RefLive

Dangerous play (high foot)

Discussion in 'New Referees' started by TopCat, Aug 7, 2017.

  1. TopCat

    TopCat New Member Level 8 Referee

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    7
    County FA/Organisation:
    Nottinghamshire
    Hi all,
    Me again, I was just wondering if you would be kind enough to share your views on high foot (dangerous play) incidents. Couple of times over last few weeks i have had it where a player has kind of dangled there foot in around stomach to lower chest area and defender has headed it and i have allowed play to continue, this caused uproar on sunday when i then had to give a handball on edge of box a few seconds later. If for example an attackers foot is reasonably high,do you guys always give the idfk if the defender heads the ball cleanly and apparently unimpeded? Apologies if this is deemed a stupid question I am wondering if should maybe take the easier option and just give it when that kind of scenario occurs but also conscious we aren't there to be popular?!
    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RefLive Advertisement RefLive

    RefLive
  4. Mintyref

    Mintyref Well-Known Member Level 6 Referee

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2016
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    304
    County FA/Organisation:
    East Riding of Yorkshire
    Think about the opposite, is the defender by putting his head where feet should be the one committing the act of 'dangerous play'? I've given it...........
     
  5. GraemeS

    GraemeS Well-Known Member Level 5 Referee

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes Received:
    466
    County FA/Organisation:
    Essex
    For me, there is a region up to about stomach height where a player can expect to use his foot without having to worry about an opponents head (obviously they're still responsible for not putting their studs into an opponents knee/thigh etc.). If an opponent deliberately puts his head that low in an attempt to play the ball, they're the one I'll penalise. If it's borderline, go with the high boot as that's more dangerous and to be honest, more in line with what players will expect.

    Similarly, above that height it becomes their responsibility to make sure the opponents head doesn't get too close. I've had some shouts for "high foot ref!" when both players have gone in for the ball with their feet - and in the absence of any contact, that's simply getting waved away. Same for when a player miles from anyone else controls a chest high ball with an outstretched leg - who's that dangerous to?
     
  6. zarathustra

    zarathustra Well-Known Member Level 6 Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    349
    County FA/Organisation:
    Kent
    I'm with GraemeS on this.

    I think that a little above waist height is a reasonable height for a play to have their foot when challenging for a high ball, so if a player sticks their head down there then I'd be penalising them. Not sure how well that would go down with the players as most seem to struggle to grasp the concept of the player putting his head in the way as being the one playing in a dangerous manner.
     
  7. happy whistler

    happy whistler Member Level 7 Referee

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    21
    County FA/Organisation:
    worcestershire
    I am glad has raised this point as I have encountered a few incidents this year when one player has ducked his head about 6 inches and his opponent has his foot 4 to 5 feet above the ground dangerously close to this marginally ducked head. I give the decision to award the IDFK for playing in a dangerous manner against the player with the high foot only to met with ' you cannot give that ref he has ducked his head if anything it should be a free kick to us' . This does seem to be the latest players misconception of the laws that is creeping in.
     
  8. santa sangria

    santa sangria Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    227
    My weakness with this is when both players have really high feet. A few times when there has been no major contact, even both players only making contact with the ball, I have made no decision. In retrospect there have been a few of these where I should have stopped play - even where it has been impossible to judge the worst offender - pick one, blow, make the decision, IDFK or DK if contact, don't shirk it. If you don't blow for high feet there will be likely be problems with match control soon!
     
  9. TopCat

    TopCat New Member Level 8 Referee

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    7
    County FA/Organisation:
    Nottinghamshire
    I also wonder...how many ref's have given an attacking idfk in defensive penalty box for this offence??
     
  10. GraemeS

    GraemeS Well-Known Member Level 5 Referee

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes Received:
    466
    County FA/Organisation:
    Essex
    I disagree. If both players are going in with their boots, is that automatically more dangerous than two players going in for the same challenge at ground level? "High feet" isn't an offence alone unless it also counts as dangerous play and I think if two players are both going for a high ball with their feet and both their bodies stay a reasonable distance away, where's the increased danger level?
     
  11. santa sangria

    santa sangria Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    227
    You are right - sometimes there is no danger - I'm talking about times when there is... good news is I put this into action today;) (and gave a pen for a GK wiping out a player with his arm as he dived and reached around... it was like a tackle from behind with his arm... anyway I digress...
     
    GraemeS likes this.

Share This Page