U11 Game - Did the Center get this one right?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Cactus837, Apr 9, 2018.

  1. Cactus837

    Cactus837 New Member

    Real Salt Lake
    United States
    Mar 19, 2017
    U11 game this weekend. No deliberate heading. Deliberate heading is treated as playing in a dangerous manner and an IFK is awarded.

    With that in mind...

    Attacking team shoots toward the goal. Defender on the goal line deliberately heads the ball away, saving a goal. There is general uproar from the sidelines. I was the AR. I watch as the center blows his whistle, walks over and gives the kid a yellow.

    I quickly and discretely beckon the center over and suggest that the restart needs to be an IFK from the top of the goal area. Meanwhile the kids are all lining up for a PK because they saw a card in the Penalty Area.

    My reasoning... it wasn't a DOGSO-Handling because he didn't handle the ball. It wasn't a DOGSO-Foul because he didn't foul anyone. All it could be was playing in a dangerous manner and a IFK to restart.

    The center went along with it and we set up for the IFK.

    Thoughts?
     
    Kit, rh89 and dadman repped this.
  2. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Member+

    May 25, 2006
    You are correct.

    This is an offense against the rules but not a foul.
     
    rh89 repped this.
  3. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Member+

    May 25, 2006
    See here also: http://www.ossrc.com/newrefreg/2017/law12F.pdf

    p58

     If a player deliberately heads the ball in a game with any portion of their head, an indirect free kick (IFK) is to be awarded to the opposing team from the spot of the offense.
     If the deliberate header occurs within the goal area, the IFK should be taken on the goal area line at nearest point to where the infringement occurred.​
     
    IASocFan and dadman repped this.
  4. Soccer Dad & Ref

    Oct 19, 2017
    San Diego
    Not sure that is true. It's part of the PDIs, and the restart is the same as playing in a dangerous manner (IFK), but it's not an IFK foul.
     
    Pittsburgh Ref and YoungRef87 repped this.
  5. Soccer Dad & Ref

    Oct 19, 2017
    San Diego
    Look also at p57, where it mentions it is not a yellow card
     
  6. frankieboylampard

    Mar 7, 2016
    USA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Dogso can be for any free kick. Whether direct or indirect... now I may not be thinking dogso in a U-little game. But you are certainly within the law to send the player if you felt it was a denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
     
  7. Soccer Dad & Ref

    Oct 19, 2017
    San Diego
    Except for deliberate heading in U-littles.
     
    Pittsburgh Ref repped this.
  8. frankieboylampard

    Mar 7, 2016
    USA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Our state has that listed for 7v7. 9v9 it doesn't have the misconduct issue (could be a typo). Our state is weird tho. Both US Club and USYSA have joined together to make standards that align with U12 DA. We also have more players playing US Club as opposed to USYSA.

    I also haven't done anything below U12 DA since the new "no heading" RoC change. Like what is even a build out line :eek:o_O
     
    me116 repped this.
  9. Soccer Dad & Ref

    Oct 19, 2017
    San Diego
    It is a line used for the referee to constantly herd the little ones towards
     
  10. frankieboylampard

    Mar 7, 2016
    USA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Oh I was being facetious. However, I have not officiated any matches with that rule implemented.
     
  11. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    I'm think I'm one taco over it.
     
  12. Soccer Dad & Ref

    Oct 19, 2017
    San Diego
    I was trying to be funny back at ya, fell flat, sorry!
     
    frankieboylampard repped this.
  13. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    The 'F' in DOGSO-F is for free kick, not foul.

    The no heading at U11 and under rule is a USSF thing. Similar to the powerpoint Billy linked to by Ohio South soccer, the training in my state also instructs us that players are not to be carded for heading violations (I can't imagine sending a u11 player off for dogso under pretty much any circumstances). I don't know if USSF has published a similar directive.
     
  14. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    AYSO has also taken the view that heading can never be a basis for misconduct.

    It is a safety violation, not a violation of the LOTG.
     
    BigManIntheMiddle and camconcay repped this.
  15. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As the awesome Doug Marshak (who sadly doesn't post on here anymore) said when the heading rule first came out in Minnesota. "Should a player be sent off for DOGSO for heading the ball....DEAR GOD NO!"
     
    Law5, jdmahoney, dadman and 3 others repped this.
  16. camconcay

    camconcay Member+

    Atlanta United
    United States
    Feb 17, 2011
    Georgia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We are supposed to teach that in GA for USSF as well, I hope all instructors do.
     
    voiceoflg repped this.
  17. RespectTheGame

    May 6, 2013
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    It's an IFK. That's it. It's not a YC, it's not DOGSO.
     
  18. Pittsburgh Ref

    Pittsburgh Ref Member+

    Oct 7, 2014
    da 'Burgh
    But my goodness with all the hoo-hah, I bet that kid never heads a ball again!
     
    dadman repped this.
  19. Spencedawgmillionaire

    Mar 2, 2017
    Belleville, ILLLLLLLLINOIZE
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Absolutely not a YC.

    The location of the infraction is irrelevant. You wouldn't card the 2nd to last defender for deliberately heading out a ball that an attacking player was likely to score from.

    It's all about safety, not about PIADM. You can't really consider it anything like handling, because it's still a "normally" legal soccer action. They're just not allowed to do it.

    IFK on the goal area line nearest to where the infraction occurred.
     
  20. FootyPDX

    FootyPDX Member

    Portland Timbers
    England
    Nov 21, 2017
    Speaking of safety, a year or so ago I was watching a U12 game where a defender in the PA put his hands in front of his face to stop the ball hitting him (very fast moving ball, directly to the face). CR blew for a PK, so that kid learned a valuable lesson, it's better to get nailed in the face than to give up a handling PK. I wondered what would have happened if the ball hit his face, intentional heading? At least it would have been an IFK (his team mates would thank him when he came to) :)
     
    dadman repped this.
  21. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    #21 threeputzzz, Apr 10, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2018
    If he didn't have enough time to move out of the way, that's an unfortunate decision. Here at least we are instructed to not call handling when a player instinctively protects themselves from a fast moving ball.
     
    dadman and FootyPDX repped this.
  22. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I would hope that would be everywhere. Sometimes the difference of opinion is whether the player had time to consider and do something different.
     
    dadman and FootyPDX repped this.
  23. BigManIntheMiddle

    Jan 10, 2013
    Inland Empire, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's sad that any referee would call that a PK, when protecting oneself is a basic human reaction, and at U12 there is no training over that. Unlucky for the kid, hopefully R learned from it.
     
  24. Spencedawgmillionaire

    Mar 2, 2017
    Belleville, ILLLLLLLLINOIZE
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    I was given the instruction that "If a player has time to react with their hands, they have time to react by moving their head out of the way." And LOT of guys call it that way around here.

    It's one of the very few things I don't do. Obviously, as with everything, every instance has its own set of "if this, then that"s, but handball is like a lot of things, you know it when you see it, especially in the PA. U12 is super harsh, U17, maybe less so?
     
    FootyPDX repped this.
  25. FootyPDX

    FootyPDX Member

    Portland Timbers
    England
    Nov 21, 2017
    I've heard that too, but it's a basic human instinct to protect your face, not duck and weave. I also dispute that one could duck faster than they can move their hands, especially at a young age. You can test this by throwing something soft at people's faces recording how many of then move out of the way vs cover their face :D I might try this around the office sometime
     

Share This Page