# Is this considered a foul in youth soccer?



## blam (Jan 4, 2020)

Adama vs mendi.

Growing up, I was told body contact is fine. But after watching the youngers play, not sure anymore. If such a push happens at youth rec level, will it be a foul? Just wondering if standards vary depending on levels of play on when a push is considered a foul.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 4, 2020)

This is not a foul at this level. Or possibly in a competitive amateur adult league. Especially if playing in the EPL. Per my observations at the youth level it’s dependent on the ref. I’ve seen a discrepancy and inconsistency when games are being officiated.


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 4, 2020)

blam said:


> Adama vs mendi.
> 
> Growing up, I was told body contact is fine. But after watching the youngers play, not sure anymore. If such a push happens at youth rec level, will it be a foul? Just wondering if standards vary depending on levels of play on when a push is considered a foul.


It was technically a foul.  It was either a push or a charge, not shoulder to shoulder, with his arm slightly up and against the back.  It arguably falls under the definition of careless: "shows a lack of consideration or attention when making the challenge", so it's a very wide and ambiguous definition which can catch a lot and therefore this action was within the scope of Law 12.

But that's not the end of the analysis.  You then have to consider the "trifling" standard, which doesn't appear in the laws of the game and sometimes (and sometimes not) appears in the guidance to referees.  Was it sufficiently trifling that calling it would impact the flow of the game since we want to discourage constant whistles?

There are different schools of thought on the trifling standard, and very broadly at the youth level (yeah, it's a total oversimplication) there are basically two poles or school of referees.   The let em play" school which believes the trifling standard should be very broad and the game should only very rarely be interrupted (since it is a contact sport).  And the "rules" school which believes in the letter of the law of the laws of the game.  There is no agreement out there over how broad that trifling standard should be and indeed it varies from ref to ref and individual refs may call things differently (e.g., very loose on technical fouls on a throw in but rigidly punishing the keeper if he comes out with a knee up).  It may also depend on the level of play (whistle everything for AYSO rec, whistle nothing for gold level games) but that's also not always true as I've seen AYSO refs who surprisingly let everything slide.

As to the foul in question, well that's why players dive in soccer.  Because it makes it clear to the referee that the situation is not just "trifling" but sufficient force to send the player down.  If Mendy had gone down, the referee may have called a foul, therefore Mendy did something stupid and is responsible for that goal, at least as the laws are currently [brokenly] structured.









						Why do soccer players dive? Wolves' controversial equalizer vs. Man City is Exhibit A
					

Manchester City's Benjamin Mendy chose not to dive when he could have. The decision cost his team points against Wolves.




					sports.yahoo.com
				




That's why winning coaches (in addition to high knees....winners always do high knees) should as part of his coaching curriculum teach proper diving technique


----------



## 46n2 (Jan 5, 2020)

no foul, no push or charge Ive never heard of a charge in soccer.......  Play came in aggressive and bodied well, Adama did not raise any of his arms


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 5, 2020)

46n2 said:


> Ive never heard of a charge in soccer.......


Err.  It’s there in law 12. It’s a physical contact without the use of hands or arms.  The question then becomes if it’s incidental or trifling.  Your argument that it was aggressive cuts against that.

let em play?


----------



## original805 (Jan 5, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> Err.  It’s there in law 12. It’s a physical contact without the use of hands or arms.  The question then becomes if it’s incidental or trifling.  Your argument that it was aggressive cuts against that.
> 
> let em play?


Have to LOVE book Referees.....


----------



## espola (Jan 5, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> Err.  It’s there in law 12. It’s a physical contact without the use of hands or arms.  The question then becomes if it’s incidental or trifling.  Your argument that it was aggressive cuts against that.
> 
> let em play?


Sure, but let em play what?


----------



## Soccerhelper (Jan 5, 2020)

My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Jan 5, 2020)

Soccerhelper said:


> My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates


Shoulder to shoulder contact...looks fine to me.  

In regards to the Adama challenge...you do not need to raise arms in order for it to be a foul.  One cannot ram a person with their shoulder square into the opponent's back.


----------



## zebrafish (Jan 5, 2020)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Shoulder to shoulder contact...looks fine to me.
> 
> In regards to the Adama challenge...you do not need to raise arms in order for it to be a foul.  One cannot ram a person with their shoulder square into the opponent's back.


I hope that was sarcasm. To me, that youth clip is an obvious foul and yellow card. If you're playing the ball first, fine. If you're playing the player first and the ball second (or not even playing the ball-- like in this clip), that's a foul.


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 5, 2020)

If you have 2 people approach me saying they want $50 to referee my kids game:

- 1 who is familiar with the laws of the game and is careful to point out the proper considerations for trifling so as to not unnecessarily disrupt game flow

- 1 who is not familiar with what a charge is

Pretty sure I know who I am going with.


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 5, 2020)

zebrafish said:


> I hope that was sarcasm. To me, that youth clip is an obvious foul and yellow card. If you're playing the ball first, fine. If you're playing the player first and the ball second (or not even playing the ball-- like in this clip), that's a foul.


Yes - that should be a foul anywhere, including in EPL. And IMHO crosses the line into reckless i.e. yellow card.


----------



## dad4 (Jan 5, 2020)

I am not convinced you can get smooth game flow by widening your definition of trifling foul.

What you get is open flow for 10 minutes, until players adjust to the ref.  After that, the players push the new limits until something gets called.

Either way, the ref is calling fouls and stopping game play in the second half.


----------



## blam (Jan 5, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> Err.  It’s there in law 12. It’s a physical contact without the use of hands or arms.  The question then becomes if it’s incidental or trifling.  Your argument that it was aggressive cuts against that.
> 
> let em play?



I just read it. Charging is generally allowed. Charging is only illegal if it is: Careless, Reckless, Excessive.  Quote below. 

"The act of charging is a challenge for space using physical contact within playing distance of the ball without using arms or elbows.
It is an offence to charge an opponent:

in a careless manner
in a reckless manner
using excessive force"
I am trying to sort this out because this is by far the most confusing rule. I hear parents on sidelines telling kids, stop pushing, or complaining to the ref about pushing even when elbows are down.


----------



## WillJohn (Jan 5, 2020)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Shoulder to shoulder contact...looks fine to me.
> 
> In regards to the Adama challenge...you do not need to raise arms in order for it to be a foul.  One cannot ram a person with their shoulder square into the opponent's back.


Shoulder to shoulder contact looked ok to me.  Her body was even straight up and not leaning when she made contact.  That is totally different than hitting/ramming another player directly in the back.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 5, 2020)

Soccerhelper said:


> My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates


No foul


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 5, 2020)

WillJohn said:


> Shoulder to shoulder contact looked ok to me.  Her body was even straight up and not leaning when she made contact.  That is totally different than hitting/ramming another player directly in the back.


Yellow just cuts off greens path to the ball.  Looks like all she did was shield her and bump her off for possession... no foul in a good physical play imo


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 5, 2020)

blam said:


> I just read it. Charging is generally allowed. Charging is only illegal if it is: Careless, Reckless, Excessive.  Quote below.
> 
> "The act of charging is a challenge for space using physical contact within playing distance of the ball without using arms or elbows.
> It is an offence to charge an opponent:
> ...


It’s confusing for the refs too and they don’t all agree. The definition of careless is in the law too and is very broad.   Pretty much anything that sends another player down can be fit into that definition. But then soccer would be a very boring game filled with constant whistles hence the trifling standard.


----------



## dad4 (Jan 5, 2020)

Yellow not only makes no attempt to play the ball, she nearly trips over it as she knocks green over.  

if you allow that, expect retaliation within 5 minutes.


