Recently did a game in which a defender dove and headed a crossed ball away from an attacker’s foot at about waist level. The attacking team wanted dangerous play called on the defender for lowering his head; however it did not appear to me that the attacker ceased his challenge for the ball because of the defenders actions, so I allowed play to continue. One of my ARs felt that any time that a player puts himself in danger by lowering his head, dangerous play should be called. Although I explained to him that according to the ATR, it is not dangerous play unless the other player pulls up, he was adamant that his last instructor never mentioned anything about this stipulation. As I thought back to the many recert classes I’ve attended over the years, I’d have to agree that many instructors leave this out when going over dangerous play. I believe that this foul is called inconsistently in youth games for this very reason. Am I correct in my thinking that it doesn’t really matter what age the players, if all of the criteria for dangerous play are not met, there is no foul, and if so, why don’t instructors explain this at clinics?
Why? Instructors are "Human" also. Many times instructors have a set amount of time to cover a pre-deterimined amount of information. Some instructors will "dodge" something that will take "to much" time to discuss.
The clause "and the opponent pulls up" is not included in the law, and thus does not factor into the decision whether an act was dangerous play or not. However, if the act does not impact the overall outcome of the play then the referee may deem it a trifling offense. This is where the idea of a player "pulling up" factors in -- if the opponent carries through with his action and no other foul is committed, then the play had no impact on the outcome and is trifling. If the opponent has to pull up to avoid causing potential harm, the play does have an impact and thus needs to be called. In recreational games, you will often find a referee whistling solely for the act itself in the interest of safety, though. By punishing the act regardless of the outcome, it sends the message that you would rather not see the players engage in the act at all. At that level of play there is no guarantee that the players will have the skill or experience to pull up from a play on the ball if somebody is placing themselves in danger.
Statesman - I'm pretty sure that most people understood what I meant when I said that the player pulled up. Sorry if you were confused. Thank you for restating my point so eloquently.
There was no confusion of your statements on my part; my response was directed towards this: My point is that it is dangerous play regardless if the opponent pulls up or not. However, if the dangerous play has no impact on the outcome then the offense is trifling and should be ignored. Defining "impact" varies greatly based on the age and skill of the players, as I elaborated on in the second paragraph of my post. Some instructors may not discuss the impact of the play when teaching the law simply because that is a more advanced topic not covered by the entry-level test. Further, first-year referees may be better suited at the level they officiate to simply call the foul regardless of impact for the reasons stated in my previous post.
I have long felt that the ATR version of playing in a dangerous manner was out of step with the rest of the world and with safe practices. The three elements are so close togather in space and time that either nothing happens or a DFK foul does. If nothing happens, trfling. Seems like the playing in a dangerous manner could be a very useful tool, but for the strictures of the ATR. Why shouldn't dangerous play towards a teammate be a call? Why should a dumb player, too macho to flinch, not have protection from dangerous play? Maybe they fixed it in the 2005 version. I can't get through to view them. Regards.
That is one of the best ways I have heard it explained. The ATR reflects US attitudes towards football so there will always be small differences between what it recommends and what other countries do. One obvious reason for different interpretations on topics like dangerous play is what legislation applies in that country. Some countries will have legislation that puts more responsibility onto the referee for injuiries so the national association will have very strict rules for how referees handle injuiries, for example.
Dangerous play is a FOUL and fouls are always against an opponent or opponent's team. A better question would be why dangerous play against oneself is considered callable but that is the teaching of USSF.
The answer to that one is, the foul is "playing in a dangerous manner". The foul is not against you, it's against the opponent, who is harmed by your putting yourself in danger by limiting the options he has available for safe play. In the youth games I officiate, I tend to whistle or not based on proximity, not necessarily on whether I noticed an opponent change his actions based on the dangerous play. The easy example, a player playing the ball on the ground with no one around is fine, a player playing the ball on the ground with an opponent nearby, who is likely to kick the player on the ground if he tries to play the ball, commits a foul. In the example that started this discussion, a diving header in front of another player, who could then not play the ball safely, would be a foul. Playing dangerously with a teammate in proximity instead of an opponent does not impact the other team's ability to play the ball safely, or endanger the other team. A high kick in the face of your teammate may irk them, but is not a foul. Likewise, if the high kick goes past dangerous play and actually impacts the teammate's head, it's not the foul of kicking, because it wasn't against an opponent. If necessary, a ref could stop play for misconduct, perhaps unsporting behavior (or violent conduct) and restart with an IFK for the opposing team, even though they weren't involved.
