Foul selection in the PA

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Bubba Atlanta, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    #1 Bubba Atlanta, Nov 4, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2014
    I know we've talked about this at length before, but can we talk about it some more? It's still something I tend to struggle with.

    This weekend's case in point: U14 girls, fairly high level. Attacker is moving well just outside the GA. Defender drops her shoulder and presents a very brisk charge into the front shoulder/chest area of the attacker, resulting in a change of possession and the attacker sitting on the ground. I blow, and defender and her coach both greet me with "That was shoulder to shoulder!" I say "It was still a foul." And I still think it was, but I keep replaying it in my mind, thinking, for example, that I very likely would not have whistled it in a U19 boys match.

    I hate borderline fouls in the area. (I also hate having to recalibrate my internal foul meter for U13/14 games.)

    Thinking about this one made me think about another one from a year or so ago. Close and very competitive U17 boys match, both teams trying to advance. I blew for a PK when the defender, again just outside the GA, fairly adroitly stripped the ball from the attacker but followed that up with a fully-extended-arm shove that left the attacker on the ground. "What? I got the ball!" My heat-of-the-moment instantaneous reasoning was that it was no different than a tackle that gets the ball first but follows through to take the attacker down, or where the tackler takes pains to raise the leg so as to assure that the attacker gets tripped. But again, it's one I've always had some doubts about.

    I hate borderline fouls in the area, especially when they turn out to be outcome-determinative in an important match.

    I've heard the position that something that is a foul at midfield is a foul in the PA. I've also heard the position that the referee should not "affect the match" on a close call in the area—and the response that to not make the call is to affect the match just as much as to blow.

    Watching the WC and discussions here and elsewhere have suggested that's it's perhaps better to be vilified for wrongly failing to make a call than for wrongly making it, but that seems cowardly to me. (I'm sure that Japanese ref would agree with me. :whistling:)

    Certainly these situations almost always qualify as YHTBT, but I'd still like to hear some more discussion on the general subject if not on these particular instances.
     
    BTFOOM repped this.
  2. Bradley Smith

    Bradley Smith Member

    Jul 29, 2013
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I awarded a penalty over the weekend in a Boys U17 Division 1 match that was one of those "borderline" fouls. Coaches not happy (and a few of the players, though the player who fouled didn't really protest). Unfortunately this was the 2-1 goal in a game that ended 2-1, so they felt particularly aggrieved. The phrase I kept hearing for the rest of the game was that the call was "soft". I even heard them instruct their players to "go down easy in the box" because "he owe's us one and he knows it". The latter phrase I'm sure was added just for my benefit.

    So what was the call? Blue attacker with possession of the ball just a few yards outside of the goal area turns and is moving away from the goal. As he starts heading away from the goal he has several options of fellow attackers to pass to that are near the top of the penalty area on either side with clear channels to shoot on goal if they received the ball. A defender lunges in to attempt to play the ball with an outstretched leg. He misses the ball completely and clips the thigh of the attacker as he tries to jump over the lunge. At the time of the contact, the ball was still at the attackers feet. As a result of the contact, the attacker's movement is affected enough that he is pushed slightly to the side and stumbles a bit moving forward. The extra small steps he has to take to stabilize was enough for the ball to squirt away from him and another defender to come in and clear the ball out of the penalty area. I hesitated for about a second as I went through what I had just seen in my head and then whistled for the PK. Thankfully I've gotten really good at the loud, harsh whistle and confident pointing to the spot and sold it really well. The players didn't really complain (although a few not near the play did).

    So was this a "soft" foul, as the coaches suggested? I'm sure it certainly looked soft from far away. The attacker did not hit the ground. His movement was disrupted a relatively minor amount compared to what you might see on a lot of PKs. So in that sense I understand the appeals from the bench. The fact that they said it was "soft", though, confirms that they did agree that what happened was (or at least could be) a foul.

    So then we get to the question of whether we should have a different "standard" in the penalty area. I'm usually of the belief that no, we should not. But I better be damn sure (110%) it's a penalty in the area, where maybe at midfield I might be more likely to blow the whistle at 90% sure — for better or for worse. In this particular instance, if a player was challenged in this manner (with possession of the ball) in midfield by a defender who did not get the ball at all? I'd definitely call that at midfield, so why shouldn't I call that in the penalty area?

