Hello, I'm starting to center more games now....mostly 11, 12, and 13 year olds. What are some rules of thumb or points to consider when defenders take out an attacker but get the ball first. I feel like a trip is a trip regardless if you get the ball first but referees tend to let it go as long as the defender gets the ball first. Thanks.
I Got The Ball Ref
- Thread starter NOVARef
- Start date
Getting the ball is not a consideration.
There are times when a fair challenge will cause incidental contact between players and there are times when a foul occurs despite the ball being "won first"
The only thing we need to Consider is: was the challenge careless (acts without precaution), reckless (acts with disregard to the danger or consequence for the opponent) or uses excessive force (excessive force or brutality when challenging for the ball endangering the safety of the opponent).
If it ticks any of these boxes then a foul has occurred.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Whether or not the player plays the ball first, you judge whether they tripped the opponent, kicked the opponent, etc., and if the answer is "Yes" award the free kick or penalty.
Until round about 1997, making contact with an opponent before playing the ball was automatically an offence, but "ball before opponent" did not rule out a free kick.
I am assuming you are using IFAB Laws, no US variant(?)
one
RefChat Addict
Definition of careless is what you look at as already pointed out. Considerations I have is a bit more specific to your case and I will give some examples.
Agree that a trip is a trip however the offence is for "trips an opponent". In your case I will ask myself did the defender trip the attacker or did the attacker trip himself over the defender? For example the attacker can see the defender coming from the side and more or less knows the defender is getting to the ball first. The attacker continues his run 'in hope' and rather than taking evading action, trips himself over the defender after the defender plays the ball away.
In another example the defender is sliding from behind plays the ball in the direction of the attacker's run first. The attacker could not have anticipated this and continues his run from the ball but is tripped immediately after by the defender.
I think you see my point. Judge each case on its merits. Consider 'getting the ball first' as a factor but on its own it doesn't mean a foul or otherwise.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think this is an overstatement that can confuse new referees.
Getting the ball first is certainly not a "get out of jail free" card, but it is certainly a relevant factor in evaluating whether the play was careless or reckless--mostly in the sense that if the player did not get the ball first, it is highly likely the play was careless or reckless. (If you watch conversations from the VAR booth, both internally and with the R during an OFR, you will hear conversations about whether there was ball contact or not as part of the considerations.)
I used to have a couple of good slide tackle videos, but I don't know where they are, that I loved using when teaching newish referees.
The first showed a slide tackle in which the defender poked the ball away without contact and then the attacker continued to fall over him--an example of a clean play.
The second showed the defender making contact with the ball first, but then plowing through the attacker's legs--an example of a careless challenge, as the defender could not play the ball away without carelessly tripping the opponent.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
There won't be a difference on these calls with US high school or college rules.
Yes sorry, probably an extreme statement but in reality, and probably what I meant to say is that the laws do not make any mention of the ball when considering if a challenge is CRUEF.
In real life, we do, and yes we can use that to help us determine it
CRUEF = semantics
Winning the ball is a fundamental consideration
We all have a 'signature' for RP, DP, SFP that we recognize. The book tries unsuccessfully to put the considerations into words. Not a surprise therefore, that the football community fails to understand or recognize the terminology we spout
That said, I wouldn't fancy translating these 'signatures' into words
Winning the ball is a fundamental consideration
We all have a 'signature' for RP, DP, SFP that we recognize. The book tries unsuccessfully to put the considerations into words. Not a surprise therefore, that the football community fails to understand or recognize the terminology we spout
That said, I wouldn't fancy translating these 'signatures' into words
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
But less semantics that it used to be.
Before CREF, all penal fouls (now DFK offenses) were only fouls if "intentionally committ[ed]." And what we now call a reckless foul would have been cautioned under the rubric of "ungentlemanly conduct"--but that wasn't said explicitly in the magic book.*
Back then "intentionally commits" was pretty well tortured in meaning, trying to refer to an underlying action being voluntary rather than any intent to, say, trip an opponent. So what CREF really did--albeit imperfectly--was to bring the language of the Laws closer to their actual meaning. (I have sympathy for reporting that says cautions were given for a "bad foul"--hmm, maybe that should be the language: caution for "bad foul" and send off for "really bad foul" . . . .)
