Is this considered a foul in youth soccer?

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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dad4 said:
The rules are there for safety.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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....................................

1578367065821.png

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top