders know it, and the attackers know it. If the forward has enough room in front of him to get the 'Bike" started as the ball is arriving, he would always be allowed to finish it through. Think of the many examples when this has occurred. The recent Everton-Chelsea game is mentioned above, but there have been lots more. Many of Pele's goals were of this type. This is one case where an MLS referee got it right.