The commentators insisted "he was going for the ball" and "yellow is harsh for that". In all the replays, not a single commentator even mentioned the possibility that this might be Red, and most seemed to feel Yellow was harsh. Am I going crazy? I thought the ref handled it perfectly up until the color selection. He had a perfect angle on the play, 10 yards away and allowing him to see that the foot impacted the player squarely in the face while the player was jumping up (and in slo-mo you can see that the force of the kick actually lifted the player higher off the ground upon impact with the face). He left himself the option of seeing the outcome of the incident before showing a card by not immediately running in and using his card to help calm the players immediately after the foul. He went over and observed the blood pouring out of the player's mouth. He now had all the information he needed to make the correct decision. And then he showed a yellow card. How is a bicycle kick that impacts a player square in the face 7 feet above the ground and leaves him bleeding and groggy (and subsequently unable to return for the second half) not a red card?
I think the operative language is in the ATR, 12.33: "It is also serious foul play if a player commits any tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent". Seems like a blind bicycle kick to which impacts the opponent squarely in the face at a height of 7 feet off the ground would endanger the safety of the opponent. Blood pouring from the mouth is a further indicator that his safety might have been endangered. If a player who is nearly knocked unconscious, with blood pouring from his mouth, hasn't had his safety endangered by the opponent, what would it take to rise to that level? Does the player have to lose a tooth or perhaps an eye? Do we need a compound fracture of the jaw? Does the player have to be knocked unconscious (and how would we know he wasn't faking it?)? IMO, if a player chooses to launch themselves into a bicycle kick without regard for the safety of their opponent, they need to be prepared to incur the ultimate penalty, because there is no "pulling out" of that tackle.
I will probably catch it for this, but I saw it as at WORST just a foul, no card of any color. The attacker had posiiton, when he started the bicycle kick there was no defender around, in that spot on the field, in that play, that is the proper play for an attacker to make. I recall Taylor Twellman from the revs doing pretty much the same thing and almost kicked a guy and refs on this board where having the same arugument but siding on "right play at that spot in teh field" side. Now for game control, I can see calling it a foul, after all he did kick him, but I don't see the need for any card, especially red.
What part of the bicycle kick in this instance would be considered a tackle? If there is no contact, this is only PIADM, yes?
Posted more or less this in the WC Referee forum at the time... Let's remember FIFA's definitions: "Complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for..." seems to fit a bicycle kick like this. For you to tick the excessive force box and get to SFP, you need the danger of injury and--not "or"--"far exceeding the necessary use of force." Can you claim that Cacares actually used more force than was needed for him to shoot the ball on net with a bicycle kick? I think that's a tough claim to substantiate. It's reckless for me and a yellow card was the correct decision.
Unless he was intending to kick the player in the head, isn't the entire act considered a tackle as he was trying to kick the ball when an opponent was trying to head it? The opponent who was heading the ball 7 feet off the ground was doing nothing wrong, while the kicker had uncontrollably committed himself to the high kick without regard to the safety of his opponent. I still can't see saying that because the ball was in the air and not possessed by an opponent that it is not a tackle and since the kicker didn't see the opponent it isn't his fault he kicked the guy in the face. I think the kicker has an obligation to execute this potentially highly dangerous play with great care and so as not to endanger the safety of an opponent whether he sees the opponent or not, or else he should not attempt the kick.
OK, I didn't know that "endangering the safety of an opponent" wasn't part of the FIFA version of the LOTG, so if that is the case, for international matches I guess this is considered just a yellow. I did notice that in the USSF LOTG document, there is no clarification on any of this, that it is only in the ATR where they bring up endangering the safety of an opponent as a reason for a red card. So if the game took place in the US under the USSF, would you say that this act endangered the safety of the opponent and warrants a send off? The thing that is causing me so much chagrin on this is that I had a state maintenance assessment on a men's amateur match in San Fran three weeks ago where I sent off a player for something just like this, only it wasn't a bicycle kick but a high kick that caught the opponent in the face. There was much less injury in my game, just a scrape to the cheek with a little blood, but every single person on the field on both teams (including the player sent off) agreed it was a red card, as did the assessor. This seems much worse, yet we're talking yellow or maybe even no foul?
It is not the results of the play (although they certainly color it) but the degree of irresponsibility in initiating the action. The problem is not where the defender is when he started the kick, but whether he could contest for ball. Obviously he could. Obviously it's misconduct. Since it was otherwise a technically sound play, I'd agree with yellow.