__________
*Indeed, I recall listening to a blowhard with no feel for the game argue that for a single foul players could only be sent off for serious foul play, not cautioned because the only caution relating to fouls was persistent infringement. But in his defense, from just reading the text of the LOTG, it was not obvious that a single bad foul could be considered USB (err, then, "ungentlemanly conduct").
I bow to your historic knowledge
However, ungentlemenly conduct sounds much the same as usb to me. The art of refereeing conflicts with the appliance of science. Don't know what the answer is... Just know winning the ball is a key consideration
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Yes, the UGC to USB was solely about gender neutrality, not a substantive change. But the real point was, back in the day, there was no attempt to define what would meet that standard--the two examples of USB in the Decisions of the International Board were dancing around with arms out to obstruct an opponent and the GK laying on the ball too long before getting up.
For me, CREF works pretty well at the conceptual level--it gets harder when trying to be more specific about the definitions of those, but the general gist works pretty well IMHO.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Never an easy one.
Like @JamesL has already said, there's no mention of it in the laws so it's up to the ref to go with his gut.
For me, I always think that if the effect on the "tackled" player is to make it appear to me as if a foul has been committed, I'm generally giving it as one. (At least 11 of the players on the field will agree with you). The only time I'll think twice is obviously if the challenge is inside the penalty area in which case (rightly or wrongly) I'm leaning towards giving the "tackler" the benefit of the doubt.
"But I got the ball ref" is something you'll hear practically every game. I normally respond with a "You may well have done, but you still clattered the other player in doing so fella."
Like @JamesL has already said, there's no mention of it in the laws so it's up to the ref to go with his gut.
For me, I always think that if the effect on the "tackled" player is to make it appear to me as if a foul has been committed, I'm generally giving it as one. (At least 11 of the players on the field will agree with you). The only time I'll think twice is obviously if the challenge is inside the penalty area in which case (rightly or wrongly) I'm leaning towards giving the "tackler" the benefit of the doubt.
"But I got the ball ref" is something you'll hear practically every game. I normally respond with a "You may well have done, but you still clattered the other player in doing so fella."
one
RefChat Addict
This is how it works for almost all experienced referees, gut feel. Once we see an incident we don't pull out a decision tree or a flowchart, or think about the wording of CRUEF and do a comparison to it to see which category it is under. Gut feel is instantaneous and instinctive. But it takes years for it to become in line with LOTG.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Yep.
When observing, if I see a referee do that "spherical hand movement thing" it's one of my pet hates. I'll always mention it in the debrief.
Trying to explain to players that getting the ball has no bearing on whether it's a foul is not going to get you anywhere. Everyone "knows" that if you get the ball first it's not a foul. I've seen premier league referees making the 'ball' gesture.
My own rule of thumb is that tackles from behind must be clean but tackles that the attacker can see coming can involve contact after the ball is played (provided it's not reckless or dangerous).
My own rule of thumb is that tackles from behind must be clean but tackles that the attacker can see coming can involve contact after the ball is played (provided it's not reckless or dangerous).
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
So you choose not to penalise careless tackles from the front or side?
If you get the ball first it's not careless. The whole aim of a tackle is to get the ball.
one
RefChat Addict
I found a few examples here for discussion. If we think these are not even a free kick, we should re-think our refereeing career - imo of course.
At 3:15
At 3:15
Watch Ousmane Viera tackle min 49 (Sepsi - Viitorul 0-0) | Streamable
Watch "Ousmane Viera tackle min 49 (Sepsi - Viitorul 0-0)" on Streamable.
streamable.com
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
As a global statement, that goes way too far. I think it is simply wrong in Law to say that a tackle from the side or front has to rise to the level of reckless before it can be a foul if the defender gets the ball first. I totally agree that getting the ball first is relevant, and I agree that some contact that I would consider careless without getting the ball first may not be if the ball is reached first. (I would even say that some fouls that might be reckless if the ball was not touched first might be merely careless if the ball is played first.) But writing off all possible careless fouls from the side front if the ball is touched first goes too far.
I don't think @Trip is saying it can never be a foul and a caution/sendoff, but that it cannot be a foul unless it rises to the level of reckless.