Case Study: What's Wrong With This Picture?, Vol. 1

Today iTOOTR shares the first installment in an occasional series titled “What’s Wrong With This Picture?”.  These are random images that we’ve found on the Internet, or, in some cases, photos we’ve taken ourselves.

Here’s one I found in my Twitter feed.  I’ve obscured the players’ faces to protect their anonymity.

I think we’re all clear on what is wrong with this picture.  I was disappointed to learn from one of the players involved in the match that the referee whistled for “high kick”.  Let’s hope she was simply remembering wrong.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

11 responses to “Case Study: What's Wrong With This Picture?, Vol. 1”

  1. Reckless Play In A Dangerous Manner, Yellow Card Caution At MINIMUM. With Full Context, Perhaps A SFP RED Card For Excessive Play…But High Kick?..Haha..High Kick is pretty much only high kick when it comes Close to the head/neck/shoulders….Not when it actually makes hard contact..


    • “Play In A Dangerous Manner” — I think you’re trying to say “Playing in a dangerous manner”? That’s an IFK.
      You can’t give a yellow for an IFK; you can give an IFK for a yellow, i.e., “Any other reason for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player” but you cannot give a yellow for another IFK.

      Further, couldn’t the referee give a DFK even if the player didn’t hit the opponent? Last time I checked the laws, one of the DFK offences was “kicks or attempts to kick an opponent…carelessly, recklessly, or using excessive force.”

      Third, “Perhaps a SFP RED Card For Excessive Play” makes no sense. SFP is for excessive force and not excessive play. Playing excessively is a good thing and we want more players to do that. Also, you don’t need to enumerate that the SFP is for excessive force, as there’s nothing else for which it could be.

      Fourth, And coming back to my second point, “High Kick” cannot be penalised with an indirect free kick. If you call the action a kick, then it falls under “kicks or attempts to kick an opponent.” If you consider that it endangers the safety of an opponent, you must penalise it with a direct free kick. Nowhere in the lawbook does the phrase “high kick” exist. For that reason, I avoid using those words, especially if I’m going to call an IFK.

      Fifth, there is no way to tell from this picture what colour card should be shown. Strictly speaking, if this challenge happened “carefully,” then no foul can even be given, as it did not meet the standards of “careless.”

      So, what’s wrong with this picture?
      The referee gave an IFK for something which he said was a kick, and should therefore have been a DFK. The referee gave an IFK for something that involved (1) contact between two players (2) on opposing teams (3) on the field of play (4) while the ball was in play; it’s impossible to give an IFK for any such infraction.

      p.s. Something else that’s wrong with this picture is your credibility as a referee if the above response is your sort of idea of a proper answer to a question about the Laws.


  2. No such thing as high kick, just dangerous play, but this should be a foul with a direct free kick, and perhaps a card depending on different factors, (ex: level of play, previous fouls, etc.).


    • Excellent question, Sergio. I can’t answer because I wasn’t there, but perhaps that is the point you are making.


  3. Without seeing the action leading up to this snapshot, one cannot judge weather a foul was committed or not you most certainly cannot say what color card, if any should be given. Remember the 3 types of fouls (ones used carlessly (just a foul) recklessly (a caution), and excessive force (a send off). Form the looks of it the kicker is in a defensive position so excessive force doesn’t seem likely. It could be that the kicker and the runner might have been coming together on the play (the player kicking the ball as the runner was coming to make a play). It looks like the player kicked is leaning forward. You just cannot tell with this shot unless you see all the elements (3 to 5 seconds prior to the kick).


  4. Well gentlemen, the fact there is contact with an opponent changes everything, if we see the picture. Looks bad.
    To begin with, there is no infraction called HIGH KICK in the laws of the game (law 12), only playing in a dangerous manner, but in this case the foul may have started as simply dangerous play but ended in a reckless foul just for the simple fact the blue player isn’t playing the ball any more. Probably the white player headed the ball first, then blue made contact with the ball and her foot or boot or shoe on her opponent’s face. A caution must be issued for this play and restart with DFK.
    If excessive force was used in this play then we can issue a red card and send off the player for SFP but blue player never locked her knee or extended her leg to make hard contact with the opponent.


  5. Intersting that no one considered that White may be the player guilty of Dangerous Play. If Blue’s foot was in the air PRIOR to White trying for a header then WHITE is guilty of Dangerous play – no different than if she had gone for a header below the waist.

    The problem with a snapshot is that it is impossible to make this call with nothing more than we see here.


  6. Yeah if you are gonna call a foul on the white player, good luck keeping any shred of credability for the rest of the match. As referees, we dont not judge intent on fouls. We only judge action. The fact is that the blue player is exposing studs to the opponents face. Assuming contact is made (which it looks like it is), then this is SFP, no questions asked. It doesn’t matter if her leg is locked out her not. She’s kicking an opponent in the face! From the ATR, everyone “It is also serious foul play if a player commits any tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent” If anyone has a good arguement for how this isn’t severely endangering the opponent, I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, this should be an open and shut case.


    • Determining whether it is a foul or not, yes, we should not use intent. But for SFP, yes, you can use intent to judge whether misconduct happened.


  7. If there is contact in a dangerous play it becomes a foul. Therefore, this is signaled as a foul and I would issue a red card for excessive force.


Leave a Reply to itootrdotcom Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: