ARS V MANU but not limited too.

[JamesL]

This backing into players whilst they the air has to stop. I don't understand why it isn't being recognised as a foul, all of a sudden?
Lacazette looks like he is seriously injured but had a foul given against him, but it was Maguire that backed into him as he challenged for the aerial ball.

 

[es1]

I just don't get it. It's a clear foul by Maguire and it's dangerous.

Rugby recognise that these sorts of challenges can be incredibly dangerous, we seem to be the exact opposite.

 

[Ryanj91]

Kane does it every week and pundits call him clever for doing it. One day he'll paralyse someone and only then will there be calls to get it banned.

 

[one]

What minute?

 

[JamesL]

What minute?

Around 88/89. There was a 3 or 4 min delay in getting play restarted.
There was also one including pogba and Lacazette as well

 

[GraemeS]

Agree completely. Do that in a rugby match and the only question is if it's a red or yellow card - and in a sport where they're usually relatively more reluctant to card. Do it in football and you get the free kick!

More than any of the pointless faffing with VAR and handball, this needs a statement from PGMOL/IFAB urgently as it's a serious safety issue.

 

[one]

I don't know if this is a 'football' thing. Yes EPL referees seem to be giving 'the offender' a free kick. But I don't think this is wide speard. It won't be happening in my games for sure.

 

[JamesL]

I don't know if this is a 'football' thing. Yes EPL referees seem to be giving 'the offender' a free kick. But I don't think this is wide speard. It won't be happening in my games for sure.

Oh! Absolutely, I've always punished these types of fouls, but it is going to get much harder now its allowed on the telebox

 

[QuaverRef]

Neville said at the time that they should be a mandatory yellow card and I completely agree. It’s dangerous

 

[Matthew]

Neville said at the time that they should be a mandatory yellow card and I completely agree. It’s dangerous

Agree that it should at least be a yellow, but is there an argument that it could be a red in some cases? I'd argue that this could very easily fall into the territory of SFP (endangering the safety of an opponent).

 

[socal lurker]

At lower levels, it seems like a lot of refs don't recognize these undercutting fouls and get duped into calling a foul on the victim instead. I think I am particularly attuned to them from my basketball background.

 

[JamesL]

Agree that it should at least be a yellow, but is there an argument that it could be a red in some cases? I'd argue that this could very easily fall into the territory of SFP (endangering the safety of an opponent).

Very difficult to judge severity of these imo. They are mostly careless, and in most cases, at my level I don't tend to see a premeditated action to endanger safety.
Tough to judge overall, but I can't see it being pigeon holed into a specific sanction type.

 

[socal lurker]

Very difficult to judge severity of these imo. They are mostly careless, and in most cases, at my level I don't tend to see a premeditated action to endanger safety.
Tough to judge overall, but I can't see it being pigeon holed into a specific sanction type.

I don't know it has be be pre-mediated to warrant plastic. Where players start from a relatively static perspective, I think an undercut it typically no more than foul--but could be more depending on how far into the jumping player the opponent goes. If the person in the air is moving, especially at speed, then the undercut becomes much more dangerous and, IMO, typically would warrant a card.

 

[one]

I get where @JamesL is coming from. We don't want to create a situation where simply challenging for an aerial ball becomes a foul or a sanction.

There is a difference between a case of someone undercutting an opponent and a case of someone holding ground for the ball to come to him while opponent is running and jumping. For the latter the opponent is also undercut but more so due to their own carelessness. For me they are not hard to judge but each case is a YHTBT.

 

[JamesL]

I don't know it has be be pre-mediated to warrant plastic. Where players start from a relatively static perspective, I think an undercut it typically no more than foul--but could be more depending on how far into the jumping player the opponent goes. If the person in the air is moving, especially at speed, then the undercut becomes much more dangerous and, IMO, typically would warrant a card.

