SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Waccamaw vs. BE: Goal or Foul?

No kidding! Reckless fouls? HERE are some reckless fouls...prepare to cringe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52t5ifcmoxM&NR=1

spartan, do you know if there was a foul called on that play?

I can understand those who say "No foul" because the play can be seen from either point of view if you choose to say the contact was result of good agressive play by both players.
To me the question is at what point does a ref have to say "Ok, if I allow this type of play I am responsible for the injuries that come with it?".
Ask yourself this, if he calls the foul for a "dangerous" play because of the excessive contact, how critical can anyone be of the call? Do we then say, "Well he robbed the team of a goal because he was protecting a player"? Which side of the argument would you rather be on if the keeper ( or fwd for that matter) was severely injured?

I am more than comfortable saying that I would rather err on the side of player safety when there is a doubt.

Along the same lines as your question about injuries, how about this one: do you feel that a referee is responsible for ANY injury on the field? Even those where absolutely no foul has occurred?

If referees decide they will be responsible for every injury that might occur on the field, I believe they will start second-guessing everything they do. If that happens, I believe many matches will never end, because the whistle will be constantly blowing.

Now, if you do make sweeping changes as to how/when referees make "dangerous play" calls, i.e., tell referees to make the calls based mostly on goalkeeper safety, I believe you will then see many/most goalkeepers take advantage of that - they will start putting themselves into more "dangerous" situations, knowing the referee is going to make calls in their favor.

That could potentially lead to a worse situation than now exists. Just a thought...

Your question carries the concept to a non-logical conclusion. If a player blows put thier knee tring to turn to fast on a bad field is that the ref fault? No of course not, and yes soccer is a contact sport but the contact is limited and managed. A ref has to decide at what point a play become to aggressive even if the play is legal. That is my point, just because it is legal does not mean it is safe.
How often do you see high kicks called (especially in girls games) even though no one was hit by the foot? Why would the ref call it if a player was not hit? What pourpose does it serve to call that foul if no player was hurt or even contacted with the kick? Of course you know why, it is about prevent it (ther injury) next time! To me this is along those same lines.

I don't believe we disagree on the need to protect players (whether they be goalkeepers or field players) from the "dangerous play" of others, but at what point a player's actions should be considered "dangerous" (or, if you prefer, "too aggressive")

To attempt to clarify what I'm talking about, let's say that "potential contact" between attacker and goalkeeper is ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "attacker too aggressive," and 10 being "goalkeeper too aggressive." Let's define "potential contact" as a keeper and an attacker approaching each other, with the ball between them (not just them getting ready to shake hands) and both players are attempting to gain control of the ball.

What exactly is a "1-10" is not important at the moment, just assume for the sake of argument that you have 100 referees standing there, and they all agree (yeah, I realize that is illogical in and of itself).

Assume that a ranking of 5 means that attacker and goalkeeper are both approaching the ball at the same speed, have an equal chance of gaining possession first, and this is considered fair play, there is no foul, no dangerous play, etc. (however you want to word it, consider it a 50/50 ball).

Assume that currently, all referees consider anything above or below a 5 ranking to be considered dangerous play (and thus, called a foul, illegal, etc).

What I believe you are wanting to do is move the location of a 5, to what is currently a 3 or a 4, so that more emphasis is placed on goalkeeper safety. So, now, the level of attacker-aggressiveness that is considered acceptable has been lowered. Is this correct?

What I'm saying is that, if this happens, there are plenty of goalkeepers who will recognize this and take advantage of it. And some of them will start playing more aggressively, knowing that there is a very good chance the referee will make a call in their favor.

Not illogical at all - it is otherwise known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I am begining to think that this soccer thing is too hard! Logic and math and getting 100 refs to agree on something wooo this is way harder than baseball where the strike zone is always the same with every ump (right??).

You are right in that some player will alway take advantage of the rules and refs. "Cheating" is part of the game in every sport, just see the Wando/Mauldin thread where it is obvious that the Mauldin player is preventing a Wando player from a "clear" (not my word) scoring attempt. IN a playoff game, where ref will not give red cards unless you decapitate someone (and then only if you do it meanly) this type of play is to be expected under your argument, and low and behold it is (tatic was used two game in a row).

Protecting the keepers is much like they protect the QB in football. Thye are given an "unfair" advantage because of the vaulnarability of the position. The fast moving fwd, much like the blitzing LB or lineman, is responsible for ensuring that they are under control when attacking so as to be able to change thier angle based on the Keepers/QB's movements. It is the speedboat vs sailboat argument, the faster more manuverable most aviod the slower less manverable. Is it totally fair to attacker,,,??? NO, but if applied at both ends of the field it is equal. To me being equal makes more sense than fair in this situation, becuase fair results in the eventual serious injury where equal had a much better chance of avoiding it.

Now back to the video, if you watch it several time stopping it at 1:32,1:33 you will clearly (even thru the blur) see that the keeper is going to the ground to cover the ball when hit. Her fwd speed is basically almost zero and she is in process of reaching for the ball, and no she does not have control but I think control would only be important if the fwd actually hit it without colliding into her. The fwd in her effort to make a play collides with the keeper preventing her from getting the ball due to her physical contact, it also take her out for any follow on play. I am not sure the fwd made any significant controlled contact with the ball that was not the result of the collision, but even if she did it was only made after the collison became enevitable, she did clearly pull back on contact though showing (to me) no intention to hurt the keeper.

I will stand on the idea that the fast moving fwd is responsible for avoiding the slow moving, and very predictable keeper. We all knew what she was going to do, grab the ball! The fwd was responsible for making a play without plowing into the keeper, if she can not do it then she must avoid slaming into a defenseless keep in the process of going to the ground to get the ball. If the fwd touches the ball away from the keep with hitting her then it is a great play and we have no discussion, if she pulls up short or wide taking a kick at it without clobbering the keeper then again good play. Run into keeper at full speed with only a stabbing chance of hitting the ball? Not a good play. IMHO

Funny but I think only the fact that the keeper is'nt laying there hurt keeps the ref from calling the foul. If she were my keeper I would tell her stay down holding your knee until play is stopped if a fwd plows you over. "Cheating"?? maybe maybe not but I do not have to sub a keeper if she is run over and "hurt", I get to go out and talk to her without a sub having to come on. After all if we are going to let them be run over we better let tham take advantage of the rules. Imagine how much harder the refs discussion is with my keeper rolling (maybe a good wailing cry too) on the ground at thier feet!

Just curious...has the keeper who is in that video seen it? Do you know her "before" and "after" thoughts regarding whether a foul should have been called or not?

Would be intereting but along same lines how does the fwd feel about it? My guess each would have thier own opinion for obvious reasons. How much harder (more agressively) does she think she could go in and still not get a call. If it happened to her keeper how would she feel? Maybe ask the other keeper if she thinks it was a foul?

Even more intresting show the clip to some refs (minus the sound) and see how many think it might have been a foul and how many say, "no way it was clean". I'll admit thats not really fair to them but it would make an interesting "study", especially if you stop the film just after the collision and make them decide without knowing a goal is the result?