Two players jumping simultaneously, one steps on the other's foot on landing, is it a foul?

[CrossRef]

Suppose there is no obvious illegal acts witnessed, just this step on the feet when landing on the ground, then do you consider it as an careless foul?
I've just seen one over the weekend, and I considered it as accidental and let it go. The team got stepped upon seemed unhappy, but it still looks to be like an accidental event similar to a clash, even though only one player took the loss.

What is your opinion?

 

[socal lurker]

Well “accidental” does not preclude “careless.” As I picture what you’re describing, it sounds like an incidental impact. But gotta see it to really know the answer.

 

[one]

Also have to be there to be sure but I'd generally give it. Most accidents happen when one is being careless. I also usually preempt any moaning by the other player by quietly telling him "I know you didn't mean it but you did step on him and it has to be a foul".

 

[CrossRef]

Generally I agree with you, I will give it most of the time. But for this one I can't see any wrongdoing from the stepping side. Suppose you just jump to contend for the ball, basically strait up and down, stepping occurred just because you and the other player is too close. Can we say that for whatever reason you should avoid the stepping?

 

[Gamespoiler]

There's a duty of care that the player didn't show. If you don't give it telling people it was an accident you can be certain players will then claim every contact is an accident

 

[CrossRef]

Duty of care, that's a good point, I will use it next time. Thanks @Gamespoiler !

 

[Russell Jones]

I think there are parallels here to other foul / no foul situations that have been featured in training videos (UEFA RAP). These distinguish between scenario 1 where player A knew / should have known that Player B's body was somewhere that required them to take care and scenario 2 where they could not have known / expected Player B's body to be there. In these videos it was all about the follow through after an otherwise legitimate tackle. Most times, subsequent contact with Player B was unexpected and therefore incidental. However there were other occasions when you should have known / expected that your follow through will cause a foul (think Romero's red card against Chelsea a couple of years back).

As I read your OP, this is highly likely to be incidental contact with the jumping player unlikely to know / foresee that his landing spot will be the opponent's foot!

 

[CrossRef]

Yes that's what I was thinking at the moment. The jumping player knew there is another player besides but didn't seem to know he would land on the other player's foot. Still a bit challenging to decide whether to apply duty of care or to consider it incidental, but that's what a referee should do though.

I think there are parallels here to other foul / no foul situations that have been featured in training videos (UEFA RAP). These distinguish between scenario 1 where player A knew / should have known that Player B's body was somewhere that required them to take care and scenario 2 where they could not have known / expected Player B's body to be there. In these videos it was all about the follow through after an otherwise legitimate tackle. Most times, subsequent contact with Player B was unexpected and therefore incidental. However there were other occasions when you should have known / expected that your follow through will cause a foul (think Romero's red card against Chelsea a couple of years back).

As I read your OP, this is highly likely to be incidental contact with the jumping player unlikely to know / foresee that his landing spot will be the opponent's foot!

 

[socal lurker]

One thing to consider is who, went straight up and who went into the other? In my ind, the player going straight up and down is not the one potentially being careless. And who got the ball? If the “victim” got the ball, it suggests the opponent was late, just as in a tackle.

 

[Kes]

Duty of care, that's a good point, I will use it next time. Thanks @Gamespoiler !

"Duty Of Care" is a bit strong and is likely to invite incredulous verbal response from whomever you direct the phrase at. I'd avoid using it.

Without getting down into the weeds and semantics of it all, when you step on someone's foot (albeit "accidentally") and that person is visibly (physically) hurt or injured as a result, it's normally going to be accepted that it was "careless". Just give the free kick.

If the player being penalised for it protests/moans then something like: "Yes mate, I'm sure you didn't mean it but if he'd stood on your foot and hurt you, you'd want a free kick wouldn't you?!!" (Ignore any flippant response and jog away to your next position ).

 

[CrossRef]

Very helpful, thank you @Kes !

"Duty Of Care" is a bit strong and is likely to invite incredulous verbal response from whomever you direct the phrase at. I'd avoid using it.

Without getting down into the weeds and semantics of it all, when you step on someone's foot (albeit "accidentally") and that person is visibly (physically) hurt or injured as a result, it's normally going to be accepted that it was "careless". Just give the free kick.

If the player being penalised for it protests/moans then something like: "Yes mate, I'm sure you didn't mean it but if he'd stood on your foot and hurt you, you'd want a free kick wouldn't you?!!" (Ignore any flippant response and jog away to your next position ).