Wreave, A good analysis except that you missed your own point. You don't discuss a play dangerous to yourself with no opponent nearby. The training says that should be called while something dangerous to a teammate should not be called, regardless of the presense of an opponent. The written laws list playing in a dangerous manner but does not say anything about who is put in danger. The ATR specifies that an opponent must be adversly affected by the danger but allows us to make that decision for children who may not recognize the danger they are in. The USSF Entry level training aids specify that a foul must be against an opponent but the foul of dangerous play can be against oneself or an opponent but not against a teammate. It does not say an opponent must be affected. This is the cause of confusion in ThreeCards post. Since I do not ref pro level games, I feel comfortable going by the original FIFA text and calling anything that I consider to be dangerous to anyone, without considering which team they are on. Better safe than sorry on this one. One more point from the origonal post - the low header that prevented someone else from kicking the ball is not dangerous if it began before anyone tried to kick the ball. The person who initiates an action first has the right to complete that action. Someone who comes in later is the person being dangerous.
Mike, I think we're saying a lot the same things, but I am not sure I agree on a couple points. Are you saying that if you play the ball on the ground with a teammate nearby, not an opponent, that should be called? Or if the diving header example is in front of a teammate, instead of an opponent, it should be called? The ATR is quite clear in 12.1: "A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play." Further, in 12.13: "Playing "in a dangerous manner" can be called only if the act, in the opinion of the referee, meets three criteria: the action must be dangerous to someone (including the player himself), it was committed with an opponent close by, and the dangerous nature of the action caused this opponent to cease his active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by his attempt not to participate in the dangerous play." Dangerous play, either dangerous to oneself or to a teammate, if no opponent is involved/nearby, is not a foul. On the low header from the original post, you have to be a jedi master to know if the attacker ceased play for the ball based on the diving header. A diving header to take the ball off an attacker's foot IS dangerous, and DOES "otherwise disadvantage" the attacker by extremely limiting his options to play the ball safely. YHTBT - from the description, I would have blown the whistle, but I do not necessarily agree with the AR's position either. Just like any ball played on the ground, or any high kick, is not always Dangerous Play, any low header is not always Dangerous Play. As for youth soccer, one of the keys for referees that is especially important for kids is to keep the game safe. If that means calling a dangerous play when no opponent is nearby, to keep some poor kid from getting kicked in the head, so be it. Worse things have happened. However, it's kind of unfair to take the ball away from a team which had possession, when no opponents were challenging, because two players from that team endangered each other. You might instead blow the whistle, counsel them quickly, and restart with a drop ball while not necessarily giving the other team a chance to participate. On the issue of having the right to complete an action, I'd like to discuss that more before coming to a conclusion. If you are playing the ball on the ground, and an opponent arrives, do you get to complete that play, or does the arrival of the opponent (and the opponent's inability to play the ball safely) create a whistle for Dangerous Play?
I disagree. As soon as a player puts him/herself into a position that endangers his or her safety, or the safety of another player, then he/she can be penalised for dangerous play. For example, a player raises his/her foot above hip height and a player coming in to challenge for the ball has to stop to avoid the studs of the original player's boot. The player who raised his/her foot higher than hip height should be penalised for dangerous play not the player coming in later. Another example is a player lying on the ball so that opponents can't play the ball without hurting that player. The player lying on the ball is penalised for dangerous play as he/she stopped other players being able to legally challenge for the ball without endangering the player.
