Can you foul a player without making contact?

[rcoobc]

The answer seems obvious to me, but often not to fans or referees as I would interpret it. Also the question of what constitutes a foul, when there is no contact isn't the easiest.

So what do you guys think?



Can't seem to copy the laws of the game from FIFA's PDF and can't be bothered to work around it.

 

[Silva]

What the feck are you talking about?

 

[OneToAnother]

Of course you can foul a player without contact.

 

[rcoobc]

What the feck are you talking about?

A defender lunges at a player, committing a fairly dangerous challenge. The attacker jumps out the way but no contact is made. Is it a foul?

No contact is made.

 

[RonaldoVII]

A dangerous challenge is an offence whether contact was made or not.

 

[rcoobc]

What about a situation where you attempt to clip at the ball, but instead would hit the player except he moves out the way?

 

[OneToAnother]

A defender lunges at a player, committing a fairly dangerous challenge. The attacker jumps out the way but no contact is made. Is it a foul?

No contact is made.

Some refs might give that and some might not. If a player throws a punch/elbow/headbutt and misses, hes definately giving that.

 

[Silva]

A defender lunges at a player, committing a fairly dangerous challenge. The attacker jumps out the way but no contact is made. Is it a foul?

No contact is made.

Strictly speaking, I don't think it's a 'foul'. It is, however, dangerous play from the defender and should not be a part of football. While there is nothing better than a finely timed crunching tackle no one wants to see potential leg breakers.

 

[rcoobc]

Some refs might give that and some might not. If a player throws a punch/elbow/headbutt and misses, hes definately giving that.

Yup that is a given.

A lot of the time when you see a player stay on his feet, like Messi does a lot of the time, the commentator will say "had he gone down he could have got a penalty".

Yes but he shouldn't have to, so why don't the refs give it. Going down should have no correlation about whether or not you get a penalty.

 

[jojojo]

The answer seems obvious to me, but often not to fans or referees as I would interpret it. Also the question of what constitutes a foul, when there is no contact isn't the easiest.

So what do you guys think?



Can't seem to copy the laws of the game from FIFA's PDF and can't be bothered to work around it.

In that instance it was advantage (with Palacios getting booked at the next stoppage). In others, the act of avoidance will cause the player to lose the ball, or his balance or his rhythm and yes, the ref should call it. But they don't always.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Strictly speaking, I don't think it's a 'foul'. It is, however, dangerous play from the defender and should not be a part of football. While there is nothing better than a finely timed crunching tackle no one wants to see potential leg breakers.

What do you mean "strictly speaking"? Do you really think the rules state there must be contact between the two players?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

In that instance it was advantage (with Palacios getting booked at the next stoppage). In others, the act of avoidance will cause the player to lose the ball, or his balance or his rhythm and yes, the ref should call it. But they don't always.

That's a good example. Did Palacios get booked though? I remember being furious at the time that he got away with it?

 

[Silva]

What do you mean "strictly speaking"? Do you really think the rules state there must be contact between the two players?

That's not what I meant, when a defender goes in for a non-dangerous tackle but doesn't get any ball and completely misses the man its not a foul, I don't think it should be categorised as a 'foul' when its a dangerous tackle that misses the man. It's just linguistic preferences more than anything else.

 

[rcoobc]

In that instance it was advantage (with Palacios getting booked at the next stoppage). In others, the act of avoidance will cause the player to lose the ball, or his balance or his rhythm and yes, the ref should call it. But they don't always.

Hell that Red Card is clear as day.

Other times players jump put the way of nasty challenges and get nothing, yet some players go down after feeling a misplaced blade of grass and get a penalty. It really is the least part of refereeing that gets called the least correctly in my opinion. Including by the fans.

 

[rcoobc]

That's not what I meant, when a defender goes in for a non-dangerous tackle but doesn't get any ball and completely misses the man its not a foul, I don't think it should be categorised as a 'foul' when its a dangerous tackle that misses the man. It's just linguistic preferences more than anything else.

