Can you foul a player without making contact?

[MTF]

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


Shocking decision by the ref.

Good example. Cannot believe the decision. Ronaldo had to leap some 40cm to avoid being brought down.

The reality is, the player shouldn't have to actually go to ground to earn this sort of call. So in Robben's pathetic dive, it does like look it could've been an actual penalty because he had to avoid his opponent's leg. In an ideal world, he could just stop playing the ball the next moment and stand there, and the ref would give a penalty if he deemed it a foul.

What we could train our minds to do, and most importantly the refs, is to judge most situations where a player has had to skip an opponent's leg or foot as a foul, and the moments after that are advantage being played. So for example, if a player has knocked the ball on, skipped a sliding tackle, but then can't get to the ball before another defender, a foul should be called.

 

[gooDevil]

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


Shocking decision by the ref.

That one really pissed me off. Completely agree, it's a penalty.

 

[beardsleybob]

Good example. Cannot believe the decision. Ronaldo had to leap some 40cm to avoid being brought down.

The reality is, the player shouldn't have to actually go to ground to earn this sort of call. So in Robben's pathetic dive, it does like look it could've been an actual penalty because he had to avoid his opponent's leg. In an ideal world, he could just stop playing the ball the next moment and stand there, and the ref would give a penalty if he deemed it a foul.

What we could train our minds to do, and most importantly the refs, is to judge most situations where a player has had to skip an opponent's leg or foot as a foul, and the moments after that are advantage being played. So for example, if a player has knocked the ball on, skipped a sliding tackle, but then can't get to the ball before another defender, a foul should be called.

It would happen outside the box. But referees seem to think that you have to do more in the area. I can't see such this erred assumption being forgotten anytime soon. It'll have to be done in the education of referees over the course of a few years.

 

[rcoobc]

I would speak to Cristiano Ronaldo about this and he believed that if a full-back was coming in at right angles to him and committed to tackle him, that was more objectionable than a dive. He would jump to save himself from injury and ride the tackle. He had a point. You can call it soft but in a Latin culture that kind of tackle is seen as the disgrace, not the dive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-dive-laugh--zero-tolerance-wont-ground.html

Think I agree with Cristiano about this, you can't tackle like that any more. I'll be more annoyed about players that dive when referees give free kicks for failed tackles.

If the goalie comes out goes at the strikers feet and fails to get the ball we all know its a penalty. But what if he neither gets the ball or touches the player? Same about someone coming in trying to break a players leg.

 

[Plechazunga]

Yes it can be a foul without contact. And, of course, you can also have contact without it being a foul - not that you'd know it from the Ashley Young thread.

Can also be a foul without 'intent', which is another over-used word. "He catches him but there's no intent there"... so what? A mistimed tackle is still a foul if it brings the man down, however honest it is.

As I said in other thread, you could potentially have a foul without either intent or contact: say a player slips and falls into another player's path, making him jump out the way. Not sure the rules cater for that - it was 'trips or intends to trip' last time I looked - but it would clearly be the right decision by the spirit of the laws.

 

[VeevaVee]

Personally I like to see non contact 'fouls' seen to once play has stopped. Unless it's serious enough to be a red, which most non contact 'fouls' would tend to be. Otherwise it's usually just a badly timed tackle which shouldn't be looked at unless dangerous.

 

[Plechazunga]

Well that's the case with any foul - if advantage can be usefully played it should.

But if a player falls over or otherwise is stopped from progressing by a non-contact foul - no scare-quotes needed - with no advantage apparent, then obviously play should be stopped.

 

[ghaliboy]

That one really pissed me off. Completely agree, it's a penalty.

See - I don't really. I agree that you can argue a case for and in the rules it probably is but I just don't really think that it was if there was no contact.

If a player goes over a challenge then goes down when he can clearly continue on with the ball I still think that it is a form of diving. I personally er on the side that you are more trying to get the player booked in that instance rather than make a move toward goal.

In that particular Ronaldo penalty he should have just stayed running and collided with the player and gone down. But he has a reputation.

What really annoys me is when defenders slide with the line of an attackers run or their axis of momentum is tandem to the opposition player yet they still get booked for dangerous play. For me dangerous play is when you attack the ball in a way that goes through the players momentum.

Take for example Giggs FK in the FA cup game against City (When he was booked). I had City fans telling me that is a straight red for high feet. But the momentum of Giggs was tandem to the player moving forward so for me it isn't dangerous.

Football is a contact sport afterall and that is why you see extremely different refereeing in the continental games.

 

[Plechazunga]

See - I don't really. I agree that you can argue a case for and in the rules it probably is but I just don't really think that it was if there was no contact.

Disregarding that particular case though, surely you agree that in principle you can foul someone without touching them. I mean, if you launch yourself feet-first at their head, the ref's got to blow up even if they duck.

 

[rcoobc]

I think I see what you are saying ghaliboy, (that sliding tackles from the side aren't as dangerous as attacking from the front, especially if you have the same momentum?) as that is how I used to play my game. I loved sliding tackles, but I never caused someone an injury.

Then one day I got paired with an older lad, as it was a 2 year age group. His tackles where two footed, studs up, he'd land on his arse, directly at the player. They looked awesome and made mine look feeble. But he'd get redcards for them which at the time I was pissed off about, but now I think that was right. They where leg breakers.