I've not seen the play in question here but here are some comments I have from reading this thread. 1. It is the player's responsibility to ensure that his play on the ball does not endanger the safety of an opponent. This is especially important in situations like this with a bicycle kick and we are taught that. 2. A bicycle kick that makes contact with the face of the opponent is reckless and meets the definition of at minimum a caution in both the USSF and FIFA worlds. The player has chosen to make a high-risk play on the ball (i.e. high risk since his foot will be 6-7 feet high at the contact with the ball) with an opponent within distance to make a reasonable play on the ball. The result is that his play on the ball shows he has no regard for the safety of other players. 3. When FIFA says, "the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent" I've never read that as two distinct and separate criteria that must be met. Rather to me that has always meant that the player is in danger of injuring his opponent because he has far exceeded the necessary use of force. 4. The problem with the FIFA guidance is that while it is stated that way and I agree with MassRef that going by that this is not an RC offense, in practice FIFA referees seem to be more in line with what USSF teaches that it's either excessive force or endangering the safety. For instance a sliding tackle that is deemed a foul maybe just a foul or only a caution if the player has his studs down. However just by turning his studs up (i.e. no change in force) we suddenly expect and usually see a red card. So obviously in practice, the excessive force of the challenge is not being used as the only determining factor.
great point! the difference between a regular slide and cleats up or off the ground is the risk of injury. slide with feet on ground-- player falls. slide with feet up-- broken leg or ankle. i don't think it was intentional, but just like a slide with feet off the ground (if not moreso), the risk of serious injury to another player is multiplied by attempting a bicycle. straight red.
There's some confusion here. "Endangering the safety of an opponent" applies at all levels... that comes straight from FIFA. But that applies to tackles, not all types of challenges and/or fouls. The foul here is "kicking." The penal fouls are either careless (simple foul), reckless (caution), or with excessive force (send off). The definitions I posted above come straight from FIFA. So the kicking foul from yesterday has to fit one of those categories (unless you think it was just a simple careless foul). I think it fits perfectly in the reckless category.
Yes, I am confused! How is tackle defined? Are you saying that it it is irrelevant if you are endangering the safety of an opponent while committing one of the 10 DFK fouls if the opponent doesn't possess the ball because you are not "tackling" for the ball?
Well, it's not--not in the Laws, at least. But it's different from a charge or a kick or a trip, or whatnot. Tackle is listed separately from those in types of fouls that are possible. Irrelevant is probably too strong of a word. But it's not the overriding factor. If a penal foul is committed with excessive force, then it's a red card. FIFA defines excessive force as when "the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent." "In danger of injuring his opponent" is pretty damn close to "endangers the safety of..." so I wouldn't use "irrelevant." The difference with a tackle, specifically, is that FIFA says you only have to be endangering the safety of an opponent. You don't need to be "far exceeding the necessary use of force," which is the first clause of the "excessive force" definition. Even as I write that, I know it's confusing. The simplest way to put it is, to get a red card for SFP: 1) Tackles need only "endanger the safety of an opponent." 2) Other penal fouls (aside from holding, spitting, deliberate handling, etc.) need to "far exceed the necessary use of force" AND be "in danger of injuring [the] opponent."
Let's not overlook the fact that the Dutch player takes a couple of strides to reach the area while the opponent is looking directly upward at the ball, then jumps to his left and bends his head in that direction in attempting to play the ball. He is not completely vertical. That said, I do not think that the Dutch player did anything wrong on the play, and the Uruguayan bares the responsibility for the contact as he went flying in not looking where he was kicking. Despite not seeing his opponent until the final moment, the player from Uruguay showed no concern for the safety of another player who may be there. Even so, I have a hard time characterizing his action as warranting a red. There are some challenges that the players accept as part of the game even if hard contact or a foul occurs. It depends upon the manner in which the player made the challenge. In this case a legitimate soccer play was made. The Uruguay player did not simply leap at the opponent and spike him. This was a case of one player going for the ball with his foot and another with his head. Those situations often lead to unhappy endings. While a red card may not be the appropriate consequence, a player who goes for the ball in this manner certainly isn't absolved of any wrongdoing. It becomes a matter of how accountable we hold him for his actions. In this case, I believe that a caution for playing in a reckless manner was fully appropriate. His actions just didn't rise above that standard. There was a similar play in the final sequence of the Uruguay-Ghana match. The player from Ghana heading the ball got kicked in the torso, instead of the face, by a defender from Uruguay attempting to kick the ball away by using the same tactic. No foul was even deemed to have occurred on that play.