That just reminds me of FIFA when you accidentely tap slide tackle but are nowhere near the player.

In real life it should be a foul, if its dangerous.

 

[Skholesy]

I think if you make a strong enough challenge and dont play the ball, but make it in such a robust way that you force your opponent to avoid/jump over the tackle to avoid injury, then it is possible to be foul.

So if you go for a super sliding tackle (the type where you slide into the running path of the player) that would have taken out both ball and/or player but miss the ball, and if the player had to jump over you to avoid contact then falling down as a result of avoiding contact, then it is possibly a foul.

I don't see how it can be any other way. One of my old sunday league team mates tore some ligaments pretty badly this way and had to stop playing...a player made a tackle and missed the ball, he jumped to avoid the tackle but still tried to stay on his feet , landed badly and there went his ligaments. Such challenges surely have to be a foul even without touching the player because of the evasive action it causes - an action which is unnatural and therefore potentially leads to injury.

Edit: An example of "super sliding tackle", only in this case he touched the player - it should be a foul even if he never touched the player.
Thierry Henry Two Footed Tackle - YouTube

 

[Silva]

When a foul is committed play comes to a halt, in some circumstances the referee may choose to give an advantage following a dangerous tackle and book the player retrospectively, that's why I wouldn't classify it as a foul.

 

[cj_sparky]

Stevie G got a penalty for intent against Sheff Utd few years ago.

 

[rcoobc]

I know its obvious by the way, but I don't think its always fully appreciated. Valencia and Nani sometimes jumps out of the way of big tackles, but I don't think I have seen them get a foul, whether or not the opponent gets the ball.

Sometimes someone will go in for a tackle, and a player will jump over the player but accidetly kick the ball out of play in doing so. That is actually a fairly big one, in jumping out of the way of the tackle, kicking the ball out.

Never seen it given.

 

[rcoobc]

And now you have all said that, was this a foul? (Please comment in that thread, this thread isn't about that one incident.)

Robben's disgraceful dive - RedCafe.net

 

[Pogue Mahone]

When a foul is committed play comes to a halt, in some circumstances the referee may choose to give an advantage following a dangerous tackle and book the player retrospectively, that's why I wouldn't classify it as a foul.

You're coming out with some surreal shit in this thread.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

And now you have all said that, was this a foul? (Please comment in that thread, this thread isn't about that one incident.)

Robben's disgraceful dive - RedCafe.net

Debatable. Looked like the defender pulled out of the challenge. Mind you, the referee could have given a pen and booked Robben. That would have been funny.

 

[Silva]

You're coming out with some surreal shit in this thread.

There is a good reason I don't post in the football forums particularly often you know

 

[Makki]

And now you have all said that, was this a foul? (Please comment in that thread, this thread isn't about that one incident.)

Robben's disgraceful dive - RedCafe.net

As I commented in that thread, Robben regains his balance before flopping, so it wouldn't be a foul because the tackle didn't put him off balance. Since the tackle isn't dangerous it would be a case of obstruction and not dangerous play, and when a player is guilty of an obstruction without touching the opponent it should be an indirect free kick IIRC.

 

[RK]

Anything that is careless, reckless or uses excessive force is a foul. Contact is the most common way of observing this, but it isn't essential.

So in relation to the scenario you outlined, it depends on whether the referee thinks it was careless or not.

 

[rcoobc]

He would have got the penalty had he fallen down after hurdling the defender - not two steps after. No referee will give a penalty for a challenge that is a foul but doesn't knock over the attacker.

Exactly the problem.

 

[Cheesy]

I think it would all depend on what the victim of the challenge is. If you don't make contact at all, but if the player goes in for a pathetic dive like in the recent Robben example, then I wouldn't give the foul. I don't exactly know what the official rules are though, so there's no guarantees that you'd be allowed to do that.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Haha. Yep. When you shout at someone just as they're about to shoot.

I must do it every week playing 7 a side. Textbook defending I call it. Some people say it's cheating. Potato. Potato.

