Off the ground tackle

[Ori]

Just need to know what the correct procedure is here as players defending their actions have me questioning myself.

Off the ground tackle where they get the ball. I had 3 in the match

First one - off the ground (jumps up before slide), gets the ball. Other player withdrew from challenge when he saw him off the ground.
Is it a foul? Is a sanction mandatory?

Second one, same thing, but player didn’t withdraw.
Is it a foul? Is it a sanction?

Third one, in the box, two footed, off the ground (jumps up before tackle) gets the ball.
Is it a foul and is it a sanction?

 

[Tealeaf]

Easiest to give these as fouls. At least in part the jump is designed to intimidate and cause the player to back out as happened on one of the occasions you’ve described.

And of course if it does go wrong then you’re looking at a potentially serious injury. Try and nip it in the bud if you can.

As for sanctions, advice *used* to be;

- No contact with ball or player. Direct free kick. Possible caution.

-Contact with ball but not player. Direct free kick and caution.

- Contact with ball and player, direct free kick and red card.

- Contact with player and not the ball; direct free kick and red card.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

First place to go to would be Law 12.
Did the player kick or attempt to kick an opponent?
Did the player strike or attempt to strike an opponent?
Was the challenge dangerous?
If any of these apply, consider the possible sanctions using the same approach.

 

[Ori]

First place to go to would be Law 12.
Did the player kick or attempt to kick an opponent?
Did the player strike or attempt to strike an opponent?
Was the challenge dangerous?
If any of these apply, consider the possible sanctions using the same approach.

I always think that off the ground is asking for trouble.

 

[ARF]

Just need to know what the correct procedure is here as players defending their actions have me questioning myself.

Off the ground tackle where they get the ball. I had 3 in the match

First one - off the ground (jumps up before slide), gets the ball. Other player withdrew from challenge when he saw him off the ground.
Is it a foul? Is a sanction mandatory?

Second one, same thing, but player didn’t withdraw.
Is it a foul? Is it a sanction?

Third one, in the box, two footed, off the ground (jumps up before tackle) gets the ball.
Is it a foul and is it a sanction?

In theory, leaving the ground by itself doesn't automatically make a tackle a foul... although in practice it's usually going to be the case. As for sanctions, it's mostly going to be down to the amount of force used and the point of contact (or likely point of contact had the opponent not taken evasive action) - leaving the ground whilst making a tackle is probably going to increase the force in the challenge as the full weight of the player will be behind them, and is also probably going to elevate the point of contact.

 

[one]

Off the ground itself is not what should determine the decision, its what it means and the consequences of it. Once a player is off the ground he has very little control of their body movement.

There are so many considerations here. Speed, direction of travel for both players. Distance to ball and to opponent when committing to tackle, if contact is made and with what force, was the player still off the ground at the time of contact. Which player was likely (and how likely) to play the ball first before the committing to the tackle. I guess what I am saying is you have to be there. But on the whole it is much more likely to be a foul than not and sanction depends on all the considerations above.

 

[NoFoulsAllowed]

I think it is important to consider what actually happened. As referees we get the benefit of judging challenges after they have happened (if you are really good you can even keep an eye out for the reaction and expectations). So if a player jumps into a challenge, wins the ball, nobody bats an eyelid and the games carries on, play on.

I have seen some wildly fast paced challenges where a player goes airborne with the leg locked out and misses a player. Which I have stopped and had a word.

I'll have a bash at your questions:

1. First one - off the ground (jumps up before slide), gets the ball. Other player withdrew from challenge when he saw him off the ground.
Is it a foul? Is a sanction mandatory?

If a player withdraws from a challenge, because they perceive it to be too dangerous (and I can see why they did it). I would be blowing my whistle. Most likely I would be applying 'Playing in a Dangerous Manner'. So IDFK - No caution.
"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury." - Law 12.2

Second one, same thing, but player didn’t withdraw.
Is it a foul? Is it a sanction?
Since the tackle was made, I would probably be gauging if it was actually dangerous or just a good tackle, as you've mentioned they won the ball. If I thought it was dangerous (and others did too, eg. looking at the reaction) I would be going, DFK, then booking would be based on careless, reckless, excessive. Likely gearing this towards a talking to in most cases and try and manage it.

Third one, in the box, two footed, off the ground (jumps up before tackle) gets the ball.
Is it a foul and is it a sanction?
Assuming by jumps up, you mean the attacker, jumps over the challenge to avoid injury, no contact made. So same as the first, Playing in a dangerous manner. IDFK. Possible yellow if SPA, or DOGSO red.

 

[socal lurker]

It is also a DFK offense to carelessly or recklessly tackle or challenge an opponent. I think DFK is the right call as described. Note that Law 12 expressly talks about lunging in discussing SFP. I don’t see using PiADM on these t all. I’m either giving. DFK (and likely a card) or nothing at all. (Always a bit of a challenge picturing from a written description.)

