Exactly!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 neededP.S. Winning is the best form of retaliation IMHO....
Is this considered a foul in youth soccer?
- Thread starter blam
- Start date
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*
PREMIER
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.
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
SILVER ELITE
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.
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
SILVER ELITE
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
SILVER ELITE
As a referee I am calling that a foul 100% of the time.
My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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.
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
SILVER ELITE
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.