What would you do about...

[HarryD]

The big question is did he attempt to kick/trip/strike an opponent? The OP was just a relayed incident. From what I heard the challenge was awful. But if someone goes in for a slide tackle elsewhere on the pitch and misses, do you stop play? Its a more extreme example of that. Hence why I believe its playing in a dangerous manner, and therefore an IDK and a yellow. But that's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours mate and if you feel that a red is the right decision then that's perfectly fine - as long as you can sell it.

 

[Yacinho]

Is English your second language?
You state dangerous play involves no contact - CORRECT
You state dangerous play is an IDFK - CORRECT
You state SFP is a DFK - CORRECT
You think that any challenge without contact MUST be dangerous play - INCORRECT

Attempting to trip an opponent: no contact = DIRECT FREE KICK
Attempting to kick an opponent: no contact = DIRECT FREE KICK
Attempting to strike an opponent: no contact = DIRECT FREE KICK

Class dismissed

Yes, and in those three cases, it's red for VC, not SFP

 

[HantsRef]

Wasn't this what Vincent Kompany was sent off for in the BPL a few seasons ago...(Manchester derby?) Whilst he made no contact with the player (and in fact 'won the ball') the fact he left the ground and therefore was out of control of himself and had studs showing amounted to SFP although he did not actually make any contact with the opposing player.

 

[deusex]

Yes, and in those three cases, it's red for VC, not SFP

But they are examples of incidences that can happen that involve no contact, but result in an IDFK.
Proving that not every challenge with no contact falls into the category of "dangerous play"

 

[deusex]

Wasn't this what Vincent Kompany was sent off for in the BPL a few seasons ago...(Manchester derby?) Whilst he made no contact with the player (and in fact 'won the ball') the fact he left the ground and therefore was out of control of himself and had studs showing amounted to SFP although he did not actually make any contact with the opposing player.

Christ don't confuse matters with that. That wasn't even a foul (Man utd fan here).
Carrick, Welbeck and Shrek surrounding the referee demanding a card...bloody foreigners!!!

 

[Yacinho]

But they are examples of incidences that can happen that involve no contact, but result in an IDFK.
Proving that not every challenge with no contact falls into the category of "dangerous play"

And this is completely irrelevant since the point i was trying to make is that it's impossible for a ref to think the player tried to take the ball AND to send off the player for SFP if there is no contact

Proven by my first comment on the topic :

Let the advantage go, caution at next stop
If not, IDFK for "plays in a dangerous manner" and caution as well

IMO you can't give a straight red as it can't be a "serious foul" since there is no contact, unless you judge it's not an attempt to play the ball but a violent conduct

You can see I did consider the case of VC


By the way, no, English isn't my second language, it's my third.

 

[HantsRef]

@deusex I hope of a slight hint of sarcasm in the first sentence and to some extent you see what I mean by that though...?

 

[deusex]

Yacinho: "it can't be a RC because no contact means it's Dangerous Play and Dang Play is a YC"
Deusex: "No contact does not mean it's dangerous play"

HOW is my point irrelevant? It completely challenges your point head on. Call it anything... but irrelevant?
I'm going to bed....

 

[Yacinho]

You "accidentally" forgot one part, here, i fixed it

Yacinho: "it can't be a RC because no contact means it's Dangerous Play and Dang Play is a YC" unless you judge it's not an attempt to play the ball but a violent conduct
Deusex: "No contact does not mean it's dangerous play"

HOW is my point irrelevant? It completely challenges your point head on. Call it anything... but irrelevant?
I'm going to bed....

 

[HertsFinest]

Anyone fancy some Doritos? Maybe a coke? This is a long one!

 

[MI]

Surely "an act where the player makes contact with the opponent before touching the ball" is a foul.
I would hope MOST tackles didn't involve contact with the player

That is what tackling means. And that is why it is an offense in the LOTG. Tackling without contact makes no sense. The 'wording' is 'tackling an opponent'. If you win the ball without making a contact with the opponent, it is a fair challenge. In this situations the referee is only interested in whether the offense occurred and NOT how it occurred.

 

[MI]

Is English your second language?
You state dangerous play involves no contact - CORRECT
You state dangerous play is an IDFK - CORRECT
You state SFP is a DFK - CORRECT
You think that any challenge without contact MUST be dangerous play - INCORRECT

Attempting to trip an opponent: no contact = DIRECT FREE KICK
Attempting to kick an opponent: no contact = DIRECT FREE KICK
Attempting to strike an opponent: no contact = DIRECT FREE KICK

Class dismissed

Most Dangerous Plays are committed 'in a careless manner' i.e a player trying a high kick, scissor kicks or bicycle kicks. In most cases there is no intent to cause injury to an opponent. But Attempting to kick, trip or strike is committed when the player has an intent to cause harm but fortunately he did not succeed in doing so. As a referee, make sure the incident has occurred DON'T be interested in how it occurred. (i.e whether the player has been provoked or which player started it) Thank you.

