Tuesday, October 11, 2011

You make the call

It was Columbus Day weekend here, creating a holiday opportunity for many youth soccer (football) tournaments.  I was referee of a half dozen games on Sunday and Monday in Natick, a neighboring town.

Even though these are children's games, the level of play is excellent, and the games often present challenging calls for the referee.  Here's the situation I faced in one of the games.  You decide the call, and later today, I will post my decision, along with commentary from some of my colleagues.

It is a Under-12, top division, boys match, hard driving and physical but quite clean.

A high bouncing ball approaches red's goal.  The red goalkeeper comes out to get it, but it starts to bounce over him.  As it is in the air over his head, a white player, having jumped up, cleanly heads it into the goal.  The two collide and both are knocked down.  The goalie is hurt by the collision and has to leave the field.

Your call.  Allow the goal?  Or, call a dangerous play against the white attacker and not allow the goal?

Do you need any other facts to help decide the matter?

19 comments:

This Gruntled Public Servant said...

If it's incidental - as in no foul play involved, and both players were fairly contesting the ball - and the collision doesn't involve a head injury - I'd say allow play to continue for a couple of seconds. If the ball ends up in the net - goal.

If there's any actual or suspected head injuries, or if their two heads collided, stop play immediately - it's only a game, after all.

Re-start with a drop ball.

If was definitely, definitely going to be a goal maybe then maybe the defending team could be prevailed upon to step aside and let the attacking team claim their goal, especially if play was stopped to allow their player to receive immediate treatment.

Anonymous said...

It is a goal if contact was made after the ball went in. I hope the goalkeeper is doing well.

Anonymous said...

Should be a goal. Assuming they were in the box, I think any goalie worth his salt would have either made the save or (not maliciously) "neutralized" (read: cleaned) the opponent. Having failed on both parts, goalie failed, and the goal should stand.

My experience tells me that goalies regard the box as "their's" and they choose what enters and what's sent back "out of their house."

a said...

Allow the goal. Intent was to hit the ball, not cause harm. If injury sustained, yellow card may be necessary.

Be thankful this didn't happen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSNMrcKR5Q

Each player was in the right to go for the ball but because of what happened, the game ended early and Ramires was sent off for a professional foul... so the goalie got the foul because the offense was injured. Foul depends on who gets hurt.

Tim said...

Top division play means high performance play and athletics.

The Forward ‘did what he had to do’ AND the ball went into the net – he succeeded. Top players score when presented an opportunity - watch ESPN Top 10 Countdown. The goalie seemed out of position anyway adding to the ‘Perfect Storm’.

I can’t comment on this Dangerous Play RULE(?). The nature of the soccer game calls for minimal potential for injury – but it happens. Try football or hockey.

Goal stands.
Recruiters take notice.
Some parents are upset…as usual.
Movement to wear Soccer Helmets is started and succeeds in 2016 for U12 and under. 2019 its universal (see skiing and bike riding).

Besides, I thought you were in the hospital business!

Paul Levy said...

Not any more, Tim! Besides, that was just a hobby. Soccer is real life....

a said...

I also don't know what "dangerous play" is and I realized I compared pro soccer to an Under-12 team-- so if "dangerous play" encompasses this situation, then you would have to call foul against white. But I would still allow the goal since intent was not to injure.

Paul Levy said...

Sorry, it has to be one or the other. A dangerous play call would negate the goal. The red team would be entitled to an indirect free kick.

Definition: Dangerous play is the act of risking injury to an opponent with a reckless or clumsy challenge.

a said...

I would keep the goal because I would not consider red's action to be reckless/clumsy.

a said...

BUT if the white player had been consistently aggressive (malicious and intent to foul) throughout the course of the game, I would call dangerous play.

Paul Levy said...

Sorry, but no. You have to judge it on that play alone. (Of course, you might be unconciously prejudiced by previous actions of the player, but you should not let that rule in this case.)

a said...

Okay, back to keeping the play.

Linda said...

From Facebook:

I say no goal, malicious play.

Anonymous said...

Goal allowed - your description - "cleanly heads" the ball into the goal tells the story.

Javed Sheikh said...

I thought that kids in this age range are not supposed to/allowed to head the ball at all (?)

Anonymous said...

Given what you outline, I say: "Goooooal!" No malicious intent, and clean, athletic play by the scorer. (Plus, and this has nothing to do with nuts-and-bolts of the play, if you let the goal stand, you're passing along a key life lesson: Stuff happens. Injuries occur through clean play. A "do-over" to make everyone feel good isn't always necessary.

Paul Levy said...

Heading is permitted, Javed.

Bethany said...

Allow.

Paul Levy said...

See what I did in the following post: http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-i-made-call.html