Cleats Up?

now that i think of it it spretty hard to desbribe in words furhter than "studs up".

here is what i would define as "studs up"

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/WORLD/worldcup/06/09/russia.death/story.tackle.ap.jpg

http://english.people.com.cn/200611/27/images/football3.jpg

as opposed to "studs down"
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/68/28/23272868.jpg

sorry i have no idea how to post pictures.

 

Pretty simple IMHO.. it means making a tackle such that the sole (studs) of the foot will contact the ball.

It tends to get careful scrutiny because, in order to make an effective tackle with the sole, the leg must be extended straight out. A straight leg concentrates the force of the tackle on the sole, as opposed to a tackle using the top or side of the foot, where the knee can bend and still provide enough leverage for the tackle.

Miss a tackle using another part of the foot, and you can still whack somebody but any injury tends to be more of a bruise or twist (not to say that it can't be serous as well), but a straight legged tackle with the sole has far more capability to seriously injure if the ball is missed.

 

see bob evans.
http://fortheintegrityofsoccer.blogs.com/artandscienceofrefereeing/2008/04/the-clean-fresh.html#more

 

Close but I would make one change. Cleats contacting the opponent are dangerous. Cleats contacting the ball are not.

 

Another slight change: Cleats contacting the ball can be dangerous (if it endangers the safety of an opponent) and possibly misconduct; cleats contacting the player is a DFK and almost always misconduct.

 

Bob Evans' Ronaldo clip was interesting.

Ronaldo's studs barely barely within a foot of the opponent, and he gets a red card?

Sure, Ronaldo tossed himself into the air, but most of the force was applied to the ball in a downward strike, not forward. He missed the ball by only about two inches, and only because it is kicked away from him in the nick of time, and this is the challenge of an "angry young man"? Crazy.

While Evans has a good point about pounds per square inch, I think it would be difficult, though possible, to kick someone with just one stud. What about the force of the toe of a boot? Could not a large amount of force be appled by kicking someone toe-first? Or, as this case, perhaps the force of kicking with the heel should be considered.

The studs being up is one factor. How much force is being applied in a direction that might actually harm an opponent is another. Both should be considered.

 

I actually cautioned a player for this in a recent game. Came in studs up three times. The first time he got a warning, the second time, IFK for playing in a dangerous manner and a talking-to. The third time, a caution.

The coach wasn't happy (moreso because we see each other often) but had it been his player that had studs coming at him, he would have been hollering for the card on the first instance.

 

pv, again you are getting picky on words, his base point is the force that is there is focussed on a much smaller area, look at it this way. Have you ever been stepped on by a 100 lb kid in sneakers? I have, ok, same 100lb kid steps on you in cleats, hurts WAY more. Why? the same amount of force is focussed in a smaller area, it HURTS.

Studs up takes the force behind the tackle and focusses it onto a smaller point. It's dangerous.

 

Taken out of context, I can see how that would be perceived, but Dive-aldo had just been tackled hard, thought he was fouled but wasn't, and was running around like a lunatic and lunging in on Andy Cole, totally out of control.

Oh, and Utd were losing 2-0 at City at the time. Frustration no doubt played a part.

 

It may have. But 41 clearly did foul Ronaldo, and it it was clearly a cardable challenge. If this is the play you refer to and there was no call, he was clearly hard done by.

 

I agreed. I said he made a good point. I am just saying that the direction and degree of the force need to be taken into account in addition to the fact that studs are making contact. For example, if a player steps on the foot of another player, I would not send him off for SFP, merely because there is stud-to-player contact.

 

I nailed two kids (U-15), same game, the first time they did this. One was very close to a red, but the yellow fixed the problem (he was a bit of a hot head to begin with). The other one was less severe, but he clearly went in studs up and got a good piece of the kids foot. I explained the problem when issuing the card, and he was like "Ok". I think this was one of the first times I processed this happening real time, which I am happy with. Of course, speed this up 2-3x for U-18 or higher level men's amateur and then we will see how good I am at catching it.

 

When in a match, will a player contest a ball the way Ronaldo did? His challenge was excessive, dangerous, and quite foolish. He absolutely made no attempt to play the ball. In this situation, and any situation like it.....a red card is not only deserved, but mandatory! Trust me, I love Man U....but the challenge was completely uncalled for.

 

Don't strain too hard on definitions. Here's the discussion from the Advice to Referees, under Law 12, Part C: Serious Foul Play and Violent Conduct.

Referees must be particularly vigilant regarding offenses which are too severe for a caution and which include one or more of the following elements:

--Retaliation
--Tackling from behind during which a foul is committed
--One or both feet, with cleats showing, above the ground (emphasis added)
--Violent or excessive force
--No chance of playing the ball

Pretty straightforward, seems to me. An excessively forceful tackle where the cleats are showing, one or both feet, above the ground--send off. And contact isn't strictly required for it.

 

And he might have been right. The player you are citing didn't make contact with the studs up three separate times before a caution, right? That would have been too lenient in my book.

 

Agreed. To add to this, USSF has said in the past that if a player steps on another player's foot, the referee should be thinking caution. I can't remember exactly where, but there was a clip that USSF put out of a defender stepping on (Carlos Ruiz?)'s foot, and they said it should be a caution.

To be sure, the challenge was late, but the point of the memo was that stepping on a player's foot (or cleating them in the ankle) HURTS, and the player perceives the foul to be worse than it might be. For example, a late bump, knocking the player over, versus a late step-on-foot. Both late, maybe a little stupid, but one is viewed by players simply as a late foul and the other as a more malicious, harmful act. The referee should recognize this and deal with it accordingly.

And in comment to NHRef's post, at Sun Bowl in Tampa in December, my foot was stepped on by a 14 y/o player with cleats. I immediately thought, "wow, I forgot how much that hurts". And he was just stepping back to take a throw-in! Imagine that, but with 3-4 times the force behind it!

 

I think a key reason it should almost always be cautioned is that it is a choice by the player. You can argue that a player was late or missed by inches in almost all missed tackles that are fouls. Studs up should be cautioned because regardless of whether or not the player got the ball, they know that you can not go in studs up. I equate it to spearing or head first tackling in pointy ball. It is banned because of the likley hood of injury and punished severly because it is a conscious choice by the player to use this technique. Hence Renaldo's Red. Go in like that and you are gone. Most pro players don't even argue when they get sent for it.

Watch the players-they get irate because they know it just isn't done.