 

[Pexbo]

Ronaldo got the feck out the way of a wild challenge in the area a few years ago and as a result was called out for diving. In his defence Ferguson used the phrase "he anticipated a nasty challenge". Which is true, if a player dives in with his studs up and the other player decides he'd rather he had a career than put his shin in front of those studs, then it is a foul. The player shouldn't have to risk his leg to make sure it is a definite foul.

Sadly, Ferguson ruined the phrase by using it when Rooney did a blatant dive in the area.

 

[Walrus]

Yes.

Imagine the situation - striker is breaking clean through on goal, the defender (last man or otherwise) lunges in with a dangerous tackle, missing the ball.

The striker at this point (lets assume he has superhuman reflexes) has 2 options;
1) Allow the tackle to make contact and go down, earning a free kick/penalty, possible red card and risking injury in the process.
2) Avoid the tackle by jumping/stopping, but in doing so losing his balance/momentum meaning that again the opportunity to score has gone.

Now, it seems the more logical choice would be the 2nd option as nobody wants to get hurt or injured. Clearly, whilst no contact has been made, it was a poor challenge, has essentially denied a goalscoring opportunity (by forcing the striker to take evasive action) and on another day could have caused an injury.

In my view, the two incidents should be treated the same - cards, free kicks and all. You cant punish a player for trying to avoid having their leg broken - but if the two above scenarios are treated differently then that is exactly what you are doing. The defender should be punished for the reckless tackle regardless of whether it causes serious injury or not.


This is obviously an extreme example but the same logic can be applied in a lot of situations. The principle is the same - the outcome shouldnt affect the decision (except in cases of the advantage rule). Just because a player is quick enough (or lucky enough) to get out of the way, doesnt excuse the tackle, and can still mean that the momentum of the move is taken away due to the striker (in my example) having to go out of their way to avoid the tackle.

 

[Makki]

Here's a perfect example that would answer the OP.


Shocking decision by the ref.

 

[711]

What do you mean "strictly speaking"? Do you really think the rules state there must be contact between the two players?

Football doesn't have rules. It has laws.

Strictly speaking.

 

[Aint gota Kalou]

That's a good example. Did Palacios get booked though? I remember being furious at the time that he got away with it?

I remember that challenge. I was bloody angry at the time and I remember having loads of arguments with my Spurs supporting mates.

He wasn't booked and just as annoyingly it wasn't shown on Match of the Day either, what a shambles.

 

[Makki]

I remember that challenge. I was bloody angry at the time and I remember having loads of arguments with my Spurs supporting mates.

He wasn't booked and just as annoyingly it wasn't shown on Match of the Day either, what a shambles.

But Howard Webb more than made up for it by giving us a five goal penalty when Carrick was brought down by Gomes!

 

[Liam147]

The answer seems obvious to me, but often not to fans or referees as I would interpret it. Also the question of what constitutes a foul, when there is no contact isn't the easiest.

So what do you guys think?



Can't seem to copy the laws of the game from FIFA's PDF and can't be bothered to work around it.

Yes, you can get sent off without making contact. A wild two-footed lunge that misses both player and ball could be deemed a foul and sending off.

 

[Wibble]

Rule 12

 

[Aint gota Kalou]

But Howard Webb more than made up for it by giving us a five goal penalty when Carrick was brought down by Gomes!

Good times.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Ofcourse.

You can't punish the attacker for avoiding contact and avoiding getting injured.

 

[samabachan]

If the attacker is significantly (and illegally) impeded by the actions of the defender then it is a foul. If not it's no foul. Simple.

 

[beardsleybob]

Here's a perfect example that would answer the OP.


Shocking decision by the ref.

Indeed. That's just total obstruction by the keeper. Intentionally diving at a players legs is not a legal way to prevent a goal. He was stranded immediately and flapped at Ronaldo. But regardless it will never go the attackers way unless theres contact. It wasn't blatantly malicious so the referee will lose his balls and not penalise the keeper.