The ball is in between the lead attacker and the last defender. The defender makes a legitimate attempt at the ball, misses, and clips the attacker. Note, this is NOT a cynical shirtpull or hack. The defender just didn't quite get the ball. Should there be a card? What color?
I'm presuming this is a real foul, as described in your post, rather than an accident as in the title. If the parameters for meeting DOGSO (e.g. "4 D's" in USSF) are there, then it's a send-off. Else, it's just a DFK or PK. You said it wasn't a cynical attempt to break up the play, just a foul - a deliberate attempt at the ball that went wrong. So there's no middle ground of a caution here. It's either send-off for DOGSO or no card.
I agree....I can't see a caution coming out here if in the opinion of the referee the defender was making a reasonable play on the ball, but DOGSO is not something where you are not judging the intent of the player, just the result.
Did you mean both of these "nots" or just one? This was a real play in an EPL match from the weekend. The ref made no call at all, he missed the clear foot-to-foot contact. I was just wondering what the right call would be. The attacker touched the ball forward, the defender missed it and kicked the attacker's foot, and the attacker went down.
The beauty of the USSF ATR is that it restricts the occasions in which we need to read the mind of the players. You call what you see, not what you THINK the player is THINKING......
Because the game was played in the EPL then ignore the USSF ATR as it is not valid outside the US. There are "fouls", "Fouls" and "FOULS" and each is treated differently. The same foul may be a cautionable offence in the danger zone around the penalty area but only a direct free kick offence around the half way line. The ability to read whether you have seen a "foul" or a "Foul" comes with experience. You should be able to determine if the challenge is a "FOUL" already. You will here English commentators call a foul "cynical" - this means that is is probably a "Foul" and the player is about to be cautioned. A big percentage of "Fouls" occur against attacking players around the penalty area - the defender has been beaten so trips the attacker or body checks him. The caution is more for killing an attacking opportunity then for the trip/body check by itself. The ability to read the difference between "fouls" and "Fouls", as I said earlier, only comes with experience and it can't be taught in a class or learnt from a textbook.
Sure seems like you are making this up as you go......which is problematic. One of the biggest problems with the EPL is the lack of consistancy among the professional referees. Nothing is more frustrating for a player then not knowing what to expect from the man in the middle and nothing keeps contriversy to minimum then no suprises. That is what is so nice about the ATR it standardizes what US officials should be doing. The players know what to expect and so a red card given for a foul tackle that strikes a player and that denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity(further quantified) results in a red card. No one need bother argueing because a good ref will apply the ATR when appropriate and it will keep the "making it up as I go" to a minimum. Sometimes we do have to wing it, but players and reffs are better off not.
Not valid? There is plenty of useful advice in the ATR that applies throughout the world. It is very rare a USSF interpretation is not uniform across all countries. Although there are slight differences between FA instruction and USSF instruction in some very minor instances, the other 99% of the ATR is perfectly valid no matter what country you are from. Simplified, the defender fouls the attacker. If the other criteria for DOGSO applies, the referee has no other recourse but to send the player off. Nothing forces the defender to try and make the play he did (and failed), legitimate intentions or not.
There are pros and cons to both systems. If you are brought up in the British footballing tradition then you expect certain things that you will not get from a US referee - penalising a player for calling "mine" is a good example - this is called the human factor. You cannot define the game of football in a book because every situation on the field is different and the same situation in two different games can result in two completely different results. You refer to this as "making it up as I go" but it is the opposite. It is using your intuition and experience to identify what is really a foul and what is not. You almost appear to want to be told how to react to each situation on the field, like a robot, rather then thinking what is best for the game in this situation? I never said the ATR is not useful but outside the US it is not a valid referees instruction manual - just as a document from NZ Soccer shouldn't be used to instruct referees in the US. There are only two openly available documents that can be used in all countries - the FIFA LOTG and FIFA Questions and Answers. If you are aware of any more then please post a link.
No sir!! We do indeed stop the Unsporting verbal behavior you have described. I dont know! I wouldnt mind taking a look at it and see what I can pick up. Although you imply that LAW 12 for New Zealand would say: "Be fair"
I must have missed that one too . I also agree with your statement about being able to tell the difference between fouls and FOULS. This is the whole "art" of refereeing and match control, and the ability to serve out punishment that gives ALL the players a sense of justice is something that can not be learned by just reading the LOTG and calling it by the book. Sorry about all my "nots" in the first message, just ignore that first "not".
We started enforcing it the moment it became unsporting behavior - that is, when the player saying "Mine" deceived the opponent. However, we don't automatically call it whenever the word is sounded. We reserve it for when there actually is USB. Incidentally, our response to it is a caution (verbal warning first to the u-littles). I believe that in some areas of the world, this is viewed as an IFK offense, without misconduct. From where does that interpretation arise?
So you only penalise when a player calls "Mine" and doesn't go for the ball? This interpretation comes from the old "ungentlemanly conduct" rules and in most of the British world that I have visited it is still penalised with an IFK.
I think a referee has two choices in a situation like this, assuming the criteria for the contact qualifying as DOGSO. He can call the foul, show a red card, and award the free kick or pk, or he can call nothing at all considering the contact triffling in the spirit of the old IFAB Decision 8. The way we are asked to view DOGSO, there is very little room making it up as we go and we are not asked by the laws to judge intent with respect to a trip.
There is an "unwritten rule" in England (in fact wrongly interpreted) that if you call a "name", i.e. "Jeff's ball", then that's okay. If I say, "my ball" then that is considered wrong. However both are right and both are wrong. "How?" I hear you say. Within the laws of the game, an indirect free kick should be given, if I am seeking to gain an advantage, or an advantage is gained, (i.e. an opponent not going for, or letting the ball go). If I call either and there is no opponent within playing distance or a great number of yards away, then I haven't put anyone off playing the ball, and therefore no one is at a disadvantage. However you won't find many referees interpreting it this way. When I say to players, "Show me in the rules where it says you must call a name, and bet me a £1m at the same time", I don't get too many takers!! It all to do with "advantage" and has one been gained unfairly.
personally I would love to have the option of a sin bin for 'innocently mistimed' DOGSO in young soccer, say U/10-U/12. As for the older players, I believe that almost all careless fouls have an element of deliberation - at some point, even subconsciously, the player committed to the tackle knowing full well they may take out the player.