The Ref Stop

Decision on challenge - how would you have handled this?

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

RefIADad

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
I spent a few minutes trying to write a good title, but couldn't. I'll just explain the play and ask for advice from the board.
  • High school "junior varsity 2" match, which is the third tier of teams for the schools. Many of these players are either multi-sport athletes playing to stay in shape for other sports or are not of the highest skill levels.
  • Black Team is attacking White Team. Black attacker is approaching the ball from the left side about 35 yards from goal. White defender is approaching the ball basically straight on from his goal.
  • White launches himself two-footed toward the ball from 2-3 yards out. Black sees this and immediately pulls up in the "no way am I getting stuck in for THAT" movement about a yard from the ball. One foot for White contacts the ball, one goes over the top of the ball while still getting some of the ball.
I called a simple foul. White coach loudly dissents and I caution him for it. I told him later (he officiates with me, and White is my son's program where he plays on the top-tier team - I officiate these third-tier games to ease assigning issues since the programs do not really care who wins them) that that had there been any sort of contact with the Black attacker, I would likely have sent his player off for SFP. He claimed that since his player got the ball and the attacker had pulled up that it was a legal play. I simply asked him if the roles were reversed and it was his attacker who had to pull up from a challenge like that, would he want me to sanction that challenge. He saw my point but still grumbled about it.

So was I right to assess a foul (at least) in that situation? What about if the game was a more competitive/higher skilled match? These third-tier matches are clearly for development and playing time, and I usually call them a lot tighter than I would a higher-level match.
 
The Ref Stop
Always difficult to comment on decisions like this when there isn't footage; but if you're telling him it would be red if there was contact, id probably be cautioning for the non-contact.
 
Runner Ref said:
Always difficult to comment on decisions like this when there isn't footage; but if you're telling him it would be red if there was contact, id probably be cautioning for the non-contact.
Click to expand...
Appreciate that. I thought about cautioning, but figured calling the foul was likely enough to make it clear you can't go into any challenge like that. For me, I at least wanted to make sure I was in the right to call some sort of foul.
 
RefIADad said:
I spent a few minutes trying to write a good title, but couldn't. I'll just explain the play and ask for advice from the board.
  • High school "junior varsity 2" match, which is the third tier of teams for the schools. Many of these players are either multi-sport athletes playing to stay in shape for other sports or are not of the highest skill levels.
  • Black Team is attacking White Team. Black attacker is approaching the ball from the left side about 35 yards from goal. White defender is approaching the ball basically straight on from his goal.
  • White launches himself two-footed toward the ball from 2-3 yards out. Black sees this and immediately pulls up in the "no way am I getting stuck in for THAT" movement about a yard from the ball. One foot for White contacts the ball, one goes over the top of the ball while still getting some of the ball.
I called a simple foul. White coach loudly dissents and I caution him for it. I told him later (he officiates with me, and White is my son's program where he plays on the top-tier team - I officiate these third-tier games to ease assigning issues since the programs do not really care who wins them) that that had there been any sort of contact with the Black attacker, I would likely have sent his player off for SFP. He claimed that since his player got the ball and the attacker had pulled up that it was a legal play. I simply asked him if the roles were reversed and it was his attacker who had to pull up from a challenge like that, would he want me to sanction that challenge. He saw my point but still grumbled about it.

So was I right to assess a foul (at least) in that situation? What about if the game was a more competitive/higher skilled match? These third-tier matches are clearly for development and playing time, and I usually call them a lot tighter than I would a higher-level match.
Click to expand...

I read this in your post, he acted with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent.
 
If you think the player is going in excessively and dangerously, then for me it is irrelevant what level it is and I think it would be a case of "what the game expects" as your decision.
 
I think I'd be going for PIADM

Playing in a dangerous manner

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

Best sell would be a caution I think for USB.
 
I would not use PIADM here. As described, this is a reckless tackle. The fact he didn’t make contact doesn’t downgrade it to PIADM. (FWIW, as I picture the play described, I am in the caution camp.)
 
I mean this is playing a dangerous manner but simultaneous offences. The more serious offence is that he’s challenged his opponent with disregard to his opponent’s safety. DFK, YC (reckless). YC helps sell the foul too. If you give just a foul, you need to sell that the challenge is so bad that it is a foul even though he didn’t make contact with the opponent but also not bad enough for a caution.
 
I'd assume PIADM too.
It can still be recklessly done and earn a caution except that obviously the restart is IDFK rather than direct. Also easier to sell when there's no actual contact made.
 
Kes said:
I'd assume PIADM too.
It can still be recklessly done and earn a caution except that obviously the restart is IDFK rather than direct. Also easier to sell when there's no actual contact made.
Click to expand...
If the challenge is reckless, it is a DFK.
 
Johnson said:
If the challenge is reckless, it is a DFK.
Click to expand...
But no actual contact. The opponent withdraws for fear of injury. Doesn't that make it IDFK? Like a high boot where the player pulls their head away, IDFK.
 
Viridis1886 said:
But no actual contact. The opponent withdraws for fear of injury. Doesn't that make it IDFK? Like a high boot where the player pulls their head away, IDFK.
Click to expand...
The CRUEF offences are always DFKs, regardless of whether contact is made. A high boot is PIADM, not a CRUEF offence.

“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”

The statement that “If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.” doesn’t mean that offences that don’t involve contact are IDFKs.
 
Johnson said:
The statement that “If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.” doesn’t mean that offences that don’t involve contact are IDFKs.
Click to expand...
Similarly if a DFK offence is done recklessly its a caution doesn't mean an IFK offence can't be done recklessly and a caution.

There is nowhere in law that says a reckless offence has to be DFK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Wel
one said:
Similarly if a DFK offence is done recklessly its a caution doesn't mean an IFK offence can't be done recklessly and a caution.

There is nowhere in law that says a reckless offence has to be DFK.
Click to expand...
Well, sorta. In the description of USB what it says is “commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence.”

As we’ve discussed there is USB that an R can recognize outside of the specific examples, but similar to the debate on tactical holding and advantage there is certainly cause to be skeptical about about a caution because PIADM is reckless.

In my mind, the Law is clear that a reckless challenge of an opponent is a DFK. Nothing anywhere requires contact for that offense to be complete. So I think if a tackle rises to the level of being truly reckless, the R should recognize it as a DFK and caution. I think the case for only punishing as PIADM is quite weak.
 
socal lurker said:
In my mind, the Law is clear that a reckless challenge of an opponent is a DFK.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. The law is clear that a reckless DFK offence is USB which is different to what you state.

It is certainly easier to sell a DFK when deeming a challenge reckless even if no contact and it is mostly what the game expects (penalty being an exception usually). But I am very clear if a referee cautions a player for a reckless challenge without contact, it won't be wrong in law to restart with either of DFK or IFK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top