Kicking ball at opponent in wall

Good question. This gets into a very grey area, was it a direct attempt by the forward to strike the tackler with the ball or an accident? From the circumstances you describe if the striker deliberately did kick the ball into the face of the defender standing in the wall he should be sent off.

We have to look for clues and the available evidence to assist us in how to handle this situation. Firstly, where was the defender standing in relation to a line between the ball and the goal. If he's off to the side and the striker blasts it as appears to be the case since you stated the defender was hurt, a strong case can be made for violent conduct. Secondly, the nature of the defender's injury would have a huge impact in my decision. If the kid gets cut or his nose or lip is busted it will influence my decision. From your description this looks like a premeditated act and you could be sure that not only would the striker get sent off but he would get an earfull on how to maintain his cool and how the nature of his actions do not belong on a football pitch. At age 18, premier level these kids know what they are doing.

As with any kind of send off or penalty we must be absolutely certain that we have made the correct call. If there are doubts you may consider a caution for match control purposes or have a discussion with the players involved and the captains. I am curious what happened for the balance of the match? This type of action typically results in this age group at least in the NY Met area in very chippy play and fights.

 

No, not in a wall from a kick. With the exception of a keeper throwing the ball so as to strike an opponent, or under rare circumstances, a player taking a throw-in deliberately striking an opponent with the intent to cause harm (ie in the face), the custom is that such play is not a foul or misconduct.

This said, the referee should keep a sharp eye out for retaliation and possibly some words to defuse the situation.

 

Re: Re: Kicking ball at opponent in wall

I can think of several scenarios where the kick could be violent conduct. If the striker while the wall is being set runs up an deliberately kicks it at the opponent there are grounds. Particularly if the opponent and the wall were not set or if the referee had whistled for the players to wait for his signal prior to initating the restart.

I disagree Sherman, simply because the restart involves a kick does not mean it could not be a calculated attempt to harm another player. You used the example of the keeper throwing the ball at an opponent or a player on a throw in striking an opponent too. It is well within the realm of possibility and likely given the actions of both players and particularly the actions of the striker there was intent to injure.

 

Jim Allen recently stated that kicking the ball at an opponent could be considered striking in the opinion of the referee by the surrounding evidence. As such it could also be considered Violent Conduct if done so with excessive force. In the way this scenario is described the referee should eject the player.

 

Re: Re: Kicking ball at opponent in wall

Why? the motivation, intent, and willingness to transgress the laws and spirit of the game is the same if it bruises the kid or breaks his nose. If he had gotten up from the tackle and did his best to slug the defender but missed would you give him less than a red?

Jim

 

Re: Re: Re: Kicking ball at opponent in wall

No, but the harm it did the player speaks volumes of how hard the ball was hit and therefore the intention of the player to do serious harm. It's the same as when two players are pushing each other during an altercation. The amount of force used can determine whether it's a caution or a send off. It's another piece of evidence to assist in the decision making process for the referee.

 

I don't think the nature of the injury should play any role at all. I've had it drilled into my head that we punish the infraction, not the result.

I'd have to see the play first hand. To me honest, I'm not sure what I'd do if presented with this situation on the field. You can make an argument for a sendoff I believe, but because of the nature of the play, it's hard to get inside that attacker's head amd know what he was thinking.

This is definitely a grey area, but given the above and taking it as fact, I'm in the possible send off camp.

 

Statesman,

I am going to quote JA, below, with what I believe to be the particular reference you cite.

Note that he states that unless there is a clear statement or indication of violent intent such as "take that you scum!", then it would not be VC, and at most the referee might try to make a case for careless (just a DFK) or reckless (caution), but even this, as suggested by the last sentence, might not be the decision of the "intelligent" referee.

With all due respect to JA, there is a tradition or custom in soccer that during play, no legal play of the ball can result in a foul or misconduct, irrespective of force, velocity or even intent. If a keeper throws the ball at an opponent, it is striking because it is considered an extension of the keeper's hand. This also, in certain exceptional cases, but not most, could apply to a throw-in.

A key distinction here is "during play". If during a stoppage a player deliberately kicks the ball at an opponent, but it is not in the referees opinion the restart, then the player can be cautioned for UB, but if allowing a quick kick on a restart, and the ball is slammed into the wall, irrespective of force, or even required distance, this is just part of the game. No foul. No misconduct.

If an attacker, 1 on 1 with the keeper, takes a shot with such force and velocity, that it completely severs the keeper's body in half while trying to make the save, and continues into the goal. The restart is a kick-off, after allowing time to pick up the pieces, and replace the keeper.

 

I don't think anybody is refuting the argument there is no foul for kicking the ball into somebody during active play. The scenario described in this post would suggest intent to harm through striking the opponent with the ball during a restart. Whether this is done by throwing the ball at him or kicking is irrelevant. In either cases we are looking at a striking foul of excessive force which warrants a send-off.

