After watching Oxford and Lafayette's Girls Soccer teams play Tuesday, it has become quite clear many parents do not quite understand what makes an Impeding foul and what makes a Dangerous Play foul.
Both of those fouls appeared to have happened (and both against Lafayette, another against Oxford) during the course of the game. Here's why they were not fouls.
It is a very common misconception that a player playing the ball on the ground in an automatic foul. That is not true. In the situation Tuesday night, the player did play the ball on the ground. There was one problem: She had nobody around her.
The player playing the ball on the ground is only a foul if there is an opponent with the player and then attempts to play the ball. The reason is that the player playing the ball is threatening injury to either herself or the opponent by doing so. If there is no one around, it is not a foul, which is what happened Tuesday night.
Here is another that falls under "Dangerous Play". Almost everyone calls this a "High Kick". Here's a little known fact: not anywhere in the FIFA Laws of the Game or in any soccer rules do the words "High Kick" appear. This was the infraction Oxford appeared to have committed but was not called.
Much like the "playing on the ground" thing, it is only an infraction if it was done near a player - specifically a player's face. Really what the referee is looking for is how close the cleats are to the opponent's face. That requires the cleats to be facing the opponent as well. This is under the referee's discretion.
Here is the full rule on "Dangerous Play" as written in the FIFA Laws of the Game: (Note: This is similar to all levels of soccer)
Both of those fouls appeared to have happened (and both against Lafayette, another against Oxford) during the course of the game. Here's why they were not fouls.
It is a very common misconception that a player playing the ball on the ground in an automatic foul. That is not true. In the situation Tuesday night, the player did play the ball on the ground. There was one problem: She had nobody around her.
The player playing the ball on the ground is only a foul if there is an opponent with the player and then attempts to play the ball. The reason is that the player playing the ball is threatening injury to either herself or the opponent by doing so. If there is no one around, it is not a foul, which is what happened Tuesday night.
Here is another that falls under "Dangerous Play". Almost everyone calls this a "High Kick". Here's a little known fact: not anywhere in the FIFA Laws of the Game or in any soccer rules do the words "High Kick" appear. This was the infraction Oxford appeared to have committed but was not called.
Much like the "playing on the ground" thing, it is only an infraction if it was done near a player - specifically a player's face. Really what the referee is looking for is how close the cleats are to the opponent's face. That requires the cleats to be facing the opponent as well. This is under the referee's discretion.
Here is the full rule on "Dangerous Play" as written in the FIFA Laws of the Game: (Note: This is similar to all levels of soccer)
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick if permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick.
As one reads the underlined part, an opponent needs to be nearby for that type of foul to be committed. I don't think it can be clearer than that.
The last one is the "Impeding" foul. Many are misconceived that a player shielding the ball within playing distance until the goalkeeper can pick it up with an opponent trying to get to is impeding. That is not true.
Here is the rule, word for word:
The last one is the "Impeding" foul. Many are misconceived that a player shielding the ball within playing distance until the goalkeeper can pick it up with an opponent trying to get to is impeding. That is not true.
Here is the rule, word for word:
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
In the third paragraph in the last quote, it reads "for tactical reasons". The tactical reason during the game for that one in particular was the player was shielding the ball - and not impeding the player by using her body or arms - to allow the goalkeeper to pick the ball up. Impeding with use of the body is when the player backs away from the ball. At that point, the player is playing the opponent and not the ball. At no point did the player play the opponent in that situation.
It is worth mentioning Oxford did the very same thing several times throughout the game shielding the ball to go out so that they would have a throw-in in the same manner, yet Oxford parents complained how the ball was shielded to the Lafayette goalkeeper.
I wrote an opinion article in the November 12th edition of the Oxford Citizen on refereeing. You can read it by following this link: http://oxfordcitizen.com/2015/11/13/soccer-referees-from-their-point-of-view/ In it, I posted how we are human. I also should point out that referees have to take a test in order to earn the USSF badge and pass it with 80% accuracy each year. For the NFHS test, there are two of them and both of them have to be passed with 80% accuracy as well each year. This would also point out that referees know more than any parent that attends the games, unless that parent has also taken these tests.
Parents and fans, you don't know as many rules as you think you know. That is the plain truth, as much as you don't want to hear it. I got into refereeing because I thought I can do a better job than the ones that was currently out doing the high schools games. I think I have made the sport of soccer better by getting into refereeing. I do wish more would get into refereeing and appreciate the job they do but especially the several of the teenagers that are out there doing the job. Parents running off those teenager referees are the ones that quit.
An example of one of the referees quitting - especially from a district that really couldn't lose referees - came last year in the Lafayette Boys Soccer first round of the playoffs. Lafayette had Amory and the Panthers eliminated the Commodores in large part because of the center referee's decision with two cards on one player who was Lafayette's best player. All the Lafayette fans came right to the area that the referees had to go through and gave him hell. That made him quit refereeing high school soccer for good. While he is still refereeing elsewhere, that is what makes the good referees quit. Some may quip that he wasn't "good" but it is like I said in the Citizen article I put up two paragraphs ago, we are human.
Don't try to preach the referees the rules. It is in high likelihood that you are incorrectly stating whatever made-up rule you think was broken. "Playing on the Ground" is not said anywhere in the rules. "High Kick" is not said anywhere in the rules. If you want to know the rules, instead of reading a book from your favorite author, go to the FIFA website and look-up/download the rules and interpretations. You may learn something and maybe even more than what I've written out here.
It is worth mentioning Oxford did the very same thing several times throughout the game shielding the ball to go out so that they would have a throw-in in the same manner, yet Oxford parents complained how the ball was shielded to the Lafayette goalkeeper.
I wrote an opinion article in the November 12th edition of the Oxford Citizen on refereeing. You can read it by following this link: http://oxfordcitizen.com/2015/11/13/soccer-referees-from-their-point-of-view/ In it, I posted how we are human. I also should point out that referees have to take a test in order to earn the USSF badge and pass it with 80% accuracy each year. For the NFHS test, there are two of them and both of them have to be passed with 80% accuracy as well each year. This would also point out that referees know more than any parent that attends the games, unless that parent has also taken these tests.
Parents and fans, you don't know as many rules as you think you know. That is the plain truth, as much as you don't want to hear it. I got into refereeing because I thought I can do a better job than the ones that was currently out doing the high schools games. I think I have made the sport of soccer better by getting into refereeing. I do wish more would get into refereeing and appreciate the job they do but especially the several of the teenagers that are out there doing the job. Parents running off those teenager referees are the ones that quit.
An example of one of the referees quitting - especially from a district that really couldn't lose referees - came last year in the Lafayette Boys Soccer first round of the playoffs. Lafayette had Amory and the Panthers eliminated the Commodores in large part because of the center referee's decision with two cards on one player who was Lafayette's best player. All the Lafayette fans came right to the area that the referees had to go through and gave him hell. That made him quit refereeing high school soccer for good. While he is still refereeing elsewhere, that is what makes the good referees quit. Some may quip that he wasn't "good" but it is like I said in the Citizen article I put up two paragraphs ago, we are human.
Don't try to preach the referees the rules. It is in high likelihood that you are incorrectly stating whatever made-up rule you think was broken. "Playing on the Ground" is not said anywhere in the rules. "High Kick" is not said anywhere in the rules. If you want to know the rules, instead of reading a book from your favorite author, go to the FIFA website and look-up/download the rules and interpretations. You may learn something and maybe even more than what I've written out here.