 

[Ori]

It is also a DFK offense to carelessly or recklessly tackle or challenge an opponent. I think DFK is the right call as described. Note that Law 12 expressly talks about lunging in discussing SFP. I don’t see using PiADM on these t all. I’m either giving. DFK (and likely a card) or nothing at all. (Always a bit of a challenge picturing from a written description.)

So I agree with you and in all instances I have a yellow and not a red as studs weren’t out. Once I gave the first one, I had set my stall out and had to maintain that throughout the match.

If they had connected with the player though…..I would issue a red as off the ground with force is potentially a leg breaker.
I believe I am right in law.

 

[easytiger]

Nothing in the laws of the game about studs being in or out, is there?

 

[Ori]

Nothing in the laws of the game about studs being in or out, is there?

Studs out makes it dangerous.

 

[Kes]

Studs out makes it dangerous.

Unless a player goes into a challenge with their foot pointed downwards like a ballerina then studs will always be "out".
I hate this daft term. Just another example of player myth like "last man" for DOGSO.
It's my own belief that leaving the ground before a challenge/jumping is careless at best and the expectation is that it will be penalised, irrespective of whether or not there's contact.

 

[JamesL]

Unless a player goes into a challenge with their foot pointed downwards like a ballerina then studs will always be "out".
I hate this daft term. Just another example of player myth like "last man" for DOGSO.
It's my own belief that leaving the ground before a challenge/jumping is careless at best and the expectation is that it will be penalised, irrespective of whether or not there's contact.

Leaving the ground before jumping? I don't even know where to start

I think in a sliding challenge there is always an element of leaving the ground by it's very nature, I think it's the height, lack of control and lunging elements that give rise challenges that, generally, need to be punished.

 

[one]

While we make statements about actions like off the floor, studs showing, speed, not touching the ball or other actions that make a challenge a "bad" challenge we all have some pictures in our head. It's important to make sure we don't make these actions definitive decision making factors. The only definitive decision making factors are defined in law as part of CRUEF definitions.

I can picture a challenge, off the floor lunge, with speed, studs showing, contact with opponent, no contact with ball, not even qualifying for a careless challenge. That's why we always say "you have to be there".

 

[Kes]

Leaving the ground before jumping? I don't even know where to start

Your inability to read plain English is no concern of mine Mr Moderator. Pray, stick to those spelling and grammar tests I sent you and leave the wordsmithery to them what knows how to do it.

 

[socal lurker]

While we make statements about actions like off the floor, studs showing, speed, not touching the ball or other actions that make a challenge a "bad" challenge we all have some pictures in our head. It's important to make sure we don't make these actions definitive decision making factors. The only definitive decision making factors are defined in law as part of CRUEF definitions.

I can picture a challenge, off the floor lunge, with speed, studs showing, contact with opponent, no contact with ball, not even qualifying for a careless challenge. That's why we always say "you have to be there".

I think the first paragraph is critical. There are a lot of factors that help us decide CRUEF, and over focus on one can mean losing the forest for the trees.

But I really cannot picture a “ challenge, off the floor lunge, with speed, studs showing, contact with opponent, no contact with ball, not even qualifying for a careless challenge.” I can’t see how you can put all of those together and not consider it at least a careless foul and be clear that kind of aggression is not going to b tolerated.

 

[one]

I think the first paragraph is critical. There are a lot of factors that help us decide CRUEF, and over focus on one can mean losing the forest for the trees.

But I really cannot picture a “ challenge, off the floor lunge, with speed, studs showing, contact with opponent, no contact with ball, not even qualifying for a careless challenge.” I can’t see how you can put all of those together and not consider it at least a careless foul and be clear that kind of aggression is not going to b tolerated.

Of course its going to be a matter how well I can explain it and then a matter of Opinion. Picture two players chasing a ball that is rolling away from them towards touchline. The two players are running at speed, shoulder to shoulder in the same direction, which is the same direction of the rolling ball. When they are about 3m away from the ball, player A who is very slightly ahead lunges in the air towards the ball, studs showing etc. etc. His upper torso is in contact with the lower torso of player B immediately after the lunge but not a great deal of force between them and more so because of a small sideways movement/push of player B to gain the ascendancy. The lunge is not timed well and misses the ball altogether. Player B continues his run past player A on the floor and controls the ball.

The way I picture this, it has all the bad factors in a bad challenge but it is not CRUEF due to the often not discussed direction factor. I can understand if a free kick is given for match control or 'sending the right messages'.

The point was, the words we use to describe a challenge with the picture in our head may not paint the same picture the reader's head.

 

[socal lurker]

I see. I think of “studs showing” as meaning towards an opponent.

 

[one]

Well yeah... I rest my case.

The point was, the words we use to describe a challenge with the picture in our head may not paint the same picture the reader's head.