Defender PIADM in Goal Area??

[rayb]

Hi All. Long time reader and first time poster from Australia here. I would love some guidance on what you do if the following occurred in a game you were reffing.

I know it's not relevant to the incident but it was my first adult game which I volunteered for - due to a ref shortage. Just reffed a junior game in the morning. Personally I just wanted to see if I could do it - I am a first time older ref (mid 50's) who has played for 20 years and still wants to be on the pitch but with less chance of getting injured

It was a very contentious game and the ball ended up in blues goal area where a blue defender either tripped over the ball or his own feet and landed on the ground with his back to the ball but facing the goals. Immediately a yellow attacker was trying to kick the ball - in a non-dangerous manner - into the goal as it was only a couple of metres away. I must emphasise that I believed the attacker was not kicking the player, just the ball (which was being blocked by the grounded defenders back at this stage) - There was some effort by the attacker though to get the ball away from the defender which I thought was was a natural thing to want to do.

At the stage somehow the defender jumped or rolled over the ball while still on the ground so the ball was now in FRONT of the defender with the attacker not able to get to the ball anymore. The defender was trying to pivot on his hip and kick the ball away - his body was not curled or "protecting" the ball. Other attackers and defenders were now on scene where the ball was pinging all over the place with the grounded defender in the middle. Again I could see no dangerous play by the attackers towards the defender on the ground. Eventually the keeper kicked the ball away out of the penalty area.

The yellow attackers immediately were in my face yelling that the grounded defender can't just jump over the ball like that to protect it and they demanded a penalty. I'm pretty sure that's not a thing so waved them away - they were quite adamant and forceful though but with as much confidence I could muster I dismissed their appeals while running in the opposite direction.

To be honest I didn't even think about "Playing in a dangerous Manner" against the grounded defender until the next day when I was reading the LOTG.

Am I correct in saying that when a player falls down near the ball and other players are tying to kick the ball away (regardless of whos team is doing the kicking / slash ball clearing) in a NON-dangerous manner then I need to award a free kick (in my case a penalty??) AGAINST the player on the ground who got there purely by his own clumsiness. Just doesn't seem right and I can just imaging the uproar from the defending team. "What else was he supposed to do", "He had no way of getting out of the way", "He did not have any other option", "WHAT, a penalty for a defender just falling down near the ball", "Your a joke ref" etc etc.

Anyway, I hope I've sent the scene - I'd be really interested in your interpretations of the LOTG and more importantly which decision would you make.

1) Penalty for yellow
2) Indirect free kick in the penalty area 10 yards from goal line (not 100% certain if non-contact PIADM inside the penalty area is still an indirect free kick or penalty)
3) Defensive free kick for Blue
4) Play on.

I eagerly await your response

 

[one]

Welcome to the 'posting' forum. Although not directly mentioned in law, it's implied and commonly accepted that a player is only penalised for PIADM if there is some level of intent to play the ball and hence play in that manner. So in your case (if I understood it correctly) I won't penalise if he just falls next to the ball or even over it. But if he then deliberately tries to roll over it, or if not attempt to clear himself from danger (deliberately stay on the ball for example), I would then penalise. Hope this helps.

 

[rayb]

Thanks for that clarification. It does makes sense about "Intent to play to the ball". If he wants to try and kick it / knee it / head it etc then it's on him and a PIADM offence occurs according to "commonly accepted" practices.

So in my case I should have awarded a penalty and just cop the fallout?

One further question - what if the coach (or anybody really) says to me "Point to the part in the LOTG where that situation is a penalty" - Do I say "I believed he was endangering himself because he decided to stay in play and therefore I have to award a penalty against him."

The thing was it didn't look like he was in danger at any stage - does that assumption even matter though?

Also, what if it was only his team mate / keeper that was trying to clear the ball while the ball was close to the grounded defender - no attacker near the ball at this stage - still the same decision?

 

[socal lurker]

PIADM can never be a DFK/PK—it is an IDFK offense. (I don’t mean to be snarky, but as a ref, you really need to know the DFK and IFK fouls cold.)

As to you scenario, YHTBT. Falling down next to the ball is never going To be PIADM, as the player has to actually do something to make it dangerous.

As I’m picturing it in my head, I probably don’t have PIADM here. As long as he is quickly trying to get the ball away, I’m probably going to do is Eder what he did as reasonable in the circumstances, and not worthy of the ball. If he stays down there rather than trying to get rid of the ball, I’m probably going to call it. (And, again, calling PIADM always means giving an IFK, never a PK/DFK.)

land id the attapicker kicks the defender, it’s a FK coming out.

 

[rayb]

Thankyou social lurker for your directness with regarding the LOTG. I was aware and PIADM is an IDFK outside the penalty area - just wasn't too sure about inside the penalty area and wanted to be 100% confident before calling a penalty. To be clear I volunteered to ref the adult game as a favour to the players and the club because there was no other ref. The only game I officially reffed before this one was a junior game in the morning and they approached me as I was the only official ref on the ground.