----------



## Tea and Busquets (Jan 5, 2020)

The Traore clip could go either way.  Put it this way, if Mendy goes over, he almost certainly wins a free kick.  That said the standards for those type of fouls are different in England are different from almost anywhere else.  

At the youth level, its a certain foul.  

As for the clip with the youth players, clear foul, especially at this age.  Just because shoulder to shoulder contact is allowed, doesn't mean a player is entitled to take a big run at it.  I'd consider a caution for it too, but would probably decide on a stern talking-to.  

To answer the OP's question, the idea of what constitutes a foul definitely changes depending on the standard of play - and even the age of the players.  As players get older, they are stronger, and are expected to be able to withstand more pushing than the average 9 or 10 year old.  Look at YouTube for examples of physical play in olders, in high school, or at the collegiate/adult level.  Even with the higher flights of play (or CRL/ECNL/DA, etc., the standard for a foul is much, much higher.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 5, 2020)

Tea and Busquets said:


> The Traore clip could go either way.  Put it this way, if Mendy goes over, he almost certainly wins a free kick.  That said the standards for those type of fouls are different in England are different from almost anywhere else.
> 
> At the youth level, its a certain foul.
> 
> ...


Best reply on this thread. Agree 100% on your comments for both film clips.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jan 5, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> It was technically a foul.  It was either a push or a charge, not shoulder to shoulder, with his arm slightly up and against the back.  It arguably falls under the definition of careless: "shows a lack of consideration or attention when making the challenge", so it's a very wide and ambiguous definition which can catch a lot and therefore this action was within the scope of Law 12.
> 
> But that's not the end of the analysis.  You then have to consider the "trifling" standard, which doesn't appear in the laws of the game and sometimes (and sometimes not) appears in the guidance to referees.  Was it sufficiently trifling that calling it would impact the flow of the game since we want to discourage constant whistles?
> 
> ...


Grace is correct, it is indeed technically a foul. I was surprised when watching the game that the referee didn't give a foul to be honest. 

Some of the reactions and general lack of understanding of the application of the LOTG on this thread (and many others) is a good example of why so many coaches and parents criticize referees...they are calling (or not) for something they really do not understand.

The point about Mendy going down and 'selling' the foul was very true. Had he gone down, it would have definitely been given as a foul. It was a clear charge in the back; sure, Adama wanted to win the ball but he did so by fouling Mendy, no question about that. 

Do young players need to learn how to 'sell' a foul? Yes, IMO they do. Many referees will not award a foul if you do not go down and so by staying on your feet (even if you are doing it honorably) you are putting yourself at a clear disadvantage with your opponent. I'm not advocating diving btw; just ensuring fouls are given by making up the referees' mind for him/her. 

I can't say I always agree with Grace but in this instance her post and explanation is spot on.


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 5, 2020)

original805 said:


> Have to LOVE book Referees.....


I agree we should tear up the book.  It's hopeless broken.  Handball rule....offsides...a throw in rule no one ever enforces.  In particular, I resent those lines that prohibit my son from handling the ball outside the PA.  He works hard on his catching.  If he catches one, I frankly don't see why he can't just run up to his opposite goalkeeper and try to throw it in there.  GK wars in particular are exciting without those field players getting in the way.   

BTW, color me shocked...when did I become more "let em play" than Tea and Biscuits?


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jan 5, 2020)

oh and quickly in reference to the youth video clip. Yes, it should have been given as a foul.

If you are a robot and only consider the LOTG, you perhaps don't give a foul. A player may be fairly charged by an opponent if the ball is within playing distance, which it was (the usual application of this is shoulder-to-shoulder, not a charge from behind like Adama).

If you are not a robot and you consider the LOTG and the 'spirit' of the game, it is a foul because the player is overly (and unnecessarily) aggressive and careless in her attempts to intentionally knock the opponent down with no regard for actually winning the ball. Referee discretion comes into play in terms of the application of the LOTG.

No yellow card needed; 10-second explanation to the player on what she can do to avoid giving a foul away next time. Easy one IMO.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 5, 2020)

Tea and Busquets said:


> The Traore clip could go either way.  Put it this way, if Mendy goes over, he almost certainly wins a free kick.  That said the standards for those type of fouls are different in England are different from almost anywhere else.
> 
> At the youth level, its a certain foul.
> 
> ...


So are you saying it’s a foul in U10-U11 but not a foul in DA, ECNL, CRL???


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 5, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> So are you saying it’s a foul in U10-U11 but not a foul in DA, ECNL, CRL???


That can happen and the LOTG and referee training do consider age and skill level.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 5, 2020)

Tim Powell said:


> That can happen and the LOTG and referee training do consider age and skill level.


Gotcha!  I’ve seen some really physical girls in g2010 in that exact scenario so that’s why I don’t think that’s a foul.  I actually think kids would step their level play up instead of retaliation like someone else mentioned but that’s just my opinion.


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 5, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> Gotcha!  I’ve seen some really physical girls in g2010 in that exact scenario so that’s why I don’t think that’s a foul.  I actually think kids would step their level play up instead of retaliation like someone else mentioned but that’s just my opinion.


It takes a bit to get your head around it at first. I am no expert. I didn’t play as a kid. I learned the game with my kid by coaching and refereeing at recreational levels before I handed her off to people who actually knew what they were doing. I probably refereed a few dozen games at pretty young age levels.

One of the most key phrases used in the LOTG is “in the opinion of the referee.” That’s how you can have different calls made in different situations and have them actually both applying the laws of the game correctly. There’s latitude when it comes the players’ age/skill and interpreting widely defined terms like careless (ordinary foul), reckless (warning/yellow card), and excessive force (red/send-off).

That’s why it’s best to give the referees a little bit of a break if you see them making a call you don’t necessarily agree with but they are otherwise trying to keep the game fair and the players safe, especially younger players. At recreational levels, they are all volunteers. In club, they do get paid, but not very much and there is an increasing shortage due to abuse.

When something egregious happens, it’s hard to resist the temptation to say something and it gets the best of a lot of otherwise cool headed people. Just don’t be the parent yelling the word “offsides” – as a referee will immediately know you have no idea what you’re talking about. American football = offsides; Soccer = offside.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 5, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> *Some of the reactions and general lack of understanding of the application of the LOTG on this thread* (and many others) is a good example of why so many coaches and parents criticize referees...they are calling (or not) for something they really do not understand.


Focusing on the bolded section in your response above. Are you speaking about Jimenez vs Mendy clip comments?


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jan 5, 2020)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Focusing on the bolded section in your response above. Are you speaking about Jimenez vs Mendy clip comments?


Adama vs Mendy, yeah.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 5, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> Adama vs Mendy, yeah.


So, you don’t think those (like me) don’t know the LOTG because our opinion differed?


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jan 5, 2020)

I’m not referring to any specific individuals, just a general population of parents/coaches who either don’t understand the LOTG or for those who do, many don’t understand their application and context.

We all have different, subjective viewpoints based on our experience and knowledge. You may have a better understanding than most and if that’s the case, congrats.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 5, 2020)

Tim Powell said:


> It takes a bit to get your head around it at first. I am no expert. I didn’t play as a kid. I learned the game with my kid by coaching and refereeing at recreational levels before I handed her off to people who actually knew what they were doing. I probably refereed a few dozen games at pretty young age levels.
> 
> One of the most key phrases used in the LOTG is “in the opinion of the referee.” That’s how you can have different calls made in different situations and have them actually both applying the laws of the game correctly. There’s latitude when it comes the players’ age/skill and interpreting widely defined terms like careless (ordinary foul), reckless (warning/yellow card), and excessive force (red/send-off).
> 
> ...


