SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer What would you do?

Things a referee would look at:
1. Where are the eyes of the player committing the foul? If they are on the ball, then perhaps the player really thought he was going to get the ball. The foul could still be reckless and could still warrant a caution, but at least there was no intent to hurt, or at least the player was "playing the ball and not the man." You sometimes see this when a ref calls a foul on a contested header, where one player is looking at the ball and the other is clearly looking at his opponent and making contact. In this case, the player in blue is clearly not looking at the ball--in fact, his back is to the ball.
2. Did the player try to avoid contact once he realized he wasn't going to get the ball? Sometimes a player mistimes a challenge, but as he realizes his error, he tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to avoid the contact. In such a case, if it is a bad challenge, the player could still get a caution, but it is unlikely that the player will be sent off because at least he tried to avoid the other player, indicating a lack of intent to hurt. In this case, the player in blue not only makes no attempt to avoid contact, but he also jumps into the contact, indicating a clear intent to injure the other player.
3. What are his arms doing? Are they in a natural position for whatever action he is engaged in? This is, of course, the inevitable question with "Intentionally handling the ball." It is also the question when two players are going up for a header and one has his hands on the other's back. Is he pushing or just protecting himself? In this case, if the player in blue is attempting to avoid contact, why is his arm coming up through the white player's head?

As to the ref's position and angle, he is in the perfect position to see this play and to make the proper call, but he simply chooses not to.

Perhaps his thought process is, "Well, the player in white should hit the weight room and do all those exercises that build up the skull muscles."

This was the Daniel v. Seneca game.

Paul Schleifer wrote: "And what would you do after the fact if the white player were yours? Or, what would you do if the player in white were your kid?"

Interesting questions, Paul Schleifer, but we've not heard your answers to your questions. What would you do after the fact if the white player were yours? And what would you do if the player in white were your kid?

The player in white is my kid. And I am trying to decide what to do.
First, what about Seneca #3? Kit says that, as they were jogging up the pitch, #3 said, "How's your head?" If it weren't intentional, why would #3 ask a question like that? I'm thinking about taking the video to the Central PD or the Pickens County Sheriff and pressing charges for assault. I'm also thinking about suing the kid's parents for the medical bills.
Second, I wrote an email, with video attached, to the assigner, but I have heard nothing so far (I'll give him a little time). The referee who made no call has a long history of being biased against Daniel soccer, and I believe he knew who the player in white was and therefore chose not to make that call. But the assigner says he won't let a coach blackball a ref. That has to change. It is dangerous to Daniel players to allow that man to referee any Daniel games because he has allowed players from other teams to injure Daniel players for years. This just happens to be perhaps the first time someone has video evidence.
Next, I understand that the SCHSL does not look at video. Despite having heard that, I sent the video to the staff person responsible for soccer. When video is that clear, they should look at it and consider sanctions after the fact. How else do you keep kids safe? Do you just rely on the referee reports? And then what do you do when you have a clearly biased referee?
Finally, I am considering some sort of action against the Oconee County School District, which is ultimately responsible for the behavior of its employees. And yes, I do blame the coaches for dirty play like that. This was not the only dirty play by Seneca players; it is just the most egregious.
Seneca's #3 got to play in Seneca's only playoff game this year because no one was willing to look at the video. Kit was not able to play in either of his team's playoff games because of the concussion he suffered in that play. He also missed some school and has been to the doctor twice already, and he'll have to wear the Full90 headgear for the next 6 months. Daniel lost to Berea in spot kicks in the second round. What would have happened if Seneca #3 had not taken 20+ goals and 14 or so assists out of the Daniel line up.
And nobody wants to say that dirty soccer like that is wrong and should be punished.

Can you prove intent? You've gotten unbiased opinions on here before you revealed your personal connection to this incident. If different folks are debating whether the play was even a foul, how do you plan on proving that this was some elaborate scheme to injure the player? Or how can you hold others responsible for a play that knowledgeable soccer folks have said that it's not a dirty play?

Maybe your personal connection is affecting your objectivity, but if you think this hit merits all this legal action, then maybe you need to not continue putting the kid in the soccer field. It sucks that the player suffered a concussion because of it, but in no way does that mean that everyone should be sued & charged. If that's the case, I need to find an attorney to help me sue a bunch of folks & Adidas for the concussion I suffered my junior yr due to the ball hitting my head. Anyone have Saul Goodman's number?

If it were a soccer play, I would have no problem. People get hurt playing all the time. I played in high school and in college, and I got hurt. But the only way you can possibly think that was not intent is if you didn't really look at what happened. Back to the ball; no attempt to avoid contact; jumping into the contact; arm coming up and through the head. The intent is clear from the behavior.
But I will tell you what would cause me to take my son off the field--if he ever engaged in behavior like this.
But just to be clear--you are okay with soccer being played like #3 on Seneca is "playing," is that right? You'd be okay if this happened to one of your players, yes?

And I really was asking the question, what would you do if this were your player or your kid? I was not expecting people to look at that video and say, "clean play," "hit the weight room." I find that part of this conversation a bit shocking.

If he were my kid & received that hit, I'd be worried about his well being. I might dispute the no call because of the emotion of the moment, but I wouldn't look into suing & pressing charges. I've seen worse happen. Now I've watched the video about 10 more times & honestly can't say it's a definite intentional hit. It looks like a bang bang play that unfortunately ended your kid's season

Doesn't look like a foul to me and certainly not card worthy, just two players competing to help their teams. Soccer is a fast sport with contact and unfortunately injuries happen even on legal plays. Hope he recovers quickly.

If it is just two kids competing, why is one of the kids not even oriented at all towards the ball? Is it not the ball for which they ought to be competing?
I am suspecting that some of the people on this site never watch professional football and do not understand the Laws.
A friend sent me this from last year: two common elements. 1. the player who commits the foul leaves his feet to enhance the contact. 2. the player who commits the foul plays for Seneca. Differences? 1. the player for A.C. Flora is knocked unconscious. 2. the Seneca player is sent off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72yKxmhaDqs

Any of you who think the attack on Kit was just kids competing for the ball, please explain to me how this red card foul call is any different. Or would you say that the Seneca kid should not have received the red card last year?

If this kind of play is allowed to continue, our kids will eventually be required to wear gridiron-style football helmets.

First it is a foul. He left the field of play with both feet and jumped in the air, under rules of competition that would be textbook jumping in, which is a foul. Second, he turned his body and did not face the player, again that is a textbook charge. If you are going to jump in the air, and turn your body at the same time into a player who has the ball, you aren't playing the ball.

Now, how bad is it, he did not lead with his head or his elbow, which is good. He actually crashes into the mid section (from the airmpit down) of the white player, which shows there is no intent to injure. A really good player who would want to hurt the other player would most definitely lead with the head or elbow, this blue player just kinda runs over his opponent, which is completely careless. Depending on the temperature of the match, yeah maybe a YC at most.

Suing? If you think that is something that will hold up in court you are crazy, and a judge would laugh at you and throw it out. The play wasn't even serious foul play (which would warrant a red card), do us a favor stop watching soccer.