I have been struggling with this for a while now. I frequently do youth travel league games (U10-15). This has happened several times, but most recently last weekend. A U11 player is on a fast break near midfield. A defender is chasing him down and their legs get tangled...no attempt to tackle the ball. Not something I would consider DOGSO based on the distance still to go toward goal and the general skill level of the players. However, I gave a yellow for UB (SPA). I know that this is a YHTBT moment, but what do you think? At this level, would you consider any careless foul in this situation to be SPA, or does it have to be an intentional/cynical foul.
The language on the SPAA flavor of USB used to include language along the lines of "for the purpose of" stopping a promising attack. That seemed to mean that an "honest" foul was not cautionable as SPAA. (Which always made sense to me, as it is hard to see an honest, careless tackle as being unsporting behavior.) Current language, however, removed the word "purpose," so SPAA is based solely on whether the foul interferes with or stops a promising attack. Thus, as a Law question the answer is that, if ITOOTR, the foul interfered with or stopped a promising attack, a caution should be given. At the younger ages, I think there are some philosophical arguments about how cards should be handled. As you said, YHTBT, but based on what you wrote, it sounds right to me--younger or lower skill levels I might have a different opinion. I would note that if giving cautions at that level I think it is very important to be thoughtful about how you do it, particularly where there was no malice. IMO, you need to slow down, talk to the player first to explain why the foul is a particular problem, and be gentle when you actually show the card.
My opinion always was that if they were old enough to survive a tryout for the travel league, they're old enough to be shown cards when warranted. Granted U11 would be shown cards much less than U15. But they won't be permanently scarred for life because they saw a bit of colored plastic. Of course you must explain it to them, not just wave the card about.
Yes, I am not one who says that these kiddos cannot get cards, but the threshold for giving those cards should be higher for the younger kids. Sounds like I am technically correct (the best kind of correct). But, maybe I should consider increasing my threshold for these types of fouls from the clumsy careless trip, up to something that would be at least be an attempt to play the ball. And/or decreasing my threshold for what constitutes a promising attack for these kids.
U11 isn't too young to use cards per se, but consider if issuing a caution will serve it's purpose of modifying future player behavior. Only you can judge in a specific match, given your experience in the match up to that point, if it more likely will or will not.
I agree with @socal lurker . I think caution is probably correct here, but I think there's a lot of considerations. First, just make sure you're doing a lot of talking to the kiddos the whole game. That way when you do talk to the kid about the caution, it doesn't seem any different and minimizes the negative feelings of receiving a card while still explaining why what they did is an issue. Second, another consideration for me is the division at that age. If it's Premier, I'm almost definitely doing a card. If it's D2, I'm more judging it, thinking if a talking to alone can change the behavior. And keeping an eye on the coaches/players and what they seem to expect in the moment. Third, I think if you don't give a card, you need to be clear with the player that in older ages or with a different referee, that might be a card. To me this is the really important teaching role we can play. Introducing them to the idea of what future games will look like, and also the idea that different referees will react differently to this situation. That's my 2cents.
I wish I would have remembered this in my first reply. In one game, probably U12, I told the player, "Next year that would be a card." It was met with great approval - by the coach of the opposing team. The coach now knew I wasn't going to put up with whatever behavior it was that caused me to talk with the player. But the coach realized that cards were few and far between at that age group, and had no desire to have one given just because it would technically be correct.
my thoughts here and to link into what @socal lurker posted I think you have to judge what a “promising attack” is at that age level. It even varies from USL to MLS. I think USSF came up with the 4 P’s but I prefer the considerations from PRO: SPA: direction Distance to goal Number and location of attackers and defenders Space Options Control/likelihood of gaining control. dogso: Direction Distance to goal Number and location of defenses (no more than 1 / in a position to defend) Control/likelihood of gaining control I Think something to take into consideration that all those criteria must be met for dogso but for SPA not all the criteria need to be there. I think cautioning at that level is fine especially for competitive play. Those players, usually, have a higher than average soccer IQ. They know that even though they are playing a certain way they can’t make those challenges and not expect there to be consequences. Also, as you may know the players as they get older and trickier. Often times you will find that ‘tactical fouls’/gentlemen fouls Or spa instances You’re going to find that they’re going to be more careless fouls. Mostly, to try and disguise the nature of the foul. Why draw unwanted attention to a foul and possibly have reckless tackle foul yellow card as opposed to a careless and then banking on the official not to recognize the tactical nature. hopefully that makes sense. Lol
I like that answer. In my experience, no reaction, other than whistle and point, will result in more 'accidental' fouls like that. As socalurker pointed out, it's no longer a question of intent, only outcome. We don't have to judge whether there was malice aforethought. If you think there was, then, of course, the decision about a card is clear. So, if you are going to go with a verbal warning, remember that everybody else out there needs to understand that's what you're doing and its not that you just didn't recognize the possibility of SPA. Both coaches are certainly going to think about SPA, even if their players don't. But I also agree that in, say, U-19, SPA can happen further from goal than in U-12. It's less likely to actually be "promising" at the younger ages. Or, as I've told a few men's league players claiming DOGSO, "It wasn't that obvious an opportunity. I've seen you play!" I can't recall that anyone has ever tried to argue that one.
If you want to play “competitive” soccer then you should expect to have the laws applied to you as if you are playing competitive soccer.
Along those lines, a situation from this weekend ... U-10 girls, high-ish level: Team Yellow had already committed some rough fouls. A Team Blue attacker had the ball in the area. A Yellow defender slid through the Blue attacker's legs. Nowhere near the ball. Blue attacker is injured. DOGSO wasn't a factor -- the attacker was not yet pointed toward the goal, and other defenders were present. Yellow for USB?
Sure. Why not? The laws (As well as most things) are more easily learned through experience. Most of the stuff we as refs get questioned about are a result of not having seen something take place before.
Was the foul careless, reckless, or with excessive force? Reckless probably applies here, so yellow card for UB. I can’t recall anything in a girls U-10 game that could be close to excessive force, they just don’t play with the speed, but this may be that once in a lifetime counter example. Fouled player got hurt by a hard challenge through her legs off the ball. What would you have done with U-15 boys in that situation?