My only gripe is consistency!  If it’s allowed in the higher levels then allow it all across the board because it makes a naturally aggressive kid timid.  Then coaches have to teach them how to be physical and aggressive again when they reach the higher level.  LOTG seems open to interpretation so it’s in the eye of the beholder “ref”.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Jan 5, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> Do young players need to learn how to 'sell' a foul? Yes, IMO they do. Many referees will not award a foul if you do not go down and so by staying on your feet (even if you are doing it honorably) you are putting yourself at a clear disadvantage with your opponent. I'm not advocating diving btw; just ensuring fouls are given by making up the referees' mind for him/her.


I disagree.  Young players should _not _focus on learning how to sell a foul...they can learn how to do that when they are older (if they choose to do so).  There are so many more important things young players should be working on...balance, strength, anticipating tackles, etc.  I've seen youngers try to sell fouls and it looks ridiculous.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 5, 2020)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> I disagree.  Young players should _not _focus on learning how to sell a foul...they can learn how to do that when they are older (if they choose to do so).  There are so many more important things young players should be working on...balance, strength, anticipating tackles, etc.  I've seen youngers try to sell fouls and it looks ridiculous.


I’ve seen some kids that are really good at selling it but they’ve mostly been boys.


----------



## blam (Jan 5, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> My only gripe is consistency! If it’s allowed in the higher levels then allow it all across the board because it makes a naturally aggressive kid timid.


Or be clear about it as part of league rules. We already have special rules about headers and bicycle kicks. The problem to the player is parents start yelling at 10 year olds for pushing and the 10 year old is confused because he is just doing what the pros do. So they know what they do is acceptable at pro level but at our ayso rec, it is disallowed as a special rule.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 5, 2020)

blam said:


> Or be clear about it as part of league rules. We already have special rules about headers and bicycle kicks. The problem to the player is parents start yelling at 10 year olds for pushing and the 10 year old is confused because he is just doing what the pros do. So they know what they do is acceptable at pro level but at our ayso rec, it is disallowed as a special rule.


That’s how it starts. Then the kids form bad habits and just like that you got a timid kid!  I’m not referring to the kids from the clip because they were both aggressive... just my opinion.


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 6, 2020)

I’m not sure I subscribe to the view that just because a child is encouraged to play within some semblance of the LOTG that they can’t still be an aggressive, physical, tough player.

A push is really a foul no matter how you slice it. I think the issue with kids vs. the pros is that they generally push in a much more awkward and obvious manner. What I generally see are kids approaching a challenge with an extended arm because they haven’t learned how to tackle yet or they simply have been beat by a faster/more elusive player and that’s their only way to still make a play on it. A good coach can help an aggressive player craft their style so that they help the team either by proper challenges or at least being a little more crafty so they are in a more borderline situation - rather than needlessly give up possession or even goals on free kicks.

Some teams I see it’s their strategy to simply foul and rough up the other team. They know that over the course of the game probably only half will be called. It can work. I just prefer actual soccer myself and I tend to think that style isn’t very effective once the fields get bigger.


----------



## Soccerhelper (Jan 6, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> Gotcha!  I’ve seen some really physical girls in g2010 in that exact scenario so that’s why I don’t think that’s a foul.  I actually think kids would step their level play up instead of retaliation like someone else mentioned but that’s just my opinion.


Great take Dad. I was at the game.  Green team was playing up and was winning and it got a little physical from the older Beach girls.  No foul called and the little goat continued to make her moves.  No retaliation needed  P.S. Winning is the best form of retaliation IMHO....


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 6, 2020)

Soccerhelper said:


> Great take Dad. I was at the game.  Green team was playing up and was winning and it got a little physical from the older Beach girls.  No foul called and the little goat continued to make her moves.  No retaliation needed


Agreed. I was somewhat mild in my recommendation to give refs a break. I actually believe parents shouldn’t be coaching players or interacting with the referees at all. That’s the coach’s job. 

I get it if there’s a pretty obvious and dangerous foul and parents say something like “whoa!” - it’s almost a natural reaction when you see your kid or her friend get cheaply taken out.

Beyond that, further jawing at the referee I think does create optics our kids observe that prevent them for learning to handle adversity on their own....just like joysticking coaches/parents risk turning kids into robots who can’t make their own autonomous decisions on the field.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 6, 2020)

Soccerhelper said:


> Great take Dad. I was at the game.  Green team was playing up and was winning and it got a little physical from the older Beach girls.  No foul called and the little goat continued to make her moves.  No retaliation needed  P.S. Winning is the best form of retaliation IMHO....


Exactly!


----------



## blam (Jan 6, 2020)

Tim Powell said:


> A push is really a foul no matter how you slice it.


Why do you say pushing is a foul? The rule says charging is fine. As long as it is not excessive, reckless or careless.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jan 6, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> Yellow just cuts off greens path to the ball.  Looks like all she did was shield her and bump her off for possession... no foul in a good physical play imo


Shield her?  LMAO!  I agree with most of your stuff but that was a deliberate attempt to knock a player off line with no attempt to play or protect the ball.  I get "shoulder to shoulder" but that's not what I saw there.  That wasn't a shield... it was a block.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 6, 2020)

The Outlaw said:


> Shield her?  LMAO!  I agree with most of your stuff but that was a deliberate attempt to knock a player off line with no attempt to play or protect the ball.  I get "shoulder to shoulder" but that's not what I saw there.  That wasn't a shield... it was a block.


 I like watching physical kids so a deliberate attempt to knock a player off line is a shield or a lil bump in my eyes lol.  But I do see your point of view and it’s a valid one... disclaimer, I’ve never played soccer and I’ve personally hated it up until I found out how physical it really is.  Just my preference of style so it influences my opinions of calls.


----------



## blam (Jan 6, 2020)

Adama's challenge didn't look to me to be excessive, reckless or careless. Mendi didnt' even fall. It did come from behind but this doesn't appear to be the law of the game to make it an automatic foul but more like local interpretation of the law. The youth clip looks excessive but not for the reason of not playing the ball. The law also did not say that it becomes automatic foul if no attempt is made to play the ball. I'm just playing the devil's advocate but they are opinions which I formed based on feedback so far.


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 6, 2020)

blam said:


> Why do you say pushing is a foul? The rule says charging is fine. As long as it is not excessive, reckless or careless.


Generally in anything I have been exposed (and to be clear again I am not an expert vs. many on this forum), a push and a charge are different things. Push generally implies use of the hands while a charge explicitly states it's not the hands or elbows.

What you are correct in pointing out however where I am in error is that a push (like a charge) is not always a foul in and of itself. It needs to be done with carelessness, recklessness, or excessive force. What I have generally seen is that any push with a fully extended arm or a deliberately partially extended arm is careless - especially when it is done with intent against the player and not while making a play for the ball with a playable part of the body, but again you go into "in the opinion of the referee." That's more what I meant, but what I was stating was not clear and incorrect.


----------



## dad4 (Jan 6, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> I like watching physical kids so a deliberate attempt to knock a player off line is a shield or a lil bump in my eyes lol.


So sign your kid up for Rugby.  Plenty of pushes and bumps in that sport.  Or Australian rules football.  Fine sports.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 6, 2020)

dad4 said:


> So sign your kid up for Rugby.  Plenty of pushes and bumps in that sport.  Or Australian rules football.  Fine sports.


