A&H

Attempt to trip .

wazztie16

wazztie16

Level 4 Referee
Level 4 Referee
I nearly gave a FK last weekend for attempt to trip, it was an obvious go at the attacker as he took the ball away from the opposition player, but played the advantage for the attacker as he got into a very good attacking position.

Anyone given a FK for that sort of thing?

It would've been my first.
 
The Referee Store
I have given attempts to trip for something really blatant.

Though several times I have warned players/teams when there have been late swings that have missed ball/player - and reminded them that, just because there's no contact, doesn't mean it's not a foul. Typical thing, young player slaloming through midfield with defenders swinging and missing - it's awkward to have the focus on an advantage call, the attacker wants to keep playing, so after the ball is next dead, a quick warning to the defenders that swinging and missing might be a foul and try to play the ball;)

The other component here is to make sure you are clear on "attempts to kick" or "attempts to trip" (DFK) from playing in a dangerous manner (IDFK). This is one of those occasions when have to gauge intent - was the player trying to kick the opponent or the ball...
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I have for both attempting to trip and attempting to kick probably a couple of time s season. It's a hard sell.

"I didn't touch him ref" just about every time. "You don't have to for it to be a free kick".
 
one said:
I have for both attempting to trip and attempting to kick probably a couple of time s season. It's a hard sell.

"I didn't touch him ref" just about every time. "You don't have to for it to be a free kick".
Click to expand...

In this case, I usually say "and aren't you lucky that you didn't" or something like "I know; and if you had, it would have been a caution."
 
I must confess to finding the slight ambiguity of the Law annoying where this particular issue is concerned. It uses descriptive words that imply that no contact has to take place in order for a DFK to be awarded, yet then almost contradicts itself by then adding the caveat "if it involves contact" Most players are of the opinion that irrespective of the nature of the "foul" if no actual contact is made, then it can't be a DFK, it can only be an IDFK. As a referee, I've sometimes found myself (after blowing the whistle) wondering what indeed the correct restart should be. :wtf:

Direct free kick
Click to expand...
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
  • charges
  • jumps at
  • kicks or attempts to kick
  • pushes
  • strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
  • tackles or challenges
  • trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Click to expand...
 
I once gave a penalty for attempts to trip / kick. Attacker was running clear of defender and defender took an almighty swipe at his legs and missed, so I gave a penalty. Defending team and management went absolutely mental, as you can imagine, claiming no contact and so no foul. It was quite difficult after that to regain control of the defending team and I probably didn't manage it really. Lots of ill feeling at the end of the game from the defending team towards me.

I think it needs to be a blatant attempt to kick / trip and it is clear what's happened. I'd do it again no question, despite the fall out. It was the correct decision and I stand by it, but it was carnage initially. But we shouldn't let a teams lack of knowledge influence our decisions.
 
TSHudson said:
I once gave a penalty for attempts to trip / kick. Attacker was running clear of defender and defender took an almighty swipe at his legs and missed, so I gave a penalty. Defending team and management went absolutely mental, as you can imagine, claiming no contact and so no foul. It was quite difficult after that to regain control of the defending team and I probably didn't manage it really. Lots of ill feeling at the end of the game from the defending team towards me.

I think it needs to be a blatant attempt to kick / trip and it is clear what's happened. I'd do it again no question, despite the fall out. It was the correct decision and I stand by it, but it was carnage initially. But we shouldn't let a teams lack of knowledge influence our decisions.
Click to expand...
I've also done this but only because the attacker hurdled the sweeping leg, lost his balance and control of the ball. I did manage it pretty well but still needed two cautions for dissent to get a lid on things.
 
Last edited:
Kes said:
I must confess to finding the slight ambiguity of the Law annoying where this particular issue is concerned. It uses descriptive words that imply that no contact has to take place in order for a DFK to be awarded, yet then almost contradicts itself by then adding the caveat "if it involves contact" Most players are of the opinion that irrespective of the nature of the "foul" if no actual contact is made, then it can't be a DFK, it can only be an IDFK. As a referee, I've sometimes found myself (after blowing the whistle) wondering what indeed the correct restart should be. :wtf:
Click to expand...

I think the contact language was added to be clear that if there is contact, it must be a DFK. But that doesn't mean that if there is not contact it cannot be a DFK. IFAB still needs a good copy editor . . .
 
socal lurker said:
I think the contact language was added to be clear that if there is contact, it must be a DFK. But that doesn't mean that if there is not contact it cannot be a DFK. IFAB still needs a good copy editor . . .
Click to expand...
If its vacant, I'll do it...............
 
I've had a few where a lunging challenge has caused the player to hurdle the leg and fall over that I've penalised.
 
RustyRef said:
I've had a few where a lunging challenge has caused the player to hurdle the leg and fall over that I've penalised.
Click to expand...
To me that is more of a careless tackle (nothing in the definition of careless tackle requires contact) that an attempt to trip--but either gets us to the same place.
 
100% i've given quite a few, they assume if they miss that they've got away with it.....
Had a few attempted punches too that didn't connect, one towards me.... slippery SF saw it coming!!! ;)
 
Kes said:
It uses descriptive words that imply that no contact has to take place in order for a DFK to be awarded, yet then almost contradicts itself by then adding the caveat "if it involves contact"
Click to expand...
That isn't the slightest bit contradictory and to think that it is, is to be guilty of a logical fallacy. It's like taking the statement, "All dogs are animals," and saying it implies that if it's not a dog, then it isn't an animal.

Just because any foul with contact is a direct free kick, doesn't mean (or even imply) that any foul without contact isn't - that's simply not a logical conclusion.
 
Peter Grove said:
That isn't the slightest bit contradictory and to think that it is, is to be guilty of a logical fallacy. It's like taking the statement, "All dogs are animals," and saying it implies that if it's not a dog, then it isn't an animal.

Just because any foul with contact is a direct free kick, doesn't mean (or even imply) that any foul without contact isn't - that's simply not a logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

I fancy I can read written English as well as you Peter so I don't agree.
For me, the way that it's constructed is ambiguous at best, contradictory at worst.
Listing the possible offences and then stating "if the offence involves contact ..." is I think, misleading. Perhaps "contradictory" wasn't the best word for me to use, but in the context of my post it made sense, and still does to me.
 
Big Cat said:
Consider also PIADM
Click to expand...

Correct. But, in fairness, the book gives a pretty unambiguous description of what PIADM is ie risk of injury or fear of injury. It's also a separate subject heading because (IMO) it's designed to cover those instances that fall outside the remit of the listed DFK offences and awards only the sanction of an IDFK. If it were down to me, I'd do away with the pointless IDFK and have every offence (including offside) punished with a DFK. It'd make life a lot simpler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top