    One last thing that weighed into my decision making... the location of the ball. If the attacker had pushed the ball too far away from him when he turned away from goal to the point where the contact from the defender would not affect the his ability to continue playing the ball, then I would likely call it trifling contact. In this case, absent the foul he would have still had clear possession and been able to either turn and shoot himself or pass to one of two open attackers who had space and clear angles to shoot on goal.

    For me it was a clear penalty, but it *looked* "soft" in real time (especially to the opposing coaches and spectators). I always feel uncomfortable deciding a game like that. So I'm also interested in others' thought processes on decisions like these.
     
  3. Paper.St.Soap.Closed

    Jul 29, 2010
    My best advice is you are probably over thinking this.

    We spend a lot of time -- too much, sometimes -- looking at things over and over again, with a great deal of detail. I think reviewing fouls and situations is a great way to learn; watching things in super slow motion is fun for debates on BS, but that's the biggest benefit (in my eyes). What does that have to do with foul selection in the PA? Well, I think it lends to being overly sensitive to our foul selection and over-thinking things.

    How to adjust?

    First, get comfortable with your foul selection for the appropriate level of play. You obviously will have to fine tune that foul selection to the game that is in front of you (i.e., not all U14G games are the same). Once you've done that, I'm okay with the statement that you call the same level of fouls in the PA as you would at midfield -- 90% of the time. The time it doesn't make sense is for "control" fouls; those ticky tacky fouls that are, frankly, trifling in nature but provide an opportunity to reset expectations. We're not going to change the course of the match on something like that. From there, I take the approach that the players are the ones that should really adjust their playing style in the PA, not the other way around.

    There are some exceptions to this but I think you have to feel those when they happen. I've heard people say, "You just want to be sure on fouls that are going to be a PK." My response is, "I sure hope you aren't calling doubtful fouls anywhere on the pitch, as a general rule."
     
    La Rikardo, OMGFigo, Thezzaruz and 3 others repped this.
  4. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I look at it the other direction:
    • A foul in the PA is a foul anywhere in the field.
    • Elsewhere on the field, we may call additional fouls (call them borderline trifling fouls) for game management purposes and to cool the temperature of the game -- but those we would not make in the PA.
     
  5. Chas (Psyatika)

    Oct 6, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    This is now my official story, and I'm sticking to it!
     
  6. nonya

    nonya Member

    Mar 2, 2006
    I will give you the old school answer...no way am I calling a PK on something like that, I am not deciding the outcome of the game. That is from 30 years of experience, and I am ready to get flamed from the youngsters.

    I will now give you the 30 years of experience answer...did you call a similar foul any point before this? Don't get hung up on what is a foul, and be more concerned with being consistent. If you always called this in the game you can proudly go up to the player or coach and say "I called the same exact thing for (or against) your team 5 minutes ago, and I can even tell you the player number that went down." 99% of the time there is no argument to that.

    You are right, there are fouls I would call in a U14 game that I would never call in a college match. A couple of times after a bad call in a college match I will go up to the coach and apologize and tell him that I just did a U14 game yesterday, and those coaches understand.

    Be more concerned about being consistent in the match you are doing, and the definition of what you actually call will come naturally with the level of game you do.
     
  7. AremRed

    AremRed Member+

    Sep 23, 2013
    This is how I approach it. I recently called a PK for handling where a defender was all alone (except for the keeper of course) in the PA. She was practically on top of the penalty spot, trying to trap a very high ball with her knee. The ball hit her knee and bounced straight up to her arm and straight down to the pitch. The girls were almost in tears trying to argue there was no advantage gained because there were no attackers near, but I would have made the same handling call anywhere else on the pitch.
     
  8. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I'm trying to understand what was deliberate in what you describe?
     
    tomek75 and chaoslord08 repped this.
  9. AremRed

    AremRed Member+

    Sep 23, 2013
    Not necessarily deliberate but certainly unnatural position/making herself bigger. As I said, it's handling anywhere else on the field, and at any level above U13.
     
  10. NW Referee

    NW Referee Member

    Jun 25, 2008
    Washington
    Age level/skill level? The reality is that these considerations can come into play while evaluating a situation like this.