Wreave, my major point was an agreement with ThreeCards, who started this thread, that there is confusion about what should or should not be called when something is dangerous. The different sources do not all say the same thing. As to my point about the person who starts an action having the right to complete it, I know that is the USSF position and it is quite clear in the "Myths of the Game" video. The misunderstanding is that I was not clear enough in the setup. An action begun while an opponent is approaching can still be dangerous. A player on the ground with no one nearby is not dangerous but for him to continue to play or cover the ball when someone does approach is a separate action and a separate decision of who is creating the danger. The "first come, first served" thought applies when one player attempts to kick the ball as another trys to head it. In this case, the one who initiates the action does have the high ground. Crowdie, in your example, a player who has a high foot which is then hit by another should not be peanalized but if the foot was put up into the path of the oncomming player, he should be called. I think we both stated half the situation and were not really in disagreement.
I think we will have to disagree on that one. The instruction I have is that player's feet are not allowed to rise above the player's hip if it endangers another player. In the example I gave, the player exposed his studs to another player which is definitely dangerous play down here. In reality, the player running on would be shouting at the referee about the studs as soon as they were exposed - just incase you missed it.
You are correct that a high foot should be called as dangerous play if someone is endangered. But if the foot is there without someone being put in danger and some overzelous opponent comes running into it, then he is putting himself in danger. If you don't see that then we must continue to disagree.
Its merely a matter of when the element of danger was first introduced to the play. If there is no element of danger at the time the act is initiated then the player should not be punished. If the opponent then creates the element of danger after the act has already begun then he is the one at fault.
This is why you never (rarely) see dangerous play called in professional or international matches. There is quite a bit of dangerous play, but since the opposing player usually does not stop his challenge for the ball because of the player in a dangerous position, there is no foul. I agree that this should be called in most youth games, if not simply to teach the young players what is and is not dangerous. The game that I was speaking of was an adult game, and those players definitely know a dangerous challenge when they commit one.
I have been thinking about your response and I would like to ask you a question that may explain why we see the same situation differently. In the US is it an offence to expose your studs to an opponent that is close to you?
Exposing one's studs is not, in and of itself, an offense. However, when judging a foul, such as a foul tackle, that which might have been only careless had the cleats been down, and therefore a simple DFK restart, might be judged reckless or with undue force, and necessitate cautioning or sending off the player before the restart. Sherman
[: My point is that it is dangerous play regardless if the opponent pulls up or not. However, if the dangerous play has no impact on the outcome then the offense is trifling and should be ignored. I thought this was one thing Advice was very clear on. It's NOT danmgerous play unless an opponent is disadvantaged. 12.13 PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER Playing "in a dangerous manner" can be called only if the act, in the opinion of the referee, meets three criteria: the action must be dangerous to someone (including the player himself), it was committed with an opponent close by, and the dangerous nature of the action caused this opponent to cease his active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by his attempt not to participate in the dangerous play. Merely committing a dangerous act is not, by itself, an offense (e.g., kicking high enough that the cleats show or attempting to play the ball while on the ground). Committing a dangerous act while an opponent is near by is not, by itself, an offense. The act becomes an offense only when an opponent is adversely and unfairly affected, usually by the opponent ceasing to challenge for the ball in order to avoid receiving or causing injury as a direct result of the player's act. Playing in a manner considered to be dangerous when only a teammate is nearby is not a foul. Remember that fouls may be committed only against opponents or the opposing team.
The passage you quote describes the three conditions of when dangerous play should be called, not the conditions for what dangerous play is. And, it is worth reminding that the book is advice, not definition. Although it gives a good general guideline in making the call, as we all know the criteria changes dramatically based on skill and the nature of the competition.
We've had this disagreement before so I won't rehash. Advice is what we're supposed to do in the US unless we've received more recent instructions via USSF. It carries full weight of USSF as does Jim Allen's website. That said, I think we're arguing semantics. I get whet you're saying. I agree there's s difference between playing dangerously and the foul playing in a dangerous manner keith
I am still struggling with the "timing" component of this. The player who is coming in to challenge for the ball has the right to challenge for the ball without a player's studs going through his gut. Just running in to challenge for the ball is not an offence but putting your studs into another player is. Obviously for a dangerous play situation to occur the player running in must stop being being impaled