Ok, but FIFA doesn't say "kicking the ball is permissible provided that..." or "heading the ball is permissible provided that..." Doesn't it matter to you, at all, that FIFA has explicitly noted that bicycle and scissors kicks can be dangerous? To me, it's FIFA's way of noting that this is an unusual and potentially dangerous maneuver that must be executed with extra care. At the very least, doesn't that passage put some onus on the person executing the kick for you? If not and if I'm following your reasoning correctly: you'd never call a high kick on a player who gets his foot to the ball before his opponent gets his head near the ball? Even if the defender doesn't lower his head at all? That seems, to me, to be the logical conclusion of what you're saying which is, essentially that "the first person to the ball cannot be the person who is called for playing dangerously."
Great discussion guys. Following my mantra of wait, wait, wait, the non-reaction of either Fire defender would lead me to signal goal. Had either protested, I'd maybe have called PIADM. That being said, and with the utmost respect for the opinions the previous 100 or so posters, ITOOTR, it was a goal, and that's all that counts.
Yikes! This is exactly the approach that, a while back in this thread, I was trying to point out is a bad idea. The reaction of the players is not my main criterion when making a decision. If I think it's a foul in that situation at that level game, then it's a foul. If not, then no foul. That is based partly on what the players generally expect and what they are tolerating/not tolerating in the particular match, but I still have the final say. The ref needs to have the guts to make a decision and go with it. Saying you would give a goal if the players don't protest but might have called PIADM if they protest...this is wrong. You either thought it was a foul or you didn't. Exactly!
At what point do you make the call? When you see the player starting to make the move? In the middle? As he makes contact? Afterwards? I'm talking about making calls in a consistent manner. The wait, wait, wait approach. If a player is tripped and it is clearly a foul, delay the call until no clear advantage is forthcoming either by that player regaining his or her footing and forging on towards goal or the ball scooting through to a team-mate. Same with offside. And the same with PIADM. If players are content to play through, let 'em, but as well as making a major adjustment to their body positioning so as not to receive a boot to the face if THEY didn't perceive any danger and after the fact (immediately, not after they'd thought about it for a second or so) they didn't protest, then let it go. It is their game after all. And speaking of protesting, in Gordon Hill's great book, The History Of The Man In Black, he tells us that in the beginning (1860's) ALL calls had to be protested or referred to the referee - it's where we get our name from.
I may be wrong but I seem to remember Statesman telling me once that at one point the legality of the bicycle kick was hotly debated. A lot of people argued it shouldn't be allowed at all because of the danger it poses. FIFA ultimately declared that bicycle kicks are indeed legal so long as they are executed safely. I don't think FIFA is trying to point out that a bicycle kick is extra dangerous, they are simply trying to say that bicycle kicks are legal if they don't endanger the opponent. They could just as easily say a high kick or a slide tackle is legal provided it doesn't endanger the opponent. They don't because the legality of those actions was never the subject of great debate. Well no, I never said the decision hinges upon who gets the ball first. It all hinges on, as bluedevils pointed out, the timing of who does what action. If there are no opponent actively challenging for a high ball, I stick my foot up there, and then an opponent comes in with his head, I am not the one guilty of dangerous play. Likewise, if the ball is not being challenged by the opponent and I decide to do a bicycle kick, and then an opponent comes in with his head, I am still not the one guilty of dangerous play. At the time I am starting to perform my play on the ball, there is no danger to anybody. Only after I've already started does the danger present itself as a result of the actions of my opponents. They are the ones causing a problem, not me.
I can't think of a case where I would see two players going for a ball at head height, one with his head and one with his foot, and call dangerous play on the player using his head. The dangerous part of this play is the cleat at head height, I don't care who started their challenge for the ball first. Obviously they were both challenging for the ball, and the one using his foot was doing it in a dangerous manner. The Twellman play could have been called either way. The ref obviously felt Twellman had enough control and the defenders were far enough away that the situation wasn't dangerous. But it wasn't because Twellman started his challenge for the ball first.
Kinda like you said...You make the call as soon as you have decided you should call the foul. I.e. you decided it was enough to warrant a whistle, and no advantage can be realized. With regard to PIADM, you decide to call it as soon as you see the aggrieved player being disadvantaged in terms of not going in fully for the ball, yada yada yada...like the ATR says. You do NOT wait until he gets kicked, nor do you call it 'early,' i.e. before the dangerous play occurs. It isn't quite the same with offside, but there's no reason to get into that in this thread. This is where we part ways, I guess. PIADM is somewhat of a different animal, because it is called even though no contact occurs. This is different from many/most fouls. But I don't agree with what you are describing here. If you have decided the player was PIADM and the opponent was disadvantaged, then you need to blow the whistle and call it -- unless a potential advantage may exist for the aggrieved team. This 'wait wait wait' approach that you are describing is pretty simple and basic, and it does not work in all situations. This is one of them. You can 'wait wait wait' to see the consequences of the players' actions, but you should NOT 'wait wait wait' to see the players' reactions. Referees should NOT be watching for players' immediate reactions (body language etc) to fouls committed against them and using that feedback as part of their decisionmaking process! I just don't agree with that and I feel it sounds quite ridiculous even typing it. Did you include this reference -- which IS interesting, by the way -- as support for your position? It does support your position in some way, I suppose -- but I disagree with the position and this reference does nothing to sway me. If referees all got into the habit of calling fouls based on who protested the loudest, the Beautiful Game would go downhill fast. Some referees DO operate this way, and I am greatly disturbed and disappointed when I see it -- and it happens at some fairly high levels. Calling fouls because a player bi%#&es about it might relieve pressure from the referee, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not out there to referee the match while making it as easy on myself as possible; I'm out there to make the calls that I think are right for that particular match.
