A news crew filmed a violent assault during a girl’s high school soccer match between Chester High School and Lewisville High School on Monday evening in  Chester County, South Carolina.

In the video, a senior player from Lewisville is tripped and falls to the ground by a Chester High School player.  When the Lewisville player gets on the ground, she punches and drags her opponent by the hair.  A number of punches are delivered over a period of 10 seconds as the Chester opponent protects herself on the ground.  The video shows at least eleven punches to the face.

Chester County Sheriff deputies were called to Lewisville High School after the assault.  The school’s resource officer is investigating the incident to see if charges will be filed. Referees will review the video with the league to determine suspensions.

Referee Alan Parker spoke to WBTV3 after the game:

[quote type="large" align="left"] “Some incidental contact ended in one girl going down and she just got up and started pummeling. It’s unfortunate, it really is. Contact is a part of soccer, but when you retaliate like that, obviously, there is no place in the game for that. Occasionally you have players that go at it, on the field together, but in this case it was just one girl pummeling the other girl. And she didn’t stop which is even more egregious.” [/quote]

 

Source: WBTV3

Check out the video and let us know your reaction to the footage.

%CODE1%

Jeb Brovsky of the Montreal Impact was only 19 minutes into Saturday’s match against Columbus Crew when he was sent off for striking an opponent with his elbow during a header.

Montreal captain Davy Arnaud told MLSsoccer.com following the match:

[quote type="large" align="left"]“I wasn’t too far away from [the foul]. It’s unfortunate. Sometimes, decisions go against you,” Arnaud explained. “I think what happened on the play was contact that happens many, many times during a game. I think it was nothing out of the ordinary.” [/quote]

 

Here is video of the incident:

Referees are using their best judgment to detect diving. In a Belgian amateur match between Templeuve and Quevy, Julien Lecomte takes an elbow to the back of the head as he goes for a header. He suffered a concussion and three displaced vertebrae from the collision and had to be carted off the pitch on a stretcher.

The referee determined Lecomte was diving to win a penalty kick, and awarded the unconscious soccer player a yellow card. Since it was Lecomte’s second yellow of the match, the referee follows up with a red card to the injured player on the stretcher.

Check out the video:

[youtube width="500" height="300"]Qzbfxx8bq3M[/youtube]

Was this worthy of a yellow card for diving?

A Hong Kong youth match turned violent when one player from the English Schools Foundation Lions team was captured on video kicking a 12-year-old playing for Kitchee Escola team in the head during the game.

Police arrested the 10-year-old ESF player this past week and then released him on bail.

Go to the 1:30 mark in the video below and you will see the Kitchee player make a bad tackle. While he is on the ground, an ESF Lions player ignores the ball and kicks the opponent in the head.

[youtube width="500" height="300"]SMit6jQeY3Q[/youtube]

The London Daily Telegraph reports:

[quote type="large" align="left"]While the older boy did not suffer a serious injury, his parents filed a police complaint. On Monday, the ten-year-old was released on bail. “I understand that the parent of the injured child has referred the matter to the police and we will cooperate fully with any police investigation,” said the head of Hong Kong’s English Schools Foundation (ESF) in a letter to parents.[/quote]

 

Retaliation Foul and Penalty Kick

Referee David Gantar blows the whistle to stop play during the San Jose Earthquakes and DC United MLS match on July 3, 2010. (PROREFEREE/Jason Sholl)

Retaliation fouls may occur from a build-up of frustration over time, but they often occur immediately after contact where a player perceives such contact to be a foul. There is a higher risk for quick retaliation by a player when the original contact results in that player losing possession of the ball and facing an imminent attack on their goal.

In the specified clip, the attacking Washington player (in red) is carrying the ball towards the goal line on the flank near AR2. The attacker is tightly defended by the Atlanta player (in orange), who briefly wins the ball at the edge of the penalty area. Although contact exists, the Washington player fairly challenges for the ball and regains an advantageous position in front of the Atlanta defender within the penalty area. In possible retaliation for the previous challenge, the Atlanta defender initiates contact from behind onto the attacker’s ankle, with little attempt or opportunity to play the ball. The force is mild. The challenge is a careless foul for kicking and a Penalty Kick is warranted.

The Referee’s position appears to be initially at an acute angle in relation to the challenge and behind other players who may be blocking a clear line of sight. A wider position on a more traditional diagonal would have given the Referee an unobstructed view of the play, but in either case must recognize the defender’s actions as a penal foul. It is equally important for Assistant Referees to be in line, i.e. “locked in” with the second-to-last-defender (STLD) during the attack. By initially trailing play and then getting slightly ahead of it, AR2 focus and ability to assist the Referee is compromised by not being square to the field, which cuts off a wide field view that should include both the challenge and the position of the Referee. While this foul is the primary responsibility of the Referee, the Assistant Referee’s positioning and orientation contributed to a lack of teamwork and management of the situation.

Penalty Kick Without Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity

Referee Edvin Jurisevic awards a penalty kick during the Chivas USA and San Jose Earthquakes MLS match on April 24, 2010. (PROREFEREE/Jason Sholl)

When faced with a challenge in the Penalty Area, the Referee must make a decision regarding not only foul or no-foul, but whether misconduct has occurred. If a foul has been committed by a defender within the Penalty Area, the Referee must often additionally decide whether the foul denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO-F) warranting the player to be sent off.

In the specified clip, the Atlanta attacker (orange shirt) plays a ball into the penalty area for a teammate to run onto. The ball lands to the left of the attacker, and two Washington defenders (red shirts) are in close proximity in addition to the goalkeeper. The Atlanta attacker is facing away from goal while trying to settle the ball from a high bounce, and the Washington defender (#8) commits a pushing foul from behind without any opportunity or attempt to play the ball. The challenge is a clear foul and a Penalty Kick should be awarded.

The question now arises as to whether this infraction meets the conditions of DOGSO-F, which are summarized with “the 4 D’s”:

  1. Distance between the offence and the goal
  2. Distance (Likelihood) of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  3. Direction of the play
  4. Location and number of Defenders

In this clip, the first condition is clearly met. The mitigating circumstances relate to “Direction of the play”, “Likelihood of gaining control of the ball” and “Location and number of defenders”. The Atlanta player is facing away from goal while she attempts to gain control of a high-bouncing ball. The time needed to control the ball and make the turn to face goal for a goal-scoring opportunity would have likely allowed the additional Washington defender (#23) to challenge for the ball. Together, these circumstances argue against the view that the conditions for DOGSO-F have been met. The foul in itself can be considered careless, but since it was committed to stop an attacking play a Caution for Unsporting Behavior (Tactical foul) is warranted.

The Referee’s positioning throughout the sequence creates difficulty relating to distance from play as well as angle of view. Facing the throw-in closes off the view from the majority of players, who provide the necessary information to see where the next decision will likely be. There is no imminent challenge to the Atlanta player with the ball, therefore the full focus of the Referee is not needed here. Turning towards the outside and facing in (rather than turning inside and facing out) would have put the Referee in a position to keep the Atlanta player with the ball, the remaining field players, and the Assistant Referee in view. Following the pass into the Penalty Area, the Referee would have been able to follow the play in with good proximity and angle, seeing the approach of the defender, the foul, and the elements involved in making the decision for misconduct.

Pages:12»