Every time he did one of those tackles he should have been redcarded whether he caught the player or not.

 

[Liam147]

So you say Ronaldo should have kicked the keeper in the head so the penalty could be won fairly? I don't think you realise how ridiculous that sounds. Natural instinct would be for Ronaldo to make sure he isn't getting hurt, and to not kick the keeper in the face.

 

[Dave89]

If a player has to take evasive action to avoid injury by a reckless tackle, and successfully manages to avoid the injury, but in doing is disadvantaged in terms of losing possession/momentum as a result of evading the reckless tackle, then it should be a foul, yes.

Essentially, a defender shouldn't be able to gain an advantage from a dangerous/reckless tackle. The random factor of how agile the opponent is, ie whether or not he can avoid the injury, shouldn't come into it.

 

[ghaliboy]

Disregarding that particular case though, surely you agree that in principle you can foul someone without touching them. I mean, if you launch yourself feet-first at their head, the ref's got to blow up even if they duck.

Yeah - thats using a pretty extreme case though. There are plenty of chances for a defender to have a swipe at the ball and miss in which he doesn't make contact with the attacker and the attacker moves the ball away. To me that isn't a foul. If he was to say lose the ball in the next phase with no advantave I still don't think a foul should be blown and brought back for that type of incident. The ashley cole one springs to mind where Keane feigned a leg breaker on him.

Every time he did one of those tackles he should have been redcarded whether he caught the player or not.

Exactly. For me there is just no need to do that. No need to go flying in so hard that you are in danger of wiping a player out. I personally don't get that aspect of defending. Whenever I went sliding in I always went for the ball or just tracked back to get into a better position to defend. Tackles that launch directly at the player are far worse than someone sliding across a players axis of movement and clipping them which often get blown up as bad fouls as well.

So you say Ronaldo should have kicked the keeper in the head so the penalty could be won fairly? I don't think you realise how ridiculous that sounds. Natural instinct would be for Ronaldo to make sure he isn't getting hurt, and to not kick the keeper in the face.

It happened to Kusackz? (sp) There are a lot of less skilled players that don't have the aid of super fast feet and a razor sharp football brain. It's all well and good to identify certain passages as though anything is possible. But in this case I think Ronaldo could have avoided the challenge and continued on with the ball. But it is up to the referees disgression. Like that Robben one he was actually caught but had the chance to score and chose to go down. That is deception for mine and despite actually being fouled deserves to be punished. Or Carroll just stick it in the back of the net instead of trying to get something extra.

If a player has to take evasive action to avoid injury by a reckless tackle, and successfully manages to avoid the injury, but in doing is disadvantaged in terms of losing possession/momentum as a result of evading the reckless tackle, then it should be a foul, yes.

I agree (even if it contradicts me a little bit). Not every player can avoid challenges. Ones that connect and connect badly are often the defenders fault.

 

[Ramshock]

Verbal fouls are a big grey area in football, you can technically foul a player verbally and its considered unsporting conduct

http://www.the-ref.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=712

 

[Maestro Minded]

I'm surprised that only one person has referred to Law 12.

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
....
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent.

...

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by
a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball,
provided it is in play.

So, jumping away from the keeper to avoid contact and possible injury, like Ronaldo did for example, should result in penalty and red card to the keeper.

 

[Maestro Minded]

The interesting question is: Is it possible to give a a yellow card for a dive, but also a penalty at the same time? (For example, the Robben incident)

 

[WeasteDevil]

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

Foul play and committing a foul against a player are different things. Handball, being offside, diving, dangerous play, calling the ref a cnut, etc. is foul play. I can't think of a foul play that hurts a player without physical contact, verbal/racial abuse is all that comes to mind, but is that foul play or bringing the game into disrepute?

 

[Silva]

Jesus Christ I must have been pretty bloody high when I was posting in this thread, I'm having a hard time understand what I was saying.

 

[I'm always right]

No there doesn't have to be contact, if I'm running at a player at speed and his leg comes across to foul me, I'd jump/"dive" over it rather than running straight through his leg, that's human nature... why would I put myself in a position to get hurt?

 

[kouroux]

Fortunately there doesn't need to be a contact for a certain action to be deemed as a foul.It'd be reacting to consequences instead of anticipating them

 

[WeasteDevil]

That's not the question posed though. It's "can you foul a player without making contact" not "can you commit a foul without contacting a player".

 

[AKDevil]

I'm surprised that only one person has referred to Law 12.



So, jumping away from the keeper to avoid contact and possible injury, like Ronaldo did for example, should result in penalty and red card to the keeper.

The fact Law 12 is so clear is one of the reasons I hate when pundits talk about there being no contact when analysing decisions.
They are paid to provide insight and analysis but many clearly don't know the rules.

 

[Dion]

If it's careless, reckless or uses excessive force then yes.

I do find it odd that it doesn't say "holds or attempts to hold an opponent", in which case the Young dive wasn't a foul even by the harshest application of the rules.

 

[Snow]

If your try and punch or kick someone and miss you get the same ban as if you would have made contact.

 

[rcoobc]

What scares me is that if a goalie tried to get the ball from the feet of a player, missed the ball and would have taken out the player but for him jumping out the way.. he should receive the same punishment as if he had hit the player.

But if a referee gave that penalty and red card he would be crucified.