 I like watching physical kids...  most of the time it’s not my kid. You can tell those parents to put their kids in rugby!  That way my kid can stop being timid. Lol


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jan 6, 2020)

blam said:


> Adama's challenge didn't look to me to be excessive, reckless or careless. Mendi didnt' even fall. It did come from behind but this doesn't appear to be the law of the game to make it an automatic foul but more like local interpretation of the law. The youth clip looks excessive but not for the reason of not playing the ball. The law also did not say that it becomes automatic foul if no attempt is made to play the ball. I'm just playing the devil's advocate but they are opinions which I formed based on feedback so far.


You make some good points and in terms of the LOTG wording, nothing specific would mean the Adama vs Mendy challenge is a foul. However, it is widely accepted within the game (as an application and interpretation of the laws) that a shoulder-to-shoulder charge is acceptable (if the ball is within playing distance) but a charge from behind is not. For that reason, almost all charges from behind are given as fouls. 

Again, in terms of the youth foul, it is an interpretation and application issue. If a player clearly makes zero attempt to play the ball (or try to get to the ball in any way, as was the case with the video clip), it will invariably be given as a foul. You can always argue either way with these kinds of issues based solely on the LOTG but if a referee is competent, understands the game (it does help if he/she has also played the game, only IMO) and is experienced in the application and interpretation of the laws, they will be able to easily distinguish between a genuine shoulder-to-shoulder charge where the player wants to get the ball and a charge where a player makes no attempt to get to the ball but simply smashes into their opponent to gain an advantage, often when the ball is not even within playing distance. One caveat; if BOTH players intentionally charge each other (and one is simply stronger than the other so wins the duel), the referee will usually allow play to continue but if one player is going for the ball (or protecting it) and the other is clearly not bothered about the ball, it makes the decision an easier one for the referee.


----------



## JumboJack (Jan 6, 2020)

Soccerhelper said:


> My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates


As a referee I am calling that a foul 100% of the time.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jan 6, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> I like watching physical kids so a deliberate attempt to knock a player off line is a shield or a lil bump in my eyes lol.  But I do see your point of view and it’s a valid one... disclaimer, I’ve never played soccer and I’ve personally hated it up until I found out how physical it really is.  Just my preference of style so it influences my opinions of calls.


I agree with that... I like physical play, too, but my DD is big and physical.  I just think there has to be SOME attempt to play the ball and I didn't see one.  I know 99% of the time that would have been called at our games.  Then again, if the target was bigger and didn't go down, might have been allowed.  Same with grown men, though.  If I see absolutely no attempt to play the ball, in my mind, that's not soccer.  It would be akin to getting beat and taking down a player from behind.  That's also no attempt to play the ball.


----------



## watfly (Jan 6, 2020)

Paul Spacey said:


> I’m not referring to any specific individuals, just a general population of parents/coaches who either don’t understand the LOTG or for those who do, many don’t understand their application and context.


While I don't necessarily disagree, in many cases the parents/coaches understanding of the laws is meaningless due to the highly subjective nature of the LOTG, particularly Law 12 (the laws are more suggestions than anything else).  Parents/coaches/fans/players biggest "mistake" is expecting consistency in the application of LOTG.  There is no mechanism in the LOTG that promotes consistency.   In fact, the LOTG promote the opposite by giving the referee the broad discretion to use his/her opinion within the "framework" of the laws (as opposed to the application of the actual individual laws themselves).  A ref can rationalize just about any call based on the concepts of "game management" or "trifling", terms that are no where to be found in the LOTG.  Not saying that is wrong or right, that's just the nature of the beast.  Most controversial calls are not a result of the misapplication or misunderstanding of the LOTG, but merely a difference of opinion.  Every ref has their own idea of how LOTG should be applied and in what context.

Expecting consistency from the application of LOTG is a fools errand.  I've quoted this a few times before, but this is what Clattenburg (considered a top ref by many) had to say about consistency:
_"The best referees, he believes, make their decisions based on context and balance. This explains why there can never be "consistency" in the way football is refereed. It is the courage to apply the laws with empathy, says Clattenburg, that distinguishes top officials from those on the next rung on the ladder." _


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 6, 2020)

watfly said:


> While I don't necessarily disagree, in many cases the parents/coaches understanding of the laws is meaningless due to the highly subjective nature of the LOTG, particularly Law 12 (the laws are more suggestions than anything else).  Parents/coaches/fans/players biggest "mistake" is expecting consistency in the application of LOTG.  There is no mechanism in the LOTG that promotes consistency.   In fact, the LOTG promote the opposite by giving the referee the broad discretion to use his/her opinion within the "framework" of the laws (as opposed to the application of the actual individual laws themselves).  A ref can rationalize just about any call based on the concepts of "game management" or "trifling", terms that are no where to be found in the LOTG.  Not saying that is wrong or right, that's just the nature of the beast.  Most controversial calls are not a result of the misapplication or misunderstanding of the LOTG, but merely a difference of opinion.  Every ref has their own idea of how LOTG should be applied and in what context.
> 
> Expecting consistency from the application of LOTG is a fools errand.  I've quoted this a few times before, but this is what Clattenburg (considered a top ref by many) had to say about consistency:
> _"The best referees, he believes, make their decisions based on context and balance. This explains why there can never be "consistency" in the way football is refereed. It is the courage to apply the laws with empathy, says Clattenburg, that distinguishes top officials from those on the next rung on the ladder." _


A key word for me from Clattenburg is, “context”. Much of the debate from the initial video clip to the added has to do with this idea.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jan 6, 2020)

watfly said:


> While I don't necessarily disagree, in many cases the parents/coaches understanding of the laws is meaningless due to the highly subjective nature of the LOTG, particularly Law 12 (the laws are more suggestions than anything else).  Parents/coaches/fans/players biggest "mistake" is expecting consistency in the application of LOTG.  There is no mechanism in the LOTG that promotes consistency.   In fact, the LOTG promote the opposite by giving the referee the broad discretion to use his/her opinion within the "framework" of the laws (as opposed to the application of the actual individual laws themselves).  A ref can rationalize just about any call based on the concepts of "game management" or "trifling", terms that are no where to be found in the LOTG.  Not saying that is wrong or right, that's just the nature of the beast.  Most controversial calls are not a result of the misapplication or misunderstanding of the LOTG, but merely a difference of opinion.  Every ref has their own idea of how LOTG should be applied and in what context.
> 
> Expecting consistency from the application of LOTG is a fools errand.  I've quoted this a few times before, but this is what Clattenburg (considered a top ref by many) had to say about consistency:
> _"The best referees, he believes, make their decisions based on context and balance. This explains why there can never be "consistency" in the way football is refereed. It is the courage to apply the laws with empathy, says Clattenburg, that distinguishes top officials from those on the next rung on the ladder." _


Great reply and I agree completely. The laws are far too open to interpretation and amazingly, seem to have got worse over time, not better! That doesn't take away from the fact that very few parents and many coaches do not understand them well (this has been my experience in both the UK and here in SoCal over the course of the last 20 years).

Clattenburg (one of the best referees the PL has ever had) was spot on with what he said. It is absolutely true that referees who can make decisions based on context and balance (with empathy when necessary and appropriate) are the ones who get to officiate at the top level.


----------



## blam (Jan 6, 2020)

The case of the youth case seem pretty straight forward. The FIFA rules defines excessive force on page 119: https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/datdz0pms85gbnqy4j3k.pdf

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. • No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless 

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. • A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned 

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. • A player who uses excessive force must be sent off


In the youth case ,could the person who got shouldered be injured? YES. The case is closed. Foul should be called.

I suspect the controversy is due to a myth that all shoulder and shoulder challenges are automatically legal. The rule never said this.


----------



## blam (Jan 6, 2020)

Another question, what about this case where during a diving header, the defender kicks the person.






If my reading of the law is correct, if it is reasonable to assume the defender knew Ronaldo was going for a diving header and kicked it anyway with the possibility of injury, in order to prevent a goal, then it falls under the definition of "reckless". (not saying he knew but let's assume he knew for this scenario).

page 119: https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/datdz0pms85gbnqy4j3k.pdf
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. • A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.


----------



## blam (Jan 6, 2020)

Never mind. I found the answer in page 123. Playing in dangerous manner.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 6, 2020)

The Outlaw said:


> I agree with that... I like physical play, too, but my DD is big and physical.  I just think there has to be SOME attempt to play the ball and I didn't see one.  I know 99% of the time that would have been called at our games.  Then again, if the target was bigger and didn't go down, might have been allowed.  Same with grown men, though.  If I see absolutely no attempt to play the ball, in my mind, that's not soccer.  It would be akin to getting beat and taking down a player from behind.  That's also no attempt to play the ball.


Well said and point taken.  There wasn’t an attempt on the ball by yellow so I’ll change my stance on that call to a foul.  I’m a little more educated on what constitutes a foul call... That being said, I still love watching those kids that play with a reckless abandon like “yellow” and “green”.  It’s shows their competitiveness and will to win IMO so I always root for those kids regardless of team affiliation.  My affinity for a physical style doesn’t characterize my kid or her style of play, it’s just my preference @dad4.  It’s like me telling you to put your kid in ping pong because our opinions differ @dad4 lol  @theoutlaw I totally see your point of view.


----------



## dad4 (Jan 6, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> Well said and point taken.  There wasn’t an attempt on the ball by yellow so I’ll change my stance on that call to a foul.  I’m a little more educated on what constitutes a foul call... That being said, I still love watching those kids that play with a reckless abandon like “yellow” and “green”.  It’s shows their competitiveness and will to win IMO so I always root for those kids regardless of team affiliation.  My affinity for a physical style doesn’t characterize my kid or her style of play, it’s just my preference @dad4.  It’s like me telling you to put your kid in ping pong because our opinions differ @dad4 lol  @theoutlaw I totally see your point of view.


Not just point of view.

My son got a severe concussion on a play like the one in the video.   Massive headaches and homeschooled for 27 months so far.

The rules are there for safety.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 6, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Not just point of view.
> 
> My son got a severe concussion on a play like the one in the video.   Massive headaches and homeschooled for 27 months so far.
> 
> The rules are there for safety.


Sorry to hear that about your son.  Worst fear of a parent!  But what does your son getting a concussion have anything to do with regard to my preference of style?  I’ve already stated that i’ve change my stance on the call.  In regard to LOTG, some follow them to the tee, some push them to the limits, some interpret them differently and some don’t play within the confines of them... not saying it’s right but that’s just the reality of the situation.


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 6, 2020)

dad4 said:


> The rules are there for safety.


Sorry to hear about your son, and agree for the sentiment.  Technical point (not a criticism), but the rules actually aren't there for safety.  If they were, then FIFA would adopt separate rules for the game for youth, teenagers, adults and pros.  But they don't.  It leads to the arguments therefore about whether a ref should call an AYSO game tighter than a pro ref would call a pro game.  And therefore the complaints (somewhat legimately) that kids need to be taught aggression as they move up the ladder.  

The rules surrounding fouls actually have more to do early on with distinguishing association football (soccer, played with the foot) from rugby or gridiron football (played with the hands) in the late 19th century.  In the earliest games, tackling was allowed.  But as the game diverged from rugby the rules diverged as well.  In 1871 there was a meeting of the clubs in England...those that wanted to play with their hands and tackle were outvoted and left to form the Ruby Union, while the others adopted the rules which started to resemble modern football.  Incidentally, a lot of that is also where we get the careless standard...it's from old English law which generally assume if something happens (such as a player going down) someone must be at fault because in nature players don't typically fall down (the best modern analogy is car accidents...there's no such thing as "just an accident" typically someone being at fault)...but that led to constant whistles which led to the trifling bandaid being placed on top of it.

Nerd moment over.  You may resume.


----------



## sdb (Jan 6, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> Sorry to hear about your son, and agree for the sentiment.  Technical point (not a criticism), but the rules actually aren't there for safety.


Safety is actually one of the key tenets mentioned in the LOTG. From page 12 upfront in the 2018/2019 LOTG:


Although accidents occur, the Laws should make the game as safe as possible. This requires players to show respect for their opponents and referees should create a safe environment by dealing strongly with those whose play is too aggressive and dangerous. The Laws embody the unacceptability of unsafe play in their disciplinary phrases, e.g. ‘reckless challenge’ (caution = yellow card/ YC) and ‘endangering the safety of an opponent’ or ‘using excessive force’ (sending-off = red card/RC).

In the case of the youth charge, I would call it a foul 100% of the time. I would also give her a yellow for being reckless. In my view, refs should be calling a lot more of these and giving cards vs. less.


----------



## Soccerhelper (Jan 6, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Not just point of view.
> 
> My son got a severe concussion on a play like the one in the video.   Massive headaches and homeschooled for 27 months so far.
> 
> The rules are there for safety.


I have friend whose dd got kicked in the back of the leg because the other girl was mad she got beat on a play so when ref wasn't looking she went for it. The player in yellow in this video also has a broken wrist.   Solid ref should have been a little concerned for her and others players safety before the match. Bubble wrap maybe?  I will also say if someone pulled that stunt today on my baby I think she would find away to get back at her.  Not dirty or anything like that. No, just a talk or two with a few choice words and then she would look to beat her and her team the rest of the game. What we don't want are big girls or guys who get all pissed off because their losing and they go kung-fu  in the head or crazy ass slide tackle from behind is reckless and extreme;y dangerous.  My dd was the smallest always before puberty and always got whacked by the big girls all because they got beat by her.  So I always told her the best way to seek revenge is beat the opponent and win the game and when someone knocks your ass down or hits you or yells at you, that's when it's....................................



*Fact Correction: * I lied about what I told my dd if someone goes after you like that.  I told her to retaliate and get even.  I'm going to confess.  It was Tad Bobak that taught her to seek revenge by winning.   I re-read my statements and they were false and I need to give credit where credit is do.


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 6, 2020)

sdb said:


> Safety is actually one of the key tenets mentioned in the LOTG. From page 12 upfront in the 2018/2019 LOTG:
> 
> 
> Although accidents occur, the Laws should make the game as safe as possible. This requires players to show respect for their opponents and referees should create a safe environment by dealing strongly with those whose play is too aggressive and dangerous. The Laws embody the unacceptability of unsafe play in their disciplinary phrases, e.g. ‘reckless challenge’ (caution = yellow card/ YC) and ‘endangering the safety of an opponent’ or ‘using excessive force’ (sending-off = red card/RC).


Rejoinder: 1) was talking about the careless standard (e.g., a foul exists v it does not exist), 2) historically the divergence in the standard relates to the divergence with rugby, not their desire to make the nascent game more safe (besides 19th century sports were much more dangerous in most  comparison to their modern counterparts, which is surprising given how medical knowledge wasn't as advanced...our ancestors were made from sturdier/more reckless stuff [depending on your point of view]), 3) this parts just IMHO but I think the stuff about safety is largely lip service at least as far as the current rules go...if safety really was a priority they really would do something about the heading (not saying they should, just that if it was the main priority they would), and 4) the rest of your post seems to support my proposition in 3.