On Fox Soccer Channel's top 10 goals of the week, #1 was the Cahill goal in Everton v. Chelsea, and #2 was the Twellman goal! Nobody mentioned dangerous play, and neither should they have. Both were good goals that should not have been (and were not) disallowed, correctly IMO.
The Cahill goal was tremendous. Twellman's goal was very nice, but it was garden variety compared to Cahill's. As for whether Twellman should / should not have been called for dangerous play...THAT is the question that should be entertained, NOT whether the goal should have been allowed / not allowed. To me, that implies that the attacker is getting greater leeway for his actions because the ball is in the back of the net. That's not right. You said earlier: There's gotta be more of a REASON why this is okay, not just 'no ref should ever call back a goal like that at the pro level.' That's not a valid reason IMO. The attacker should "always be allowed to finish it through." So it doesn't matter if he kicks the defender? It doesn't matter if the defender is there first? If these sorts of plays should be allowed at the pro level, my opinion is that nobody here has presented a compelling explanation why.
One of the consequences of a 'offending' player's action may well be the reaction of a disadvantaged player, a reaction that is in the same instant as the pulling out of a challenge. As we saw, the Fire defenders didn't expect to get the call, not because Stott was calling it loose, but because at that level, it's less a part of the game than a D2 16B game. As soon as foot goes above waist high, there will be calls for "High kick!" and if it is indeed dangerous you'd call it. If the player doesn't expect the call or protest, let 'em play - as I said, it's their game. Of course we should. Some players are happy to play through a push or a trip or a hold. If so, indicate you've seen it (Play On! Number 14, I saw that. Cut it out), thus assisting in your reserving the right to bring it back, although no vocal announcement is required. Others will stop immediately. Give them the call and the kick. No other reason for the reference other than for historical purposes. I call the game based on what I see and what the players are expecting.
To a certain extent, I go along with the idea that what the players expect/tolerate should guide the ref in what to call or not call. Yes, it is their game but it is the REFEREE who needs to decide how the game will be refereed. To say it the way you did above, I don't agree with it. The flip side of your statement is, if the player bitches about it then you give them the call?! When you say it that way, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Fair point, but... if I see some contact occur and the player should have and could have kept going, I am not going to blow the whistle just because the player stops immediately and is clearly looking for the call. It is up to the REFEREE, not the players, to decide what is a foul and what isn't.
I didn't make my thoughts as clear as I could've. The referee is the arbiter of the game, but ultimately, the players decide how they want to play. Whether or not the referee agrees is a different matter. And no, a foul is a foul is a foul. If it's not, no amount of bitching will change that, but I've found a pre-emptive "No! No! No!" will help indicate my feelings as much as a "Play on!". Looking for a call and clearly being impeded or fouled are different. Again, a clearer wording of my determination would've helped. If the player is tripped and goes down or is slowed down and does not retain the advantage, either individually or as a team, then I'll call it. Same with a hold or a shove or a shirt pull. If no advantage, because he falls or stumbles or is impeded sufficiently, then I'll call it, but only after I've delayed a sensible (situation dependent) amount of time. To your point of , why should a player keep going if clearly fouled or impeded? Not looking for a call, but if actually fouled. Good stuff, indeed. Certainly helps focus the mind.
WOW great GOAL..As my friends from scotland and Portugal and New Zealand emailed me and said GREAT GOAL just what the league and sport needed.. imagine if he took the goal away. Question Did Dasani Robinson raise his hand for a foul... or did anyone react like it was a foul. Now if the ball doesnt go in the goal then yes Dangerous PLAY
Ahhh - soccer's version of the Jordan Rules. Basically it's ok as long as it looks good and will play well on ESPN? Thats what is making the NBA more "sports entertainment" and less of a sport. So please no.... don't referee based on whether or not it went in the the net.
Dont Mistake that statement. That statement was made in 1991. before ESPN. What was meant to be said or understood, is how many times is a goal scored in that way? 1 in 1000 so why should we take it away. As well as the book states A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent. Playing in a dangerous manner is defi ned 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.
I'm not sure I follow you. ESPN was well underway in 1991! Do you mean 1981? You left out a couple parts that don't seem to support your opinion that well: "The action becomes an offence only when an opponent is adversely affected." "Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed." So exactly what criterion do you feel was not met on this play? The opponent was not adversely affected? The opponent was not nearby? The kicker did not create the danger? There was no danger? The ref should 'take the goal away' if he feels the play was dangerous, plain and simple. He should NOT just allow the goal and ignore what he feels was an infringement simply because doing so would result in disallowing a goal. The greatness of the goal should have no bearing on the referee's decision. As far as I know, nobody argues that way when other types of fouls -- pushing, holding, etc -- occur during the scoring of a goal. E.g. if the attacker climbs the defender's back to head a ball into the goal, we don't 'cut him some slack' because the header was so beautifully done. No. We call the foul against him and 'take the goal away.' Why is it different with PIADM? Looking at it from the other angle...if the 'right thing to do' at this level is to allow the goal based on an opinion that PIADM did not occur, then we need some sort of guidance to justify this sort of thought process and decision because I don't see it in the Laws or the ATR or anywhere.
Bikes are almost always dangerous, dunks are are almost always goal tending. But what do they have in common?
MY ESPN comment was meant by saying that what year did they start showing Soccer Highlight or MLS highlights. I support the decision by the referee KEVIN STOTT IT IS A WONDERFUL GREAT GOAL