I think it's typically pretty clear when somebody is intentially kicking the ball at somebody in order to hurt them with no regard to the game itself. By waving down his teammate and the subsequent glare at the hurt player it seems pretty evident his intent was to injure. That is the justification for the send-off. If he simply slammed the ball without prejudice to restart the game and it nailed somebody in the wall then that is a different scenario entirely. In that case there would be nothing to call.

 

You know, Stateman, I am not certain I disagree with you, but let's consider the following:

If a proper restart, irrespective of who takes the kick, the ball is in play when it has been touched and moved. The defender/offender chose to place him/herself in the wall, knowing full well that they would be in the path of the ball.

If words were said by the kicker, directed to the attacker, prior to or as the kick were taken, this could be VC or UB irrespective of whether the ball struck the player or not. The VC would be the words or gesture, not the ball sriking the player (that would just be the punctuation). If this occured before the ball was struck, then the player could be cautioned or sent-off and the restart would be a retake of the DFK for the attackers.

If, after the ball being struck, whistle to stop play, caution or send-off, restart with an IFK for the defenders.

What I cannot see is that if the ball is properly put into play at a restart, how the ball hitting the opponent, regardless of force or what I might judge to be intent, can ever be an offense. But then, I do have doubts.

JA did open the door in his response that the ball being kicked at an opponent could be considered striking. This is the first time I have heard such an interpretation. This may need some further clarificaiton.

Sherman

 

If I'm correctly reading the situation described in the JA post, it is significantly different from the one posed here by socdoc. Jim was asked about a situation which could be interpreted to mean that the kicker abandoned his opportunity for a shot on net and instead chose to take a shot on nads. In that case, the kicker's intent seems rather transparent. However, JA still makes it perfectly clear that it would be an unlikely call. In socdoc's scenario, there is nothing to indicate that the kicker did anything other than aim exactly where the defenders expected him to aim, which is why they put the wall there in the first place.

I once saw a player break the wrist of the keeper who attempted (unsuccessfully) to block the hardest-hit penalty kick I've ever seen. The PK came as the result of the keeper committing a tactical foul on the player that bordered on DOGSO. I've seen this player take over a dozen PK's and he almost always goes low for the left post. This time the shot went straight at the keeper's face. Should the goal have been disallowed and the attacker cautioned or sent off? I don't think so.

Paul

 

This is a very interesting discussion. At first I was in the "send him off camp", but after reading the whole discussion I think it makes sense that since the freekick was a legitimate play of the ball there really cannot be an infraction here. That doesn't mean you wouldn't keep a very close eye on the kicker and be prepared to deal harshly with any further aggression. And a stern word or two would likely be in order.

As a DC United season ticket holder I have seen Marco Etcheverry blast the ball off of a defender in a one or two person wall at midfield more than once...usually because the referee couldn't be bothered to make sure Marco had his 10 yards, so he decided to enforce it himself. I don't believe I ever saw him disciplined for it. Of course there are those who would say that MLS isn't really soccer, it's entertainment, but that's a minor point.

For my money it is at the very least unsporting behavior in the most general sense, but maybe not necessarily in a LotG sense. Who's to say that it wasn't all a coincidence? You could see a situation in which a player has been fouled and is angry who brushes his teammate aside because he wants to be the one to take the kick without necessarily having ill intent. Perhaps in his zeal to hit the ball as hard as he could it just happened to be a slight miskick that hit the guy who fouled him. Could happen. As has been noted we can't be mind readers, without some clear sign of intent whether verbal or perhaps by a gensture of some sort I don't think you could justify disciplinary action in this scenario.

 

As for your first point there, I've seen MAE carded for doing exactly that.

As for the unnecessary slagging on MLS I'm gonna take you to task. Nothing pisses me off more about reaction to MLS than the condescension of supposed aficionados in the US, fans of "football", or "futbol", or "voetbal" or whatever they'd like to call it in all their haughtiness. This 'entertainment' is challenging enough to produce the core of a team that reached the final 8 of the World Cup. Not exactly Nickelodeon.

 

I can honestly see both sides of this issue.

Here's my concern. Let's say we have a reasonable suspicion that this was intentional based on what was witnessed. If we follow that this is just a legitimate play of the ball and do nothing, what happens when a opponent then takes this attacker out with a vicious tackle or some sort of melee ensues resulting in a couple of players being sent off? I know the first question an assessor will ask after a match where this occurs is if there was anything we could have done to prevent this.

Now we can't necessarily prevent the attacker from kicking the ball into the opponent's face. However, we could diffuse any ill-feeling we sense if it's obvious the attacker is upset by the situation and might do something rash. We need to think about what led to the attacker's frustration. Has he been fouled a lot or was this particular foul worth a caution that was not given? Even asking the player if he is okay and slowing the restart might calm things.

If we don't do anything after the foul and the attacking player does what was stated at the beginning of this thread, what problems might be caused if we do nothing when just about everyone connected with the match knows what just took place. If I go back to thinking as a player, I think I could rationalize doing that in a twisted way and I'm sure the opponents realize this as well. I think I was a particularly evil player though.

