From Jim Allen

JA's statement: "While the referee should strive to be as accommodating as possible regarding the "moves" requirement on free kicks, a simple push downward with the sole of the shoe would probably not qualify as a kick at the ball."

It seems to me that this flies in the face of what we've been told, and what we've allowed the players to do (particularly on IFK's), for years.

 

He also has some interesting commentary in the "intent versus result" post. It's his classic "there is no foul unless of course there is a foul" explanation. Jim certainly is a valuable resource, but sometimes his expertise in the game far exceeds his literary skills.

 

Quite frankly, this is shocking to me. I was watching a game recently where there was a break away. The first defender chasing tripped over his own two feet and fell into the back of the attacker tripping him. This allowed the second defender (also chasing) to collect and clear the ball.

The referee blew the whistle and red-carded the defender that tripped the attacker for DOGSO. At the time, I felt it was the correct call.

But Mr. Allen is stating here that this should not even have been a foul, let alone DOGSO. How can that be? If the players learn about this opinion, they won't challenge on any breakaways any more, they'll simply conveniently fall down and we'll have to be judging if they're clumsy or just good actors.

That's doesn't sound too fun to me.

Another situation that just happened this past weekend in the State Cup. The fields for some reason were quite slick -- players had been slipping quite a bit all game. The last defender slips when approaching an attacker and as he slides down, he winds up laying horizontal on the ground with his downward side arm extended above his head laying along the ground. He had put his hand down during the fall and as he continued to slide, his arm winds up above his head. Perfectly natural action.

The next touch of the attacker plays the ball directly into his arm. The referee red-cards the player for DOGSO. At the time, I felt that it was harsh, but justified (of course I would think it was harsh because he was on my team ). But again, what Mr. Allen states here is that this should not have been a foul either.

Am I the only one confused and bothered by this opinion? It was my impression, that we only had to judge intent on handling. That for everthing else all that mattered was that the trip happened -- not how or why.

 

The following is also an official USSF answer from the same site a little over a year ago.

-------------------------------------------------------------

FOUL FROM INADVERTENT OR ACCIDENTAL ACTION?
Your question: The Advice to Referees tells us in Law 12 that referees are not to punish accidental or inadvertent acts. I also understand that the word "intent" has been removed from previous versions of the Laws of the Game. So, an attacker has a breakaway with only the keeper to beat who is still in his goal area. A defender is chasing the attacker. As they enter the penalty area, the defender trips on a divot or other part of the field. He falls into the back of the attacker which makes the attacker fall flat on his face and the keeper picks up the ball. The "foul" was certainly inadvertent and accidental but likewise it's unfair to the attacker. I originally answered a similar question where the defender tripped on his shoe laces as a foul, PK and possible red card for denying a goal. I could at least rationalize the player should have tied his own shoelaces but what if he tripped on the field as in the above?

USSF answer (March 26, 2002): As defined in the USSF publication "Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game" (ATR) and clear from the perspective of the Spirit of the Game, 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. (ATR 12.1)

By itself, the act of falling over something (dirt clod, boot, opponent or whatever) on the field of play is neither an unsafe nor an unfair action by the player who falls and thus trips or pushes an opponent. Unfortunately, under the Law, the referee must punish the result of the player's action -- not his "intention" or total lack thereof. All references to "intent" were removed from the Laws in 1997. In this case, a foul has been committed, whether unwitting or accidental or not, and it must be punished with the award of a direct free kick (or penalty kick).

-------------------------------------------------------------

So this appears to be a reversal in opinion.

Any player who "learns" about this opinion is still risking the wrath of those inconsistent referees!

 

It seems to me that a lot of the inconsistency we see, with many referees, is that they don't have significant play experience (if any). How can a referee apply the spirit of the law if they,ve never experienced the foul?

Anyone can read the letter of the law and, over time, apply that law correctly. This is why we have the spirit as an intregral part of the law itself.

 

I don't agree with you here SoccerMan. It is true that good players are better at foul recognition sooner, I don't think it's true that you must have been a player to be good at foul recognition and not all good players are good at foul recognition.

Good players definitely have a leg up on being able to read the game and pick up on the subtle things -- things they most likely did as a player. But that doesn't mean that non-soccer players can't become good at them. I think that if you have athletes who have played team / contact sports at a reasonably high level, then they'll be able to transition into a new sport. For example, although the games are very different, a lot of the little stuff you do off the ball and try to get away with as "under the radar" of the official is very similar in basketball as it is in soccer.

 

Ugh, really? Tell that to the FIFA ref who disallowed the play at the 2000 Olympics. I know we all disagree on whether this play is "legal", but it won't happen on my field. It also seems to contradict the bit of ATR that says the ref must be the arbiter of whether any particular touch on the ball puts it into play.

This differs a bit from the "Ask a Ref" site's original question, which involved a player who, after the ref had whistled to restart play, stated, "Wait, I have to tie my shoe" and a teammate proceeded to take the kick. Big differences in the scenario: 1) The ball is clearly ready to be played, as the ref has whistled for the kick to proceed. 2) The player's verbal "deception" had nothing to do with whether or not the ball was in play; nobody is required to wait for a player to tie his shoe.

Is Jim Allen mixing apples and oranges, or am I really that far off base in my thinking?