I looked at it about 12 times, I didn't really think that was a foul since contact was initiated by Campbell. What would be the reasoning for calling that a foul? Tripping, since the ball was still within playing distance of Campbell?
Huh? You’re saying the guy trying to take a shot on goal “initiated” contact when he was on a breakaway and is challenged from behind? I genuinely don’t know how to respond.
I guess initiated is the wrong word, but Campbell kicked through the defenders leg who had poked the ball away without any contact. The rest of my question still stands.
I think you’re analyzing this way too much. The poke on the ball might have come before other contact. But it’s also possible the attacker makes contact with the defender before the poke. You’ve watched it 12 times so I’m sure you’re more confident in the answer. But it’s close. And ultimately it’s an answer to a question that really doesn’t need to be asked. He’s challenged him from behind. He’s made foul contact from behind. The toe poke on the ball doesn’t excuse the foul. This isn’t a clean tackle, so to speak. It’s a desperate intervention from behind during an attempted shot on goal. You’ve got to take more care not to trip your opponent. So yes, if you’re looking for the book answer this is a careless trip or a careless challenge. But I suspect most people would just see it as a foul from behind on a breakaway. Parsing it further than that doesn’t seem like it serves much purpose. Unless you really believe this isn’t a foul that should be punished. And at that point, I can’t offer too much.
Damn, I didn’t even think of that! Coaches are going to have to consider that before spouting off from now on. Perhaps a side benefit of being able to card coaches.
Dr. Joe (FWIW) just said the PK should have been a DOGSO-red card with the kick coming from outside the area. Not sure how I feel about that
We've been able to card coaches for a while in DC-VA, I think it's a great solution to managing coach behavior. On the down side, a lot of people seem to think they have a free pass until they get a yellow.
IMO that seems like one of those borderline things that you don't call because the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
So here's a question, maybe in the wrong forum, but if your Costa Rica would you rather have a PK and play man for man, or get a direct kick just outside the box and play a man up for 40+ minutes? I think you have to take the best odds for a goal, but its an interesting tradeoff.
Took him awhile, but that’s the right outcome. With VAR that’s what you would have had. What’s the issue?
In what matches? What other major misconduct do you occasionally ignore? Guys, this really isn’t debatable. If it’s a foul—and it was—then it’s a red card if you correctly spot it outside the penalty area. Why on earth wouldn’t it be?
He’s taking an otherwise uncontested shot on goal from 18 yards out. Has possession. Straight in the middle of the field. No one else can challenge. Unless you think he can’t score from there for whatever reason, it is textbook. Don’t let the proximity of the other defender fool you, as it did with Dr Joe for about 45 minutes. Presence and proximity is close to irrelevant if no legal challenge can be made.
DC-VA tell you to card the coaches as a symbol, its up to the league if they would like to record it as card. Most of the travel leagues in the area that record cards, do chose to record cards against coaches. I'm still not sold on it being a foul, I probably would treat it in the way we all treat borderline offenses in the penalty area, by not calling the foul. I could be very wrong on this one.
We are digressing here and it’s now old news, but I doubt (or at least very much hope against the idea that) your actual state referee committee told you to do that. If particular youth leagues tell you to, okay. But I’m confident to the point of near certainty, given I have worked amateur matches under DCV, that what you’re actually saying is not (er, was not) true.
The SRC was telling us to do it when I started. They have since deleted it from their website, but second hand versions are still around. Here's a copy of the letter from the state director of instruction: http://www.ncsl-soccer.com/referee-information/giving-cards-to-coaches http://www.brycsoccer.org/Referees/reading/91811.html
Thanks for that. I’d call attention to this part, which seems to clarify that your SRC supported you in carding coaches in the leagues that ask. That’s different than the committee telling you to card coaches. It’s all moot now, though.
I guess, I read the paper along ago. That's what they said on paper, instructors would generally tell you to card coaches as a default reaction. The instructors stopped saying it about 2-3 years ago. However, almost all of the leagues in the area would allow cards to coaches. It was generally assumed that it was allowed in most competitions. Thinking back I probably should have been more careful about which competitions I carded coaches in.
I'll concede the debate on the Campbell foul at this point, I was probably wrong. I think I was watching it in slow motion too much. It probably should be FK + DOGSO-F.
To me, that’s a clean tackle. This isn’t a situation where the defender goes through the attacker from behind, or goes between his legs. He reaches around the attacker and pokes the ball away. Then the attacker, who is now swinging for a ball that’s no longer there, makes contact with the defender’s leg. I don’t see that as a foul.