Shield vs charge?

[Hoosier Ref]

Question for the masses. I referee in the states. Done about 300 games at this point. Have played for 40 yrs and coached for about 5-7. Recognizing that coaches, spectators, players are biased and often don't know the LOTG or interpretations my question is this...
This is a difficult opinion/judgement call for me but...

Scenario - attacker dribbling down wing, defender crashing toward ball from 180 degree opposite angle. Defender beats attacker by a hair, but does not touch/play the ball. elects to move at speed just past the ball turning back to on rushing attacker. Defender is within playing distance and could play the ball but does not actually play the ball. Heavy collision and attacker gets leveled. What are collective thoughts on factors to take into account for whether this is a legitimate shield or when this is a charge/hockey check type foul on the defender? Recognizing that attackers sometime may intentionally fail to make any effort to avoid contact or embellish trying to draw a foul/card.

Thoughts?

 

[Trip]

I think he's entitled to shield the ball despite not actually playing it. Lots of ball shielding goes on without playing it to see it out of play. The fact that they are running towards each other at speed when he does it is not relevant.

 

[one]

For me this is at minimum careless (in most cases. Its a YHTBT). The direct free kick offences say nothing about control of the ball and "who gets to the ball first". Sure there are considerations but only considerations. The telling factor from this is that he turns his back. He know he is initiating a heavy collision and is making sure he is not coming off second best with no consideration for his opponent.

A similar situation for me is when two players jump for an arial ball header. One has eye on the ball and facing it all the way, the other looks at the ball and the opponents first, jumps towards it but drops his head and twists his body around with his back into the opponent and if he is lucky the ball hitting the back of his head. Careless at a minimum.

 

[JamesL]

Tough one really. My initial thoughts were impeding the progress of an opponent. But it sounds like the ball was in playing distance of the defender so it doesnt quite meet the requirements.

It's quite possible that actually the attacker has committed a careless foul with an unfair charge.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the
ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with
the arms or body.

I think the above statement is the most appliccable so for the OP he needs to decide did the defender "hold off" his opponent or did thr attacker unfairly charge him

 

[Goldfish]

Hi Hoosier Ref
The part that I did not like in the description was turning back into the opponent making heavy contact. That reads more like a charge than a shielding action. If it is a charge it has to be shoulder to shoulder not into the opponents chest or back.
Another factor is whether the action is reckless or not. Shielding or charging cannot be reckless. Now that can work both ways in that many times the shielding player can come off worse.
Also I think that when players are evenly matched these type of contacts are less of an issue. Equal players can take and give strong contact.
Had one at the weekend where a lighter player went into a GK who was much heavier and stronger. GK caught the ball, just stood there, braced himself for the shot and the attacker came off worse shipping heavy contact, all of which was the attackers own making really. Attacker took exception to the contact which I saw as a foul against the GK who had possession of the ball.

 

[one]

Hi @Goldfish,
I agree with your view with a couple of clarifications.
"Shoulder to shoulder" is the most common form of a fair charge but it doesn't necessarily make it a fair one. Other forms (back to chest) are not necessarily offences either, just more likely to be an offence.
"Another factor is whether the action is reckless or not": I presume you are including careless and excessive force in there as well.

Interestingly, before the big change the LOTG description of charge included:
"It is an offence to charge an opponent:
• in a careless manner
• in a reckless manner
• using excessive force"

The change replaced that with
"If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent."

 

[GraemeS]

Can you guys (or anyone else) point me towards the section of the laws that allow a "fair charge"? As far as I was aware, charging was a DFK offence and I have repeatedly punished player for using their momentum to win the ball, regardless of which body parts happen to make contact. Is that wrong?

 

[one]

Can you guys (or anyone else) point me towards the section of the laws that allow a "fair charge"? As far as I was aware, charging was a DFK offence and I have repeatedly punished player for using their momentum to win the ball, regardless of which body parts happen to make contact. Is that wrong?

Last sentence in Law 12.2


Also Law 12.1 where a charge has to be C/R/EF for it to be an offence

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
The game allows for the use of strength and physical contact such as a fair charge. Tactic knowledge tells us that shoulder to shoulder in a way that moves a player off the ball is fair. Obviously running at distance to crash a shoulder into the opponents shoulder, back or chest is not legal. It is left to the referee to decide what is careless. Former wording of the FIFA Interpretations stated that, “the act of charging is a challenge for space using physical contact within playing distance of the ball without using arms or elbows.”

In this video the referee deemed that the arm was not used and saw it as legal

In this one Clattenburg decided the first contact by Vardy was shoulder to shoulder and therefore a legal charge ( video showed an arm was used to push). The second one he decided it was a shoulder into the back and therefore a foul.

 

[GraemeS]

I would have given every single one of those as a foul, no question. I've got no trouble with two players coming together and having a "strength battle" shoulder to shoulder, but any use of momentum that knocks an opponent over has to be a foul at least?