You're right it doesn't. I didn't quite make the point I was making whilst making an irrelevant one.
It's just tough to judge from a severity point of view - in some cases the player who is offended against determines the if force is excessive, or how dangerous it is, by their action, but that also doesn't feel quite right..
My main point was I just don't feel its an offence that can have a specific mandatory sanction.

 

[GraemeS]

I don't know it has be be pre-mediated to warrant plastic. Where players start from a relatively static perspective, I think an undercut it typically no more than foul--but could be more depending on how far into the jumping player the opponent goes. If the person in the air is moving, especially at speed, then the undercut becomes much more dangerous and, IMO, typically would warrant a card.

Again, I think we need to look at rugby as a good starting point for discussing this. The expectation is that if you're in the vicinity of a dropping high ball, you're supposed to be challenging for it - failure to get off the ground indicates that you weren't really interested in the ball, you were just interested in getting in your opponent's way. And once that decision's been made, you start to look at what effect the undercutting player had on the opponent, how far it turns them (past the horizontal) etc to help decide colour of card.

Obviously the one major difference is that in Rugby, players should be challenging for the ball with their hands - in football they should be using their heads, so both players perfectly matching/mirroring each other is more dangerous in football than rugby.

 

[Matthew]

Very difficult to judge severity of these imo. They are mostly careless, and in most cases, at my level I don't tend to see a premeditated action to endanger safety.
Tough to judge overall, but I can't see it being pigeon holed into a specific sanction type.

Completely agree with you there. I think the vast majority will be careless, a few reckless and some (looking at you Harry Kane) cross into SFP territory - referees just need to start judging it as an offence (regardless of severity) across the board.

 

[Ben448844]

Players have always backed in to defenders. Shearer was a master of it. I did it my entire playing career. The idea is to prevent the defender getting a good leap in because you're touch tight to them. It isn't a foul if its done correctly and it certainly isn't dangerous.

Whats happening now is attackers put alot of distance between themselves and defenders and then back in at the very last opportunity. This is very dangerous as the defender has to leap early. The contact is initiated late and high instead of long before the ball gets there which is what used to happen. Needs stamping out

 

[JamesL]

Players have always backed in to defenders. Shearer was a master of it. I did it my entire playing career. The idea is to prevent the defender getting a good leap in because you're touch tight to them. It isn't a foul if its done correctly and it certainly isn't dangerous.

Whats happening now is attackers put alot of distance between themselves and defenders and then back in at the very last opportunity. This is very dangerous as the defender has to leap early. The contact is initiated late and high instead of long before the ball gets there which is what used to happen. Needs stamping out

I struggle to think of many scenarios where "backing in" isn't a foul.
Every player is entitled to their space on the field of play. There are situations where players are "battling" for the same space and law allows for this, but imo most situations where a player moves into someone backwards really fits into definition of careless foul at least unless the ball is within playing distance (perhaps an explanation why players think waiting until the last is okay)
Whilst as a player, and thinking like a player you might think it is okay, from a refereeing and law point of view it fits nicely into a law 12 offence, call it what you want, charge, push, impede progress with contact, you can't challenge for the ball with your back (in most cases.)

 

[Ben448844]

I struggle to think of many scenarios where "backing in" isn't a foul.
Every player is entitled to their space on the field of play. There are situations where players are "battling" for the same space and law allows for this, but imo most situations where a player moves into someone backwards really fits into definition of careless foul at least unless the ball is within playing distance (perhaps an explanation why players think waiting until the last is okay)
Whilst as a player, and thinking like a player you might think it is okay, from a refereeing and law point of view it fits nicely into a law 12 offence, call it what you want, charge, push, impede progress with contact, you can't challenge for the ball with your back (in most cases.)

When a ball is kicked long to you as a striker and its going over your head how do you get to the ball? You cant turn and run as you will lose site of the ball. Your body will be close to the defenders and you will back in. The defender will lean in to you too. Thats not me thinking I've a player, thats just football. You cant only go forwards when your back is to goal. You will naturally lean backwards towards the defender.

What is changing is the distance and the force used and it is dangerous