Is this considered a foul in youth soccer?
- Thread starter blam
- Start date
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
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
SILVER
Have to LOVE book Referees.....
Sure, but let em play what?
My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
Shoulder to shoulder contact...looks fine to me.
My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates
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
SILVER ELITE
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
SILVER ELITE
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.
- 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
SILVER ELITE
Yes - that should be a foul anywhere, including in EPL. And IMHO crosses the line into reckless i.e. yellow card.
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.
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.
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"
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.
No foul
My dd always putting her body on the line for her teammates
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
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.
Tea and Busquets
SILVER
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.
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.