    Do you think she was making herself bigger to trap the ball or was she just being a klutz? Do you really think she had the skill to position her arms to help her trap the ball she hit off of her knee? For girls games you often find a much wider variety of what would be considered a "natural position" for arms.

    Was everyone surprised that you called it? The game may not have been served by calling this handling ("Not necessarily deliberate..." as you say). Law 18 may have been applicable in this situation.
     
    Doug the Ref and chaoslord08 repped this.
  11. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004

    I'm really really struggling to figure out by the way you describe that play how it could possibly be handling. I would lose the making herself bigger on a deflection from herself with NO ONE around her theory. If the ball had been played from a foot away from an attack and it bounced off the knee of the defender onto her arm would you have called that? And it probably isn't a hanndling call ANYWHERE on the pitch for ANYONE at any level. And to call a penalty in that spot is beyond cheap. Sorry, I might be a little harsh, but I think if I'm coaching, it's going to be a very long night for you.
     
    espola and chaoslord08 repped this.
  12. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member+

    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Count me among those in the "straighten the elbow, win a foul" crowd. Displacing the attacker by pushing allows the defender an easier opportunity to clear the ball and it's the kind of foul I'm willing to call anywhere on the field.

    There's always something that feels off about PKs that come with the defender in possession or off the ball. Mainly it's because of their rarity. For example, in the HS tournament this year I gave a PK when a defender charged a player off the ball shoulder to breastbone, knocking the attacker down in the process.
     
    Bubba Atlanta repped this.
  13. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member+

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    If I'm the AR, I start running for the car at this point. ;)
     
    Bubba Atlanta repped this.
  14. Paper.St.Soap.Closed

    Jul 29, 2010
    Agreed. That's not handling, as described. Attempting to trap a high ball with your knee, which then careens off the knee into your arm... I really struggle to see how that is handling.
     
  15. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    Thx for posting this topic. I am in the camp that foul threshold not be raised for the pa. Over time, I have shed the notion of me determining the outcome of the game. The players do that, and if they cannot keep themselves from clumsy, mistimed, or tactical challenges in the PA, they expose themselves to sanction. That is, after all, why there is are penalty kicks in the first place.

    This is where I struggle. The simple reality is that determining fouls with certainty is much harder in the PA. 1: players more likely to go down with trivial contact. 2: much more congested than the middle of the field on set pieces or sustained attack, 3: much more off the ball grappling/holding/shoving.

    Obviously, I raise my intensity when play is in the PA, but sometimes I think something has happened but can't be sure- I only call the penalty if I (or ar) have seen it clearly and am 100% sure. I think the level of certainty needs to be higher in the PA, but that's exactly where I tend to be less certain about what has happened.
     
    uniqueconstraint repped this.
  16. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    then it's not $%$%#$% handling!!!
    My friend, you have lost the forest for the trees. Unnatural position and making oneself bigger are not alternatives to "deliberate," they are tools for referees to recognize deliberate conduct that might otherwise go unnoticed. These tools are valuable most often when it is a defender taking up space and we have a ball-to-arm incident. The question for the referee is whether it was a truly incidental contact or whether the defender was deliberately putting her arm in a place to take up space to block a pass -- whether the position of the arm was unnatural and making the player's profile bigger are fantastic clues (especially at the higher levels) to whether the player was deliberatey using the arm to make the attacke's life more difficult -- if so, then the defender is responsible for the arm and any contact is deliberate.
    As you describe it, I 100% disagree -- this is a classic description of an inadvertant ball to hand/arm that should never be called -- unless the defender does something to change it. (Sometimes on these plays, the defender reacts to the arm/ball contact by pushing or directing the ball with the hand/arm -- that would be deliberate handling. But a misplayed ball that hits a hand/arm by happenstance is not deliberate handling.)
     
    tomek75, RespectTheGame, OMGFigo and 4 others repped this.
  17. AremRed

    AremRed Member+

    Sep 23, 2013
    Yeah I didn't fully describe. The initial bounce from her knee to her arm was accidental (she didn't deliberately mean to do it in my mind) but after the initial hit she reacted to it and directed the ball to the pitch. That's why I called it and that's why I would call it anywhere else on the pitch, which is an example I was trying to provide in response to the OP :)
     
  18. lemma

    lemma Member

    Jul 19, 2011
    This isn't refereeing advice. This is advice on how to go along to get along. There are plenty of these sorts around - some of them last for decades. Lots of nice old referees like that. A few of them complain about how they never really made it despite the players loving them so much. "Politics" they called it.
     