BTW, I agree that refs in socal are too slow and unwilling generally to show cards.


----------



## sdb (Jan 6, 2020)

I appreciate your perspective and the context. I do agree with you that there’s probably more lip service on safety than action, and your point on heading does support that as well.


----------



## Frank (Jan 6, 2020)

It also depends a bit on the tone of the game. If it is a physical game and the ref has control plays like the youth one may go uncalled. Not all ages and levels can handle a high level of physicality and the ref needs to adjust. Often when all you hear are the parents and the coach and players say nothing they are completely comfortable with the play/contact even when mommy isn’t.


----------



## Tim Powell (Jan 7, 2020)

I think most people would consider that a foul, at least folks who have familiarity with the laws of the game. The next question is whether you have any affinity or desire to “root” for the Beach player in that scenario, even if you agree it’s a foul or a foul with a caution.

For me that is a hard “no.” I will stay what a lot of other people have said on this thread. I love the physical play. 1v1s where there’s body contact and leverage and movement in a fight for the ball - even with a kid falling down in the process - it is fun to watch that grit. Some bumping and grinding - love it. That kid in that video clip had zero intent of any kind other than sending the other girl to the ground in hard fashion. The ball or any type of advantage or opportunity for her team was a distant afterthought at best.

I don’t even care much about context here. Even if that was retaliation for the player in green doing the exact same thing a few minutes earlier, to me that is not proper soccer and that is something a referee absolutely needs to keep under control....even if they missed a previous call and it appears to be inconsistent. If you see escalating tensions, you need to get that stuff under control right away to prevent risk of serious injury.

There are ways of responding to dirty play and having your teammates‘ back in a craftier fashion that doesn’t risk creating a scenario where players can get seriously injured.


----------



## LMULions (Jan 7, 2020)

Growing up as a fan of other sports, and learning to love soccer because of DD's participation, I completely agree with the comment that there are not enough fouls called in youth soccer.  There should be more foul-calls in youth soccer, it would go a long way in teaching the kids what is/isn't acceptable play.  As a ref, especially the newbie refs working at the Little's level, making yourself blow the whistle or raise the flag and call a foul is always the most difficult part of learning to ref a sport.  

And based on the individual game, I've always been a fan of the ref calling a close/questionable foul early on.  Let everyone know that you're involved/engaged, that you're not going to hesitate to call a foul.  And nothing wrong with allowing the game to become more physical over the course of the game but when you let stuff go early it sets the tone for the entire match.


----------



## WillJohn (Jan 7, 2020)

LMULions said:


> Growing up as a fan of other sports, and learning to love soccer because of DD's participation, I completely agree with the comment that there are not enough fouls called in youth soccer.  There should be more foul-calls in youth soccer, it would go a long way in teaching the kids what is/isn't acceptable play.  As a ref, especially the newbie refs working at the Little's level, making yourself blow the whistle or raise the flag and call a foul is always the most difficult part of learning to ref a sport.
> 
> And based on the individual game, I've always been a fan of the ref calling a close/questionable foul early on.  Let everyone know that you're involved/engaged, that you're not going to hesitate to call a foul.  And nothing wrong with allowing the game to become more physical over the course of the game but when you let stuff go early it sets the tone for the entire match.


I agree.  The ref has to set the tone of the game early to ensure it does not get out of hand.  The kids will adjust to what the refs are calling.  My DD plays U-little and almost all games are fine with good physical play but we play one team that fouls like crazy.  Finally got an experienced ref and she  was calling a foul on them every 2 minutes and warning them.  Their parents yelling at the ref 'let them play' since they are used to doing it almost every game but ref doesn't back down and warns the sidelines she's about to kick them out and they shut up.  Finally by the 2nd half, the fouling goes down to a minimum because they don't want to keep giving up free kicks and it's a normal game.    Next time we play them again,  we get another ref who doesn't want to call ANY fouls.  Some of our parents yelling at ref that someone is going to get hurt since nothing is being called and sure enough other team's girl full on pushes our girl with 2 hands fully extended.   She hits the ground, has to go ER, and dislocated her elbow and out for an extended time.


----------



## watfly (Jan 7, 2020)

LMULions said:


> Growing up as a fan of other sports, and learning to love soccer because of DD's participation, I completely agree with the comment that there are not enough fouls called in youth soccer.  There should be more foul-calls in youth soccer, it would go a long way in teaching the kids what is/isn't acceptable play.  As a ref, especially the newbie refs working at the Little's level, making yourself blow the whistle or raise the flag and call a foul is always the most difficult part of learning to ref a sport.
> 
> And based on the individual game, I've always been a fan of the ref calling a close/questionable foul early on.  Let everyone know that you're involved/engaged, that you're not going to hesitate to call a foul.  And nothing wrong with allowing the game to become more physical over the course of the game but when you let stuff go early it sets the tone for the entire match.


I'm not sure I want refs calling more fouls across the board.  While there are a few refs that allow games to get out of control, its fairly rare.  Maybe issue more cards where warranted, but not more fouls (I can't tell you how many uncarded punches I've seen).  I think communication can be a good tool to control player behavior while not slowing the game down.   Granted managing the game with communication takes some experience.

My favorite games to watch are my kid's scrimmages against other clubs without referees.  The coaches will call a foul on occasion, but its remarkable how well the players police and temper themselves without outside interference (although on occasion a knucklehead parent will want to ref from the sideline).  The games flow nearly uninterrupted by foul calls despite physical play.  Obviously there is less pressure in a scrimmage than a game that matters, so its a bit apples and oranges, but kids still want to win out of pride and bragging rights.  It also helps that coaches are more chill.  Its just really cool to see the kids playing with freedom in a game that flows.

My kid played in a tournament in Europe a couple years ago.  The amount of physical contact that was allowed would send most SoCal parents into orbit. I had trouble adjusting to it at first.  Generally if you or your team retained possession, it wasn't a foul, almost like unlimited advantage.  In speaking with the refs they were taught that the game was meant to be played by the players and not stopped by the refs.

I guess I'm in the "let them play" camp...within reason.


----------



## dad4 (Jan 7, 2020)

0


Frank said:


> It also depends a bit on the tone of the game. If it is a physical game and the ref has control plays like the youth one may go uncalled. Not all ages and levels can handle a high level of physicality and the ref needs to adjust. Often when all you hear are the parents and the coach and players say nothing they are completely comfortable with the play/contact even when mommy isn’t.


Correction: when the ref thinks he has control of the game.  After all, the ref at the center of a dirty game is probably convinced he has it all under control.  

Players say nothing because you can get a red card for dissent.  That doesn't mean they like it.  It just means they dont want to let their team down.

Of course, if your kid is the one who plays CM like a wrecking ball, you may be fine with it.  It isn't your kid whose shins are covered in bruises, after all.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 7, 2020)

watfly said:


> I'm not sure I want refs calling more fouls across the board.  While there are a few refs that allow games to get out of control, its fairly rare.  Maybe issue more cards where warranted, but not more fouls (I can't tell you how many uncarded punches I've seen).  I think communication can be a good tool to control player behavior while not slowing the game down.   Granted managing the game with communication takes some experience.
> 
> My favorite games to watch are my kid's scrimmages against other clubs without referees.  The coaches will call a foul on occasion, but its remarkable how well the players police and temper themselves without outside interference (although on occasion a knucklehead parent will want to ref from the sideline).  The games flow nearly uninterrupted by foul calls despite physical play.  Obviously there is less pressure in a scrimmage than a game that matters, so its a bit apples and oranges, but kids still want to win out of pride and bragging rights.  It also helps that coaches are more chill.  Its just really cool to see the kids playing with freedom in a game that flows.
> 
> ...