 

[McTavish]

I suspect that this powerpoint that our Kenyan colleague has posted which states that a foul is: "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball" is either old or has not been carefully updated. This used to be the law but it was changed a few years ago. Now it merely states "tackles an opponent [using] careless, reckless or using excessive force." This is the source of most "but I got the ball" appeals.

It is clear to me that "tackle" is the act of challenging for the ball and it is perfectly possible to tackle someone without touching them at all or by touching them in a manner that is not careless etc.

One foul that is seldom used but which might be perfect for the OP is "Jumps at an opponent". I've never really thought too hard about this - in fact I don't think I have ever given a foul for this - but is this not the exact thing that has happened in the OP? Jumped with excessive force = RC. Restart with a DFK.

 

[MI]

I suspect that this powerpoint that our Kenyan colleague has posted which states that a foul is: "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball" is either old or has not been carefully updated. This used to be the law but it was changed a few years ago. Now it merely states "tackles an opponent [using] careless, reckless or using excessive force." This is the source of most "but I got the ball" appeals.

It is clear to me that "tackle" is the act of challenging for the ball and it is perfectly possible to tackle someone without touching them at all or by touching them in a manner that is not careless etc.

I would recommend you to download the LOTG well. FIFA makes amendments to the laws of the game every year. No amendments were made in LAW 12 from 2011. Check this out and tell me whether I am giving you info which is outdated. I think we should debate by giving facts.
2011 - http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...262-amendmentstothelawsofthegame-20112012.pdf
2012 - http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...02-amendmentstothelawsofthegame-2012_2013.pdf
2013 - http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...mentstothelawsofthegame-2013-2014_neutral.pdf
2014 - http://www.epo.gr/media/files/KATASTATIKO_KANONISMOI/circularno_1419_GR.pdf

ALL CIRCULARS ARE FROM FIFA. Thanks

 

[MI]

I suspect that this powerpoint that our Kenyan colleague has posted which states that a foul is: "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball" is either old or has not been carefully updated. This used to be the law but it was changed a few years ago. Now it merely states "tackles an opponent [using] careless, reckless or using excessive force." This is the source of most "but I got the ball" appeals.

It is clear to me that "tackle" is the act of challenging for the ball and it is perfectly possible to tackle someone without touching them at all or by touching them in a manner that is not careless etc.

One foul that is seldom used but which might be perfect for the OP is "Jumps at an opponent". I've never really thought too hard about this - in fact I don't think I have ever given a foul for this - but is this not the exact thing that has happened in the OP? Jumped with excessive force = RC. Restart with a DFK.

Have you asked yourself why 'tackle an opponent' appears in the list of offence committed against opponents? You can challenge for the ball with even minimal contact and it is considered as a fair challenge. Football is a game of contact. If a tackle is executed with excessive force or reckless, disciplinary sanctions should be taken. But if a player makes contact with the ball and not the player neither in a reckless, careless or by using excessive force, it will not be a tackle. Thank you.

 

[MI]

And this is completely irrelevant since the point i was trying to make is that it's impossible for a ref to think the player tried to take the ball AND to send off the player for SFP if there is no contact

Proven by my first comment on the topic :



You can see I did consider the case of VC


By the way, no, English isn't my second language, it's my third.

Example of Indirect free kick through dangerous play.

 

[HertsFinest]

I've got tangy cheese, chilli heatwave and some cool original...

 

[MI]

Yes, and in those three cases, it's red for VC, not SFP

SFP - Challenging for the ball - RC
DP - Challenging for the ball and make no contact. - YC if it reckless and RC for DOGSO
VC - Happens when not challenging for the ball, it does not matter whether there is contact or not. - RC

 

[CO. DOWN REF]

Have you asked yourself why 'tackle an opponent' appears in the list of offence committed against opponents? You can challenge for the ball with even minimal contact and it is considered as a fair challenge. Football is a game of contact. If a tackle is executed with excessive force or reckless, disciplinary sanctions should be taken. But if a player makes contact with the ball and not the player neither in a reckless, careless or by using excessive force, it will not be a tackle. Thank you.

A tackle is attempting to win the ball. If a player wins ball fairly then that is a good tackle. The comma in that sentence from the FIFA PowerPoint is all important.
'tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball...'

This does not say a tackle is an offence, it is that a bad tackle is a foul.

If you couldn't tackle then how would you get the ball off an opponent - football would become effectively a non contact sport.

 

[MI]

A tackle is attempting to win the ball. If a player wins ball fairly then that is a good tackle. The comma in that sentence from the FIFA PowerPoint is all important.
'tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball...'

This does not say a tackle is an offence, it is that a bad tackle is a foul.

If you couldn't tackle then how would you get the ball off an opponent - football would become effectively a non contact sport.

I hope you have seen that I said 'when a tackle is executed in a careless, reckless and using excessive force, it will be deemed unfair' Make a fair challenge without using the three things i have mentioned above. Otherwise the referee will give a technical or disciplinary sanction. We are saying the same thing but putting it in a hard statement to understand.