July 15, 2014

Video Training: Assessing the Level of Punishment - Serious Foul Play 4


The following match situation is taken from Germany - Argentina (World Cup final 2014) and belongs to the category Assessing the Level of Punishment.
You are warmly encouraged to participate in discussion by answering the poll or placing a comment. Our solution for this situation including the re-start of play will be published soon.


Interpretation:

Green goalkeeper #1 makes unfair contact with an opponent by jumping at Blue #9 while or shortly after clearing the ball with his fist. Given the raised right knee, height and location of the contact (neck) and very high intensity as well as speed of the collision caused by the goalkeeper, he clearly endangered the safety of his opponent and used excessive force. The referee should have awarded a penalty kick for the attacking team and a red card against the goalkeeper.

An important criteria to determine whether a goalkeeper or any other player on the field of play has jumped at an opponent with excessive force are his raised knee(s) which often cause serious injuries. The circumstance that the goalkeeper successfully cleared the ball plays NO role in the assessment of the force he used when making the unfair contact with the opponent. 
This interpretation has been approved by (inter-)national referee observers whom we consulted. However, UEFA's Referee Committee's directive is: No Foul, throw-in, because the ball was played.

Only 17% of the users agreed with our interpretation, while 59% did not notice a punishable offence in this collision (further 19% agreed with the penalty kick but deemed the goalkeeper's conduct as reckless, only requiring a yellow card).

18 Comments:

  1. Tough one: I'll go with serious foul play by Neuer. He has little, if any, chance to play this ball legally, but decides nevertheless to jump for it. In the process, he puts the safety of the attacker at great risk and shows a complete disregard for Higuain's health. Any other form of blow to the head with this force would be deemed SFP or VC, so I'll stick with that.

    On a different topic: any idea when the UEFA RAP 2014:1 will come out?

    ReplyDelete
  2. He actually, in my opinion, has really good chances to play ball legally. Only foul I see here is that he raised the knee as an outcome of a jump, because the rule book does not say or allow the goalkeeper to raise his knee as a part of the gameplay. Same rules apply for the goalkeeper as to the other players, excluding playing with hands at the penalty area.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with you and am proud to have a correct answer in a poll. Just one question - is this your interpretation or according to your source (FIFA, UEFA)? I totally agree that that was serious foul play, but what I know is that all (con-)federations consider it as a clear tackle what I strongly disagree with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well there is not THE FIFA or THE UEFA. I only talked to a couple of people inside both associations, as written in the post.
      Furthermore the video coaching area is supposed to give OUR interpretations, we don't want to be the voice of both associations but set our own trends (which are of course mostly congruent with their guidelines).

      Delete
    2. OK, this is a real independency I like here. Keep up the good work! My sign would be surely under your interpretation, not the FIFA one.

      Delete
    3. The top-down directive of UEFA's Committee is NO FOUL and THROW-IN. The only argument basically is that Neuer successfully played the ball. We strongly disagree with this interpretation. Every other tackle would be a red card if it endangered the opponent in a comparable manner, no matter whether the ball was played or not.

      Delete
    4. I know about directives. Listkiewicz, who assessed referees in Brazil said the same. Przesmycki (UEFA observer) confirmed this interpretation, analysing that situation from Ukrainian Premier League, where a player almost dead... NO FOUL in both cases.

      This is what I always repeat:

      Situation #1: A player makes a flying tackle with excessive force, using two straightened legs and studs-up. He clearly plays the ball. Decision? If the opponent was close, it's a red card for endangering the safety of an opponent. Serious foul play.

      Situation #2: A goalkeeper tries to clear the ball by jumping to it with a recklessly raised knee, although he knows it can hurt an opponent. He clearly punches the ball, but hits his opponent in the face by a knee. This situation is analogous to the first one. Decision? Red card for endangering the safety of an opponent. Serious foul play.

      Why should these two situations be treated differently? 'He hit the ball at first is really ridiculous explanation for no action. It's typical for players in lowest regional leagues, but at this level it's just scandalous in my opinion.

      Delete
  4. I my opinion, no foul. Play restarts with a throw-in. Keeper had to generate elevation in his jump, it is unfortunate player ran into the knee as he had his eyes on the ball.

    I would certainly give it a penalty if the keeper did not get ball first though but with probably a yellow card as I would consider it reckless.

    If the keeper caught the player with his studs from an outstretched leg I will give penalty and red card irrespective of whether keeper played the ball first or not. Serious foul play.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe it will be useful. I don't know whether those advices are used anywhere outside U.S.

    ADVICE TO REFEREES:

    12.B.4
    Goalkeeper Possession of the Ball

    The goalkeeper is considered to be in possession of the ball when the ball is:
    • held with both hands,
    • held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a
    goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or
    • held in a single hand (gripped or in an outstretched open hand).

    Once established, possession is maintained while the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground, running with the ball, or while throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the holding includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

    When a goalkeeper has possession of the ball, any attempt by any opponent to charge, tackle, or otherwise challenge for the ball is prohibited. Such a challenge is considered to be a direct free kick foul because it is directed at the person of the goalkeeper and not as a legal attempt to gain the ball. A ball controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than his or her hands is open to legal challenge by an opponent. The referee must consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely none of these apply, as the GK did not have any of the types of possession mentioned in the advice to referees.

      Delete
  6. Top-down instruction given by DFB (Hellmut Krug stated it): Foul, penalty, yellow card. Felix Zwayer furthermore expressed that he and his colleagues were very stunned about the decision taken by Rizzoli.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Niclas, one more question. You said "Top-down instruction given by DFB (Hellmut Krug stated it): Foul, penalty, yellow card. Felix Zwayer furthermore expressed that he and his colleagues were very stunned about the decision taken by Rizzoli."
    Do you mean DFB (Helmut Krug) said Neuer should be given foul, yellow card and penalty kick should be given to Argentina?

    ReplyDelete
  9. And also, you said "However, UEFA's Referee Committee's directive is: No Foul, throw-in, because the ball was played."
    What do you mean? Do you mean UEFA's Referee Committee told you that the Neuer vs Higuain collision should not be a foul, but only a throw in because the ball was played?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have sources, of course the referee committee does not talk to us.

      Delete
  10. Hi Niclas, you said "Only 17% of the users agreed with our interpretation, while 59% did not notice a punishable offence in this collision (further 19% agreed with the penalty kick but deemed the goalkeeper's conduct as reckless, only requiring a yellow card)." Where is the rest of the 5%? What did they say? You said 59% said no penalty kick and no foul against Neuer, 36% (17%+19%) said yes to foul and penalty kick. This is a total of 95%. What about the other 5%?
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5% = Penalty, but no card needed.
      Next time 3 in 1 comment please.

      Delete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger