Here's one question that I didn't think was covered as well as it should be in my introductory course. Perhaps you guys can shed some light. Players, coaches, and parents alike seem to believe that if a player first touches the ball on a challenge, it gives him free reign to then make contact, regardless of how severe, with the opponent. I think this is one of the biggest myths of the game and I'm unsure why everyone is in this mindset. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but simply playing the ball first does not give you a license to make excessive or reckless contact with the player. I had a play tonight where a U16 boy made a slide tackle from about 135 degree angle ( behind but and to the side). He challenged with his outside foot and won the ball cleanly, but his inside leg, bent at the knee, followed through and took both of the attacker's legs from under him. I ruled it a foul and then listened as both the player and coach spouted the above myth to me. In my opinion, the only way this challenge could have been "non-reckless" was to challenge with the inside leg so the outside leg would not clip the ball holder from behind. Am I right on how I'm interpretting this, and if so, why is this myth so pervasive. Thanks, Jarrett
I call it more or less that way. If the contact happens at the same time, but all of the ball is gotten, I usually let it go. But if it's a second effort, like the infamous Franchino tackle, then no. Call it. But that's the opinion of a BAYS ref that gets thrashed every time. Prof
This myth is right up there along with the idea that every time the ball hits the hand or arm it should be a handling foul. If you think about a challenge from directly ahead of the attacker - from 0 degrees as it were - the slide would contact the ball first every time and continue through to wipe out the attacker every time - and be a foul every time. So given that it is certainly NOT true that "I got the ball first" is some sort of "get out of jail free" token that justifies aggravated assault, what do you do? I've been taught that even a tackle where the ball is contacted first is a foul if the tackler's feet or body continue through into the attacker. It isn't a foul if the defender hits the ball (feet down, of course) and the attacker's momentum carries him into the defender's feet or body. Because this is a bang-bang play I use guildelines - a slide tackle launched from 90 degrees off the line of attack with feet down that contacts the ball first is almost always OK. Probably within 20 degrees either way of perpendicular you can still have a good tackle. As the angle gets more acute though the odds get a lot higher that the defender will have to go through the attacker to get to the ball or will plow through the attacker after getting the ball. If I see a defender in a stern chase start to go down from sharply behind my whistle is on the way up because the results are probably going to be nasty and the attacker is going to be mad and a rapid and stern response from the ref will forestall a lot of the responsive actions on the part of the attacker. Jim
Did the player trip the opponent, or did the opponent trip over the player? You can't wipe somebody out for the mere sake of playing the ball. The most common occurance I find is jumping through an opponent to head the ball. Sure you might get the ball, but you wipe out the opponent as well. That makes it illegal. The same holds true for a sliding tackle. You can't wipe out the opponent just so you can get the ball. However if you cleanly take away the ball only to have the opponent trip over you immediately afterward then that is not a foul. That is just the opponent's momentum carrying him over you after a perfectly legal play. The only reason there is an issue is because of the speed of play. To the untrained eye the timing of a slide tackle looks the same in all instances. A tackle that strips the ball cleanly can appear the same as a tackle that takes out both ball and player, causing confusion when one is called and the other is not.
I remember one wet tournament game. A defender cleared the ball with a slide tackle and continued sliding another 5 feet and took out an attacker. I called it tripping even though he clearly got the ball first. The coach complained at halftime, but quieted after I explained how I was calling it.
In the specific example I cited (and called a foul on), the slide tackling player's momentum carried him through the ball handler's legs.
Possible source of this myth: Law 12 lists "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball" as a penal foul. Faulty reasoning says that if contacting the opponent first IS a foul, then contacting the ball first automatically IS NOT a foul. Sorry, that logic doesn't hold up.
Well then I think it is safe to say the player tripped his opponent, regardless of whether he played the ball!
I am glad someone here is trying to referr to the LOTG instead of just saying "I think". The wording that also supports calling tackles that get the ball is the"any otherwise legal tackle that is commited in a careless, reckless or with excessive force" shall be punished with a free kick. The wording about getting the ball first is confusing to many and should be taken out of the laws at it only serves to confuse. If you get the ball FIRST and do one of the three above you get a foul, caution or send off depending on which one. Soccer is a game of skill and beauty not brute strength.
There is no wording in Law 12 about "getting the ball first". There is wording about not getting the ball first -- this is defined as a foul. That section of the Laws is pretty clear. As GaryV points out, the problem comes with people's faulty logic. They see "If A, then B" and then assume "If not A, then not B", which isn't necessarily true. The Laws do not say that if you get the ball first, it is not a foul. Contacting the ball first does not give a player license to be careless, reckless, or use excessive force.
and when they all fall down? As it has been effectively pointed out tackling for the ball is not a license to kill. The concept here though is foul recognition as to what consitutes a legal , valid attempt for the ball, at the point the ball is contacted and the fact that there will be contact between the players involved after. Players moving at high rates of speed, mass physics etc the collision is generally more spectactular but are these challanges automatically careless, reckless or excessive because there is contact? I see far to ofen a quality tackle that clearly gets the ball, but because of contact after the referee is calling it a foul for tripping. The one leg in and one leg bent back on a slide is about as safe as it can be done. If the trailer leg is not acting as a scythe I would rarely see it as a foul unless the tackle was from behind where the nature of the event was unexpected and the contact of coming through the player where we are instructed to apply the red card for such activity. My point being just what is careless? If I go in for a tackle and I scoop out the ball fairly (no contact at that point)the chances are that player is still going to get tangled up in my body as I slide across his path. If I have but a single leg extended the chances are the player is falling over me rather than me tripping that player is how it would be viewed. Granted any tackle that travels through the player from behind has less credability than any other. Is the angle at which a tackle performed causing the player to fall on their side different than on their face carry more scrutiny? In head on tackles where the ball is played towards the player in possession instead of sideways often the player sliding body will travel underneath the ball carrier and the act of being stepped on in retailiation is very real here. Often the arms and legs of the two collide as one is bottom the other is top. Can I ask is there foul recognition tapes within the USSF that accurately portray the difference as to why the tackle becomes fair, careless, reckless or excessive? Are there specific criteria listed or is the old addage IN the opinion of the referee the only real solution?
Re: and when they all fall down? LOTG supports only one answer -- ITOOTR. So how can it be otherwise? Somebody could provide help/training to form the referee's opinion, but in the end it has to be ITOOTR.
Re: and when they all fall down? I've struggled with this for 25 years. Any USSF video I've seen is either high level action (pros) or mediocre quality. Seeing it on TV or video doesn't substitue for recognition while in the line of fire. Watching, coaching or playing helps a little, but having the whistle in hand is where experience really starts. Fouls are also different with different experience levels, pushing for U-littles is a lot different than for U19 or adult men. So are other fouls.
Once again if you take the time to read the USSF ATR you will find definitions of careless, reckless and excessive force. Even after reading this you will see that it is up to some interpretation.