  19. Yale

    Yale Member

    Nov 26, 2012
    As long as we're on the subject, I had a call in a game a couple of weeks ago that's been bugging me a bit, and I'm not quite sure why. GU14, not terribly high level of play. Score is 2-1 for blue, and with 4 minutes left the ball bounces at waist height to a red attacker in the blue PA. Seeing a defender challenging for the ball, red kicks it back to a teammate outside the PA. The blue defender also attempts to play the ball, but misses wildly, and the kick lands squarely on red's thigh, causing her to fall over.

    It was definitely a foul anywhere on the field, and it was one of those situations where I blew the whistle before it had quite registered it was in the area. At that point though, I was obligated to give the penalty kick, which of course was made and the game finished 2-2.

    I stand by my opinion that it was clearly a foul, but it somehow just didn't feel right awarding a penalty for it. On the one hand, since the ball had already been played away to a teammate, I guess it could have been considered trifling since the foul didn't really net the blue team any immediate benefit. On the other hand, there was definitely contact, and since the player had been knocked over she wouldn't have been able to get into a position to receive a pass back from her teammate (that's purely speculative, of course). It also seems a bit of a stretch to call a solid kick to the thigh trifling.

    Again, I don't really know why I've been mulling over this so much, but I doubt it would bother me as much if it hadn't so clearly affected the course of the game. So maybe that's it, and if so I just need to move on. But is there some way I could have not called the foul, and if that's the case… should I have?
     
  20. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Sounds like a solid call to me. And it would have equally affected the game if you hadn't called it.
     
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Ah-ha. That makes sense.
     
  22. uniqueconstraint

    Jul 17, 2009
    Indianapolis,Indiana - home of the Indy Eleven!
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    THIS.

    I'm not sure I "raise my threshold" in the PA, but players are more willing to put me as Referee in a position to pass judgment on whether there's a foul. That helps drive the perception the bar is higher in the PA.

    And certainly players, coaches, and fans are more anxious to help the referee crew determine whether something is a foul in the PA.
     
  23. Paper.St.Soap.Closed

    Jul 29, 2010
    Hmm... makes sense, I guess. The thing that probably threw most of us off was you said it was not necessarily deliberate. Moving your hand to direct the ball is very deliberate and has nothing to do with making yourself bigger. No matter, I suppose.

    The other comment I was going to say is if the player is at the level of play to try and control a high ball with their knee -- instead of their thigh, for example -- it's likely that their skill level is fairly low. With that knowledge, I'm going to be very lenient on what constitutes handling when the ball does a quick rebound off their knee.
     
  24. Yale

    Yale Member

    Nov 26, 2012
    Thanks, good to know my gut reaction was probably correct (though I'd be open to other opinions!). I hate having to make that kind of call though, and maybe that's the reason it bugged me so much.

    Sometimes, though, it just seems excessive that the result of any DFK foul in the penalty area is a penalty kick (which probably means a goal, especially at higher levels). I almost wish there were some kind of lesser foul that could be called in those circumstances. Like, maybe a foul that occurs not within playing distance of the ball could be an IFK. Of course, that would probably open up a whole bunch of other problems, and maybe having the lack of discretion is actually a good thing for the referee. Still, I wonder if having the ability to call a contact foul but not award a PK might be useful in certain situations.
     
  25. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    A lot of this excellent discussion leads towards the other aspect of this I'd like to see addressed, which is whether the extent to which the foul actually affects or doesn't affect the scoring chance should influence our whistling it or not.

    Many's the time I've seen a striker just barely get her shot off and then get clobbered, and the foul not get called because, well, she got her chance and the foul didn't affect it. You know the bang-bang play where the attacker gets foul-tackled a split second after she shoots, and the shot goes just wide of the goal. How do y'all judge that sort of situation?
     

Share This Page