If you’ve ever taken your kid to a play some pick up games where there’s no refs... You’d be amazed at how much they actually know!  My kid is 9 and I’ve seen them call their own fouls, make their own possession calls, argue over possession, argue hand balls and so on.
They’ll call some ticky tack stuff on each other but they always respect each other’s call.  Most times they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong but they’re out there policing themselves with no outside influence.  Those games have every type of player...  physical, technical, skiller, flopper lol.  Those games imo are the ones I like watching the most.


----------



## watfly (Jan 7, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Of course, if your kid is the one who plays CM like a wrecking ball, you may be fine with it.  It isn't your kid whose shins are covered in bruises, after all.


I'm surprised no one has called CPS after seeing my son's body.  He is usually on the short-end of the stick when it comes to physical play.  He barely charts for weight for his age.  Just because he ends up on his backside from a bigger player doesn't necessarily mean there is a foul, often times it isn't.   He has had to adjust so he gets lower now and uses his own little tricks to be physical.

BTW, I absolutely believe that the charge by girl in the video is a foul.  That was unreasonable physical force.



Bri’s-DAD said:


> If you’ve ever taken your kid to a play some pick up games where there’s no refs... You’d be amazed at how much they actually know!  My kid is 9 and I’ve seen them call their own fouls, make their own possession calls, argue over possession, argue hand balls and so on.
> They’ll call some ticky tack stuff on each other but they always respect each other’s call.  Most times they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong but they’re out there policing themselves with no outside influence.  Those games have every type of player...  physical, technical, skiller, flopper lol.  Those games imo are the ones I like watching the most.


Not being joysticked by a coach helps also.


----------



## Frank (Jan 7, 2020)

dad4 said:


> 0
> 
> Correction: when the ref thinks he has control of the game.  After all, the ref at the center of a dirty game is probably convinced he has it all under control.
> 
> ...


Having control is a fragile edge and experienced refs can keep it on the correct side.  For a player, asking questions in a calm and respectful manner to a ref does not get you a red card.  Saying something like "Bro that call sucked would get dealt with"

At all ages a players capability in dealing/competing with physicality is always higher that mommy or daddy on the sidelines.  Dirty should always be dealt with., however physicality has its place as its a contact sport.


----------



## mlx (Jan 9, 2020)

JumboJack said:


> As a referee I am calling that a foul 100% of the time.


Then you are a referee who knows NOTHING whatsoever about football. That is NOT a foul anywhere.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jan 9, 2020)

mlx said:


> Then you are a referee who knows NOTHING whatsoever about football. That is NOT a foul anywhere.


How can you say that's not a foul anywhere?  The girl runs directly at her, throws a hip check for the sole purpose of knocking her off the play and makes zero attempt at the ball?  I watch a lot of soccer... including PAC12 soccer... and see that called all the time.  It's not even shoulder to shoulder.


----------



## Frank (Jan 9, 2020)

The Outlaw said:


> How can you say that's not a foul anywhere?  The girl runs directly at her, throws a hip check for the sole purpose of knocking her off the play and makes zero attempt at the ball?  I watch a lot of soccer... including PAC12 soccer... and see that called all the time.  It's not even shoulder to shoulder.


Not sure what I would have done real time but for the sake of discussion I’ll make the argument for no call. 

1) Both players arrive largely at the same time chasing at 50/50 ball
2) yellow does give a strong shoulder, but it isn’t reckless or high in the head area. Also green does prepare herself to take and /or give her own level of contact. 
3) there is a play of the ball it’s just with her back foot and not the lead foot.

just because the green player loses the battle of physicality does require it to be a foul.

at the adult or college level I wouldn’t call this. High school age level depends on type of game and skill levels. Younger youth levels likely gets a call


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 9, 2020)

Frank said:


> Not sure what I would have done real time but for the sake of discussion I’ll make the argument for no call.


A lot of the outcome of the call, without the benefit of VAR, would also depend on the location of the ref and the angle of view.  They are close enough to the ball that from a certain angle it might look like an attempt to play the ball and from a certain angle it might look like an obvious charge.  And the entire thing happens in a split second.  If you slow it down enough down, though you'll also see the yellow player commits a potential secondary tripping foul which occurs before the ball is played as well.

If the ref doesn't have a clear view and isn't focused on that exact spot at that minute, a let em play ref will just default to both players trying to occupying the same place and maybe yellow got to the ball so let em play.  A rules ref will give the green player the benefit of the doubt given he/she didn't see the ball played.  The size of the two players in comparison also shouldn't make a difference, but in practice at this age it sometimes does.


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 9, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> A lot of the outcome of the call, without the benefit of VAR, would also depend on the location of the ref and the angle of view.  They are close enough to the ball that from a certain angle it might look like an attempt to play the ball and from a certain angle it might look like an obvious charge.  And the entire thing happens in a split second.  If you slow it down enough down, though you'll also see the yellow player commits a potential secondary tripping foul which occurs before the ball is played as well.
> 
> If the ref doesn't have a clear view and isn't focused on that exact spot at that minute, a let em play ref will just default to both players trying to occupying the same place and maybe yellow got to the ball so let em play.  A rules ref will give the green player the benefit of the doubt given he/she didn't see the ball played.  The size of the two players in comparison also shouldn't make a difference, but in practice at this age it sometimes does.


Here's a funny ask for a charging foul in the first few minutes of the below clip.  The white player runs at the GK and seems to run into the GK.  The GK seems to raise a slight arm to block the charge.  The white player is much smaller than the GK and goes down.  In this case even though both players are entitled to their space, and even though the smaller player went down, the GK had possession of the ball, so no call, despite the ferocity of the collision, and despite the complaints from the side line.


----------



## LMULions (Jan 10, 2020)

I think its funny its titled "Ref loses control of soccer match".   I agree with your point, the GK didn't throw out his arm, he just put it up to defend himself - definitely not a foul.

On the other side of the play, I thought the goal should have been called back for offside. The guy who scores waits and tries to stay in a legal position but it appears to me he doesn't quite do it.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Jan 10, 2020)

Grace T. said:


>


That's just a great fearless play on the goalie's part.  Coach setting horrible example with his behavior berating ref.


----------



## futboldad1 (Jan 10, 2020)

Ref did ok and didn't lose control of anything.....


----------



## dad4 (Jan 10, 2020)

LMULions said:


> I think its funny its titled "Ref loses control of soccer match".   I agree with your point, the GK didn't throw out his arm, he just put it up to defend himself - definitely not a foul.
> 
> On the other side of the play, I thought the goal should have been called back for offside. The guy who scores waits and tries to stay in a legal position but it appears to me he doesn't quite do it.


I don’t think the title was just for the first three seconds.   a look at 2:00 to 2:07.   uncalled off field shove by white, followed by dirty tackle by yellow.  

while you’re watching the video, take a look at how long it takes the white player to get back up.  That’s a concussion, thanks to “let them play”.


----------



## futboldad1 (Jan 10, 2020)

futboldad1 said:


> Ref did ok and didn't lose control of anything.....


Watching it again, while not a foul, he should've stopped play to check on injured player right after GK collision...but negative energy of game was more a reflection of coaches and kids than the ref.....

@dad4 yes that shove did lead to the retaliation, maybe a yellow for the shove would've prevented it....so you make a good point I just don't see the ref as the only issue here


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 10, 2020)

futboldad1 said:


> Watching it again, while not a foul, he should've stopped play to check on injured player right after GK collision...but negative energy of game was more a reflection of coaches and kids than the ref.....
> 
> @dad4 yes that shove did lead to the retaliation, maybe a yellow for the shove would've prevented it....so you make a good point I just don't see the ref as the only issue here


At that age?  Not sure that's true.  Otherwise the instruction would develop for any player in such a situation to dive and simulate to stop a promising attack.  At U12, o.k.

