GPS 1 - Baylor 0

[Owl-Tracker]

Helped take Baylor to the State Finals last year as a Freshman.... yeah she's that GOOD!

 

She was the Goalie for my daughters 8th Grade MS team (Hunter went undefeated that year). She's a great kid! Hope she heals completely and as quickly as possible.

[lukelea]

says in the paper this morning she might have broken her coller bone..thats no fun..I hope shes alright!

 

 

My daughter is on the Baylor team and tells me the diagnosis is a clean break of the collar bone -- out for six weeks. What happened basically is that the goalie, Taylor Davidson, caught the ball but a late header went straight into her collarbone. What are the rules on this?

[basehits]

My daughter is on the Baylor team and tells me the diagnosis is a clean break of the collar bone -- out for six weeks. What happened basically is that the goalie, Taylor Davidson, caught the ball but a late header went straight into her collarbone. What are the rules on this?

How late was it.....if they were both going for the ball at the same time...than it isnt a foul....did the ref call it a foul?? Hope that the goalie is okay.

[DonCChatt]

How late was it.....if they were both going for the ball at the same time...than it isnt a foul....did the ref call it a foul?? Hope that the goalie is okay.

 

 

There was no foul called, though the center ref and the line judge did confer after the play.

[lukelea]

How late was it.....if they were both going for the ball at the same time...than it isnt a foul....did the ref call it a foul?? Hope that the goalie is okay.

 

 

Yes, a foul was called, but no card issued. The blow delivered was, if not a flying header, one delivered at a great rate of speed, and from a player who has a reputation (among club players) for reckless play.

 

I guess my question is, where do you draw the line in a situation like this, when the offensive player is moving at a high rate of speed directly towards the goalie, who was not moving in a lateral direction and actually caught the ball a couple of yards in front of the goal?

 

Given that it was a foul, why wasn't it a serious foul? Goalies are nothing if not vulnerable in this situation.

[mtnman]

I don't think I have ever seen anyone from GPS do anything dirty.

 

Maybe in club ball but haven't seen it at GPS.

 

I was at the game but didnt really see it.

[lukelea]

I don't think I have ever seen anyone from GPS do anything dirty.

 

Maybe in club ball but haven't seen it at GPS.

 

I was at the game but didnt really see it.

 

 

I think reckless endangerment is the phrase I am looking for, not dirty play. My question is how, under the circumstances, could a head dilivered directly to the goalie's collarbone NOT have been reckless? And once the seriousness of the injury became apparent -- the goalie would not allow anyone to touch her -- why wasn't the seriousness of the foul upgraded accordingly? Do refs have discretion in such situations up until the time that play resumes? Do they, by the customs of soccer, have an obligation?

 

I hope my readers will understand that my concern is solely with the general principle of the situation and the physical safety of goalies. I am not questioning, let alone complaining about, the outcome of the game -- which, as coach Weekly informed the press, may turn out to be a good thing for Baylor. We have a well-balanced team both offensively and defensively and so far, at least, very few shots have been delivered to goal. (Of course that may change. )

 

Looking forward, then, let me rephrase my concern as a parent with admittedly limited soccer experience:

 

Do the league refs get together from time to time to discuss the proper way to handle this kind of contingency when and if it arises again? Or is it understood and accepted among them to be a matter of individual judgment?

 

Are there special rules that apply, or should apply, only to goalies, (as with punters in football for example) which take into account of the vulnerable situations to which goalies routinely expose themselves when their hands are outstretched and their attention is focused on the ball (not talking about diving saves for instance)?

 

That's all I am asking. As a matter of information, what are the rules of the game in this particular situation? Are there any?

Edited October 7, 2006 by lukelea

[hamlet7478]

There was no foul called, though the center ref and the line judge did confer after the play.

 

Please see the thread titled, "Refereeing, Coaching and Injuries in Women's Soccer"

 

I believe it's part of a mindset that needs to move to safety first. For example, in this instance, if the player who fouled the goal keeper had been told formally that when in doubt, don't act, and, if you don't pull back, severe consequences may ensue, she may have passed on diving into the keeper. I don't want to place undue blame on this one player, more on the coaches, referees, and, yes, parents who need to instill a safety mentality among players.