That is an interesting distinction, but it might not hold water. It could be that FIFA meant "in danger of injuring his opponent" to qualify "far exceeded the necessary use of force", so that not all cases of far exceeding the necessary use of force are to be sanctioned with a red card--only those which endanger the safety of his opponent. Or maybe it wasn't meant to be a qualifier at all, but really just another way to say the same thing. If a player has ""far exceeded the necessary use of force", he has ipso facto endangered the safety of his opponent. Perhaps it isn't two separate conditions, but one condition described two different ways. According to the LOTG, "a tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." But the very next paragraph says: "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." Is this not describing a "tackle"? Whether from the front, side, or behind the opponent, the tackle has to meet both conditions again "with excessive force" and "endangering the safety of an opponent". Would FIFA really want to say it is OK to endanger the safety of your opponent, as long as you only use enough force to accomplish whatever task you had in mind at the time? I don't think so.
Since we can argue what Fifa means all day and never agree on anything, I think the USSF answer to this is SFP. This is from Week in Review - week 9 As far as I'm concerned, in the US, if no where else, that was SFP everyday of the week.
By the text of what you just posted this was not a hard surface to a soft tissue area. It was the top of the boot to the face, not the bottom cleated portion of the shoe. Sorry, but you just killed your argument.
ALL it takes is that toe impacting the player's eye socket - you'll potentially have a player's career forever ruined because one fella decided to use his boot at an altitude of 5 feet for the cool factor instead of using another body part. The potential for injury is too severe in my opinion. Let's put this another way - forget the cool bicycle kick for a moment. Two players facing the ball and one decides to kick it in the air at what would reasonable be called head height. He kicks the ball (or even misses it completely) but kicks his opponent in the face. You'd give him the warning/caution and say, "tsk, tsk, don't do that again"? Meanwhile the victim has a concussion/dental surgery/detached retina/hockey face?
Tackles were just moved into the C/R/EF grouping from the "anytime" category. However, I do agree with you statement that any tackle which endangers the safety of the opponent is SFP.
I am going to change my earlier tune on this call and agree wtih Bill that this should have been a red card. While it was not shown on the replays, at 29:20 it Caceres can clearly be seen taking a peak at where the ball might land (as he should) and despite De Zeeuw clearly being in a position to play the ball he sallies forth with his (now) obviously dangerous bicycle kick anyway. Previously I had cut him considerable slack because a) I didn't think he was aware of De Zeeuw's position and b) I thought he telegraphed his bicycle kick enough that De Zeeuw was at least partially responsible for taking the full force of the kick. I'm still in a bit of a quandary as to how De Zeeuw should handle the play of Caceres, but I really can't fault him for thinking a) he has a right to go for the ball, and b) it is Caceres responsibility to pull out of the kick at the last second if necessary if injury might result. For me, that fact that Caceres must have seen De Zeeuw and should have assumed that De Zeeuw would attempt to head the ball, and yet proceeded with his bicycle kick anyway, flips this for me from a yellow to a red. When the law says "and is in danger of injuring his opponent" it doesn't say that the offender needs to be aware that he is in danger of injuring his opponent, but I think for most of us, right or wrong, it is a factor.
I think when executing a high-risk tackle (or kick or whatever you want to call it) that once committed to cannot be pulled out of, the player must always consider the risk that he could injure another player and thus his responsibility is to only execute that maneuver when he can be certain he won't injure an opponent. And if he does injure an opponent, it is our job as an official to send him off so that this principle becomes more firmly established and players only take these risks when they don't endanger the safety of opponents. Perhaps one reason there are many who think this is a yellow is that they believe that at the professional level, the bicycle kick is considered a "normal" part of the game and thus a higher standard does not apply. For those who think this is a yellow, would you still give a yellow card if this was done in a U12 game? How about U16? U19? Adult rec? Comp men's amateur? Does it matter?
I think this is exactly the point and why we have these disagreements that sometimes get a little heated. I do think the bicycle kick is pretty normal at that level. At any level of game I do, which is up to adult amateur, it would probably end up feeling like a red to me.
The part I bolded really is an excellent point. It is something that often gets lost in the referee forum discussions, where we dissect and look at plays against the written word of the Laws of the Game. We tend overlook the basic questions such as 'what do the players want?' or 'what do the players accept?' or 'what do the players expect?' I doubt anyone on the pitch expected the referee to produce a red card in this situation.