We often talk about a moment of truth in a match. Not knowing what happened as this match went on or the full context of what happened before the incident makes it hard to make a single catch all decision. Could this be a moment of truth in a particularly tense match? What could be the pros and cons of each possible course of action?

I guess this is why refereeing a soccer match is as much art as it is science.

 

I can't believe that people are actually going to give a card for "playing the freakin' game of soccer".

A RED CARD for kicking the ball into the wall. Every soccer player knows that when they get in the wall that there is a chance to be hit (they are there to block the kick).

I have a DFK from 40, if I take a shot I think that maybe I should kick the ball as hard as I can. Most likely a DFK in that situation would be "head-high" when it reaches the wall.

==> No Red Card for VC
==> No Yellow Card for UB
==> No Foul for striking.

Was the situation violent -- yes, but no different than running real fast for jumping real high for a header.

If that was the case, can we give a foul for kicking the ball hard at the keeper.

This may be different in a co-ed recreational game, but in a competitive match -- no way.

U-18 Premier -- you should never call a foul of give a card in this situation. PERIOD. END of STORY.

 

I don't know that I have anything authoritative to add to the thread, but join the group who think that this should not be a foul.

If you get in the wall, you take that risk, and (at least to some degree) elect to hold your ground rather than bail out while the ball travels the 10 yards.

I also think - in the absence of an overt comment - that it is extraordinarily difficult in this scenario to definitively know the player's intent. I know, I know, it's pretty obvious that this was retaliation, but, seriously, where was he supposed to kick the ball. I assume they put the wall there for the very reason that it was where they thought it would be most dangerous for this 40 yard shot to go. Hard to complain after the fact about that being where it went.

I'd save the cards for more concrete acts of retaliation. Especially at this level, I say let them play.

 

Whoa there! I support MLS as much as anyone. I've had DCU season tix since before we even had a team. But let's face it, all professional soccer everywhere is about entertainment. There are all sorts of things that are allowed to happen in an MLS game that we would not allow to occur in a youth game; primarily because MLS wants it's star players on the field as was noted by IASocFan.

 

What planet are most of you living on?


No Red Card, No Yellow card, no foul. Unless the referee is a Jedi and using his mind-reading ability, how can you card/call a foul on a player for taking a freekick in the direction of the goal?

Did you realize that the goal in soccer is to score goals? And the only way to do that is to kick the ball in the general direction of the goal.

It's not even a foul if a guy turns around, and kicks towards his OWN goal and happens to hit an opponent. You can't be penalized for kicking the ball under any circumstance. If a kick is taken quickly, and hits an opponent, and the defender is within 10, the defender should be carded for encroachment.

 

I think you're seriously misunderstanding the point of the conversation. The real question is at which point would such an event rise to the level of misconduct. There is no single way to look at it beacuse there are so many different varibles that factor in. It's a judgement call albeit a rare one.

This isn't a question of a player happening to hit an opponent with a shot. Its a question of a player delibrately striking an opponent with a kicked ball.

 

Actually, this is the point. If we refer to ATR 12.6 you will see that the offense of striking does not include the foot (which would make it kicking) or the ball as an extension of the foot. It has always been that during play, with the exceptions of being thrown by a keeper or during a throw-in, legal play of the ball, during play, could never, ever, be a foul.

In other words, deliberately striking an opponent with a kicked ball, during active play, at a restart, even if the player's intention is to hurt the opponent, has historically been an acceptable, though sometimes painful, part of the game. In fact, it is less painful today now that we have waterproof balls (no jokes, Nat ).

Until I read Jim Allen's answer, I had been under the impression that this principle was carved in stone, though kicking the ball at someone when play was stopped could be misconduct, but not a foul.

JA's answer, however, suggests that this may not be an absolute, however, he did imply that there had to be more going on, such as a threat or gesture, but even then, it would be the words we punish, not the ball striking the opponent, though this would certainly substantiate the violent intent.

 

Whipple,

I agree with just about everything you wrote. I could have worded what I wrote better, but my point was that it's not absolute one way or the other, just that this could under some instances be misconduct. I don't see how we could not treat this as misconduct in certain instances.

 

Bill,

I have reason to believe that the powers that be would agree with you, and I am by no means reluctant to accept this view, but I do have some reservations on how to apply this and the proper restart. With the tradition that it could not be an offense, by itself, ever, the application was quite simple, you just had some choice words with the unsporting player and kept your eyes open for retaliation.

If we can deal with it, as a foul, misconduct or both, then we run less risk of retaliation, plus we have a deterrent, but now we have to learn to apply it, fairly and consistently without denying players their rights to play the ball. For example, can we legitimately apply it in the case of a wall when players choose to be in the path. How about a quick restart when an opponent has not yielded the required distance, or slammng the ball off an opponent to try and win a throw in or corner kick?

Suddenly, even though it seems fair, it becomes more complicated. If a foul would the offense be kicking or striking. If just misconduct, do we stop play and restart with an IFK or continue until the next stoppage to deal with it?

Sherman