 

I would contend, further, that instilling a safety mentality would not slow down the game, but speed it up (much like the NHL last year), as the young ladies are allowed to showcase their speed and skill without fear of careless or retaliation fouls.

 

As we say in industry, all accidents are avoidable. Maybe not 100% in soccer, but we need to do a lot better.

[uncfan13]

I think reckless endangerment is the phrase I am looking for, not dirty play. My question is how, under the circumstances, could a head dilivered directly to the goalie's collarbone NOT have been reckless? And once the seriousness of the injury became apparent -- the goalie would not allow anyone to touch her -- why wasn't the seriousness of the foul upgraded accordingly? Do refs have discretion in such situations up until the time that play resumes? Do they, by the customs of soccer, have an obligation?

 

I hope my readers will understand that my concern is solely with the general principle of the situation and the physical safety of goalies. I am not questioning, let alone complaining about, the outcome of the game -- which, as coach Weekly informed the press, may turn out to be a good thing for Baylor. We have a well-balanced team both offensively and defensively and so far, at least, very few shots have been delivered to goal. (Of course that may change. )

 

Looking forward, then, let me rephrase my concern as a parent with admittedly limited soccer experience:

 

Do the league refs get together from time to time to discuss the proper way to handle this kind of contingency when and if it arises again? Or is it understood and accepted among them to be a matter of individual judgment?

 

Are there special rules that apply, or should apply, only to goalies, (as with punters in football for example) which take into account of the vulnerable situations to which goalies routinely expose themselves when their hands are outstretched and their attention is focused on the ball (not talking about diving saves for instance)?

 

That's all I am asking. As a matter of information, what are the rules of the game in this particular situation? Are there any?

 

As with seemingly every thing having to do with officiating a soccer match, it was a judgement call by the center ref who had an unimpeded view of the play (his words). We were at a tournament years ago where a female goalie got kicked in the neck and died. Goalies are vulnerable and are allowed some protection. On the play in question, with a lot of players in the box and a crossed ball (and and outstanding one at that), collisions happen. Incidental physical contact is part of the game. Knees, noses and collar bones seem to account for the most injuries. I thought the game was well played by both teams with good sportmanship demonstrated as I would expect from teams coached by Weekly and Kesler.

[mtnman]

I don't think the ref should make a call based on the seriousness of the injury. He should call it based on what he saw.

 

Alot of "reckless" things happen in soccer. The girl went up for a header in a crowd, (probably with her eyes closed) and happened to hit the keeper in the collarbone.

 

Very unfortunate but I don't think there should be a penalty. Maybe a foul.

 

Refs do need to protect the keeper but on a hard cross in the box, there is going to be contact.

[basehits]

I don't think the ref should make a call based on the seriousness of the injury. He should call it based on what he saw.

 

Alot of "reckless" things happen in soccer. The girl went up for a header in a crowd, (probably with her eyes closed) and happened to hit the keeper in the collarbone.

 

Very unfortunate but I don't think there should be a penalty. Maybe a foul.

 

Refs do need to protect the keeper but on a hard cross in the box, there is going to be contact.

We are talking alot about the goalie but what about all the abuse that forwards get from defenders and goalies. It is the refs job to keep the game safe for everyone. It usually is pretty clear that when a ref lets the game get out of control there are injuries. Injuries do happen it is part of the game. I do totally agree with mtnman she probably did have her eyes closed I highly doult she was trying to break the goalies collarbone. The call should have been a foul maybe a yellow card but what else should have been done???

[lukelea]

But did the girl indeed just "go up" for the ball, or was she charging in at full stride? Collar bones don't break that easily, and this goalie had no history of broken bones.

 

If the ref did in fact have a clear unobstructed view of what happened -- how would you know? -- then I wish he would tell us exactly what he saw. Is he out there?

 

My guess is that he had an obstructed view and thus was unable to judge the severity of the collision when it initially occured. But once its severity became apparent in the aftermath, should he not have at that point adjusted his penalty accordingly?

 

Here is a simple thought experiment: try to imagine a collision between a rapidly moving offensive player and a relatively stationary goalie that is NOT a penalty. And if it is a head-on collision instead of glancing one, what difference does that make?