 

[UKColt]

I'm fine with the first one. I think the total lack of reaction from the players suggests a free kick would be a huge surprise.

Second one is a foul on Vardy, but it's also a foul by Vardy initially which the referee missed. Give the first obvious one, and avoid having to give the more controversial second one!

 

[Mintyref]

I'm with GraemeS on this one.

 

[RyantheRef]

Tough one really. My initial thoughts were impeding the progress of an opponent. But it sounds like the ball was in playing distance of the defender so it doesnt quite meet the requirements.

It's quite possible that actually the attacker has committed a careless foul with an unfair charge.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the
ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with
the arms or body.

I think the above statement is the most appliccable so for the OP he needs to decide did the defender "hold off" his opponent or did thr attacker unfairly charge him

When contact is made, the correct call is a foul and DFK for careless, reckless, or excessive force. In this case, it sounds like recklessness. DFK and yellow card for the defender.

 

[Peter Grove]

When contact is made, the correct call is a foul and DFK for careless, reckless, or excessive force. In this case, it sounds like recklessness. DFK and yellow card for the defender.

If you're talking about any and all contact being an offence then I disagree. Contact is only a foul if it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force. If it doesn't rise to the minimum threshold of carelessness, it's not a foul. As @one mentions above, the laws say that a charge is only illegal if it meets the CRUEF criteria and that a player may be fairly charged.

 

[RyantheRef]

I am speaking about when a foul has definitely occurred within the context of the OP. That is, when a player is guilty of obstructing the movement of his opponent by making contact, that is to be considered careless, reckless, or excessive force and is to be punished by a DFK as opposed to an IDFK. I am not saying that every instance of contact is a foul -- although I have seen some colleagues act that way.

 

[JamesL]

I am speaking about when a foul has definitely occurred within the context of the OP. That is, when a player is guilty of obstructing the movement of his opponent by making contact, that is to be considered careless, reckless, or excessive force and is to be punished by a DFK as opposed to an IDFK. I am not saying that every instance of contact is a foul -- although I have seen some colleagues act that way.

I am not sure that anyone is suggesting an idfk. I mused on impeding progress of opponent but as per lotg impeding progress of an opponent with contact is possible which is where the thought processes were which would be punished by dfk.
Im assuming that you replied to my comment thinking I was musing on an idfk which wasnt the case merely trying to envisage the OP and what my thoughts were

 

[RyantheRef]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the difference between obstructing an opponent (for which an IDFK is given) and a foul (for which a DFK is given) is in whether contact was made.

 

[Peter Grove]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the difference between obstructing an opponent (for which an IDFK is given) and a foul (for which a DFK is given) is in whether contact was made.

OK, I see what you're saying now. If we use the terminology found in the Laws of the Game (and why not?) we're talking about impeding without contact (IDFK) and impeding with contact (DFK).

 

[bloovee]

Last sentence in Law 12.2
View attachment 1549

Also Law 12.1 where a charge has to be C/R/EF for it to be an offence
View attachment 1550

Bad drafting again (actually it's ludicrous drafting).

The second makes "charging an opponent" an offence. If they're listed as offences, either the wording means you can commit any of those offences carefully and they're not offences, or they are all offences and the wording "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless,
reckless or using excessive force" is superfluous. The bit about contact is also fairly meaningless - "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick" - but so is an attempt at striking, tripping, or kicking an opponent that (by definition) doesn't involve contact.

So charging is an offence, but fairly charging (undefined) is not.

I find it quite odd that they could do a complete recast of the laws and not address these linguistic nonsenses.

My first "learn the LOAF" book actually had advice for players on each law and included something like "It's not shameful to be charged off the ball - if you catch your opponent on the wrong leg (i.e. furthest from your shoulder") he may go over easily". I never did quite work out how, if a player was obstructing, you could still charge them in the back rather than shoulder to shoulder.

Back to the OP - nothing wrong at all with the defender's action (if I read it right). Just got there first. If the attacker then barges into him, it may be a FK to the defender. But the ball must be within playing distance - it doesn't seem to happen much these days but Kenny Dalglish was very good at "shielding" a ball which was three yards away; nowadays that looks like impeding an opponent.

 

[Peter Grove]

The second makes "charging an opponent" an offence. If they're listed as offences, either the wording means you can commit any of those offences carefully and they're not offences, or they are all offences and the wording "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless,
reckless or using excessive force" is superfluous. The bit about contact is also fairly meaningless - "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick" - but so is an attempt at striking, tripping, or kicking an opponent that (by definition) doesn't involve contact.

I think you're being a tad literal-minded here. We all know that when the law talks about offences being committed in a manner that meets the CRUEF criteria, it means they are only offences if they meet the criteria and are not offences if they don't. I don't think for a moment that anyone is confused by that.

On the second point, you seem to be being drawn into a logical fallacy - just because all offences involving contact have to be direct free kick offences, it doesn't mean that offences that don't involve contact can't be DFK offences - that doesn't logically follow.