Because the shove took place outside of the lines, I"m not sure the ref saw it.  The ref had already cautioned the GK for inappropriate behavior a few seconds earlier.  I doubt if he had seen the shove, he would have let it slide.  From the earlier discussion, that's where it's up to a player to do the Neymar, and sell the foul so the ref sees him go down.

The offside call is on the AR.


----------



## espola (Jan 10, 2020)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> That's just a great fearless play on the goalie's part.  Coach setting horrible example with his behavior berating ref.


1.  The white player ran full tilt into a keeper twice his size who was playing the ball.  When I was that age I was also a skinny forward and I got the wind knocked out of me a couple of times in fair plays against bigger players.  Learn to pick your battles.

2.  Not a good angle to judge offside on the following goal, but a good enough angle to ask about it.

3.  I assume the yellow to the keeper was for swatting at the players who rushed him.  It looked like the keeper's teammates were calm about the whole thing - maybe they had a comfortable lead at that time.  Should the aggressive forwards also have been cautioned?

4.  The red card on the tackle near the end - good call by the ref.  The yellow team stays pretty calm about it - another reason to believe they have a good lead or consider the other team to be an easy opponent.

5.  Who is the "George Langevin" whose name appears in the closing credits?  It looks like he is the person who assigned the misleading title to the video - if anyone is losing control it is the white team coach.  That leads me to believe that GL is a supporter of the white team (and maybe one of those shouting obscenities at the referee?).


----------



## paytoplay (Jan 10, 2020)

“George Langevin is awesome. He’s the greatest.” He’s posted a lot of southland soccer on YouTube.


----------



## dad4 (Jan 10, 2020)

You have a reckless challenge by white, a clothesline by yellow, a shove by yellow, a shove by white, and a dangerous tackle by yellow.

dirty game, with two plays that seriously risked injury.   not really a strong argument for “no foul”.  if anything, it needed some fouls called early to encourage a bit of caution by both teams.


----------



## Grace T. (Jan 10, 2020)

dad4 said:


> You have a reckless challenge by white, a clothesline by yellow, a shove by yellow, a shove by white, and a dangerous tackle by yellow.
> 
> dirty game, with two plays that seriously risked injury.   not really a strong argument for “no foul”.  if anything, it needed some fouls called early to encourage a bit of caution by both teams.


Curious here.  So we don't get to see what happened before, so we don't know if any fouls went uncalled.  But with the "reckless challenge by white" I'm assuming you are referring to the applicable first few seconds of the clip where white runs into the GK?  Do you feel therefore that when white went down, not only should the referee have stopped the game (to check on white), but rather than call advantage on the play have called a foul and carded white for the reckless charge?  I'm very much a rules ref (though I have gotten a lot more "let em play" over time, particularly at 11v11 as they get older), and there is a school of though out there that says the refs should call a bunch of stuff early to set the tenor of the game and let the players know stuff won't be tolerated, but such a position is on the extreme side and advocates for disregarding the advantage rule (which I'd do for an AYSO youngers game, but not at this age group).


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 10, 2020)

dad4 said:


> I don’t think the title was just for the first three seconds.   a look at 2:00 to 2:07.   uncalled off field shove by white, followed by dirty tackle by yellow.
> 
> while you’re watching the video, take a look at how long it takes the white player to get back up.  That’s a concussion, thanks to “let them play”.


Where’s the concussed player you speak of?


----------



## dad4 (Jan 10, 2020)

Concussed player is the white player who ran into the clothesline and lay on the ground 60+ seconds holding his head.

I am inclined to say stop play, two cards, and send off per concussion protocol.


----------



## espola (Jan 10, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Concussed player is the white player who ran into the clothesline and lay on the ground 60+ seconds holding his head.
> 
> I am inclined to say stop play, two cards, and send off per concussion protocol.


Clothesline?  Look again.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jan 10, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> Here's a funny ask for a charging foul in the first few minutes of the below clip.  The white player runs at the GK and seems to run into the GK.  The GK seems to raise a slight arm to block the charge.  The white player is much smaller than the GK and goes down.  In this case even though both players are entitled to their space, and even though the smaller player went down, the GK had possession of the ball, so no call, despite the ferocity of the collision, and despite the complaints from the side line.


On this one, the white player is obviously going at the keeper instead of the ball.  At that angle and pace, that's all he's after.  There's no way he can avoiding trucking the keeper and, IMO, the keeper just protects himself.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jan 10, 2020)

Frank said:


> Not sure what I would have done real time but for the sake of discussion I’ll make the argument for no call.
> 
> 1) Both players arrive largely at the same time chasing at 50/50 ball
> 2) yellow does give a strong shoulder, but it isn’t reckless or high in the head area. Also green does prepare herself to take and /or give her own level of contact.
> ...


If you watch it again, yellow has 2 players chasing the ball.  The blonde (yellow) in the middle simply veers to her left for the sole purpose of taking the green player out... almost like she's blocking for her running back that she knew would end up with the ball.  She makes absolutely no attempt at the ball until after she plows her opponent over.


----------



## dad4 (Jan 10, 2020)

espola said:


> Clothesline?  Look again.


What do you see?  I see an arm at head height.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Jan 10, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Concussed player is the white player who ran into the clothesline and lay on the ground 60+ seconds holding his head.
> 
> I am inclined to say stop play, two cards, and send off per concussion protocol.


That sucks if he was concussed but I didn’t see any contact that would have caused a concussion.  Looks like he initiated contact with the goalie and lost the battle.  As he fell he braces himself and his head never made contact with the goalie or ground.  I’m not a medical professional, I’m just sayin.  Good no call but that was off sides.


----------



## LMULions (Jan 10, 2020)

Yep, ref was fine. You can't stop the break in the other direction because the white player ran into someone and was not at any risk of further injury.  Maybe "white team" or "white team coach" loses control would be more appropriate.

The Yellow GK didn't do much to deserve the Caution, but his being carded was indicative of good reffing at that point in time - a sign that he was going to call it closer until things settled down.


----------



## baldref (Jan 10, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> Here's a funny ask for a charging foul in the first few minutes of the below clip.  The white player runs at the GK and seems to run into the GK.  The GK seems to raise a slight arm to block the charge.  The white player is much smaller than the GK and goes down.  In this case even though both players are entitled to their space, and even though the smaller player went down, the GK had possession of the ball, so no call, despite the ferocity of the collision, and despite the complaints from the side line.


first play. no foul. keeper was bigger, sorry bout that. coach should have been tossed, or at least yellow carded. only mistake i see the ref make was after the card on the keeper, other team should have had an IDFK at that spot. 
the little shove on the throw in was nothing. just some boys playing a game. red card correct. 

the question about a head injury is tough. didn't look to me like it was clearly a head injury at first. looked more like he got the wind knocked out and then milked it because he lost the battle. But after the fact he should have been checked.


----------



## baldref (Jan 10, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> That sucks if he was concussed but I didn’t see any contact that would have caused a concussion.  Looks like he initiated contact with the goalie and lost the battle.  As he fell he braces himself and his head never made contact with the goalie or ground.  I’m not a medical professional, I’m just sayin.  Good no call but that was off sides.


it looked like it might have been offside. but the angle can be decieving and it did look like the winger was angling his run inside before the ball was delivered.


----------