I am well aware that I still need to learn all the rules inside-out and I now feel obliged to point out that it was only my second game ever as an official ref. I didn't mention this in the OP because this post is not about whether I should have reffed the game (I'm sure many will be of the opinion that I should not have).

I posted here to learn about PIADM and now I know that it's an IDFK in the penalty area I believe that was probably the correct call. I very rarely have seen IDFK for PIADM in the penalty area both in professional matches or local matches. In fact I can't remember any so I assume this is not a common occurrence - I would welcome others to comment if this is a common thing to ref or not.

So in summary of incident according the LOTG and something called "Commonly Accepted Practices" as a result of;

1) Defender falls down in goal area due to his own fault.

2) Defender then DEFINITELY was getting involved by rolling over the ball, trying to knee / kick it etc to clear it with no attempt to remove himself from the situation. He WAS trying to get the ball away quickly just not succeeding as it was ricocheting off other players etc and

3) Attackers not directly kicking the player but using some force to get the ball into the goal.

The call should be an IDFK is awarded against the defender 10 yards from the goal line.

I still welcome all other comments or thoughts regarding the PIADM incident.

 

[socal lurker]

Based o. What you write, it was either an IFK or a no-call. It’s a weird scenario that doesn’t necessarily have a correct answer, and certainly not one that can be fully clarified on a web discussion board. Don’t lose any sleep over this at all. and welcome to the world of refereeing.

 

[rayb]

Thanks heaps for that as I decided at the time that it was a "No Call" and hoped it was OK. I understand it was a YHTBT moment but if you think it was a weird scenario then I feel better about the whole thing.

If it happens again exactly like it did I will feel much more confident in giving an IDFK in the penalty area as that would get the attacking team off my back and not award a penalty for the incident. If anybody was going to ask me what the hell was going on I can explain it.

It would be strange that the first IDFK in the penalty area I can remember seeing would be as a result of own decisions

 

[Will_A]

Personally, I’m going defensive free kick.

Not because there’s an actual infringement but it’s the safest option.
Yes you’ll get some arguments from the attackers but they’ll soon forget about it, whereas if you give an IDFK in the area that then results in a goal, it won’t be forgotten and will result in far more arguments!

The picture you’ve painted for me gives the impression it was a messy goal mouth scramble with players surrounding the defender on the floor. Easy enough to find any contact with the defender and give the safe, soft foul!

Give the defensive free kick and then quickly make your way to your position for the restart!

 

[rayb]

YES Will_A. That was EXACTLY my thinking as well. The right but tougher and riskier decision was PIADM but safe referring would be to give a defensive soft foul. Your right, I could have put in a hard sell to the attackers even though I'm sure they would have laughed at me.

What made it worse was that a few minutes earlier the ball hit the shoulder of a blue attacker at the other end of the field and then he kicked it in the goal which I saw no reason not to give. Of course all the defenders and keeper thought it was hand ball of the upper arm but I swear it was more shoulder than arm. Should have also played the safe referring option then too as, in hindsight - I could have sold the hand ball to the blue attacking team.

Anyway, suffice to say the yellow team were not in a good mood when this other goal mouth incident occurred. I guess they call it "Safe Referring" for a reason.

And yes It was a scramble in the goal mouth - you pictured it correctly

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Thankyou social lurker for your directness with regarding the LOTG. I was aware and PIADM is an IDFK outside the penalty area - just wasn't too sure about inside the penalty area and wanted to be 100% confident before calling a penalty. To be clear I volunteered to ref the adult game as a favour to the players and the club because there was no other ref. The only game I officially reffed before this one was a junior game in the morning and they approached me as I was the only official ref on the ground.

I am well aware that I still need to learn all the rules inside-out and I now feel obliged to point out that it was only my second game ever as an official ref. I didn't mention this in the OP because this post is not about whether I should have reffed the game (I'm sure many will be of the opinion that I should not have).

I posted here to learn about PIADM and now I know that it's an IDFK in the penalty area I believe that was probably the correct call. I very rarely have seen IDFK for PIADM in the penalty area both in professional matches or local matches. In fact I can't remember any so I assume this is not a common occurrence - I would welcome others to comment if this is a common thing to ref or not.

So in summary of incident according the LOTG and something called "Commonly Accepted Practices" as a result of;

1) Defender falls down in goal area due to his own fault.

2) Defender then DEFINITELY was getting involved by rolling over the ball, trying to knee / kick it etc to clear it with no attempt to remove himself from the situation. He WAS trying to get the ball away quickly just not succeeding as it was ricocheting off other players etc and

3) Attackers not directly kicking the player but using some force to get the ball into the goal.

The call should be an IDFK is awarded against the defender 10 yards from the goal line.

I still welcome all other comments or thoughts regarding the PIADM incident.

Coming to this late because of the time differences involved - if awarding an indirect free kick to the attacking team for an offence in the goal area the kick is not taken 10 yards out, but should be on the "6 yard line"

 

[rayb]

Actually in hindsight of my hindsight maybe letting play go on was a safe option as well - I might have got more flak from the attackers if I awarded a foul against them.

Then again by letting things go am I making a rod for my back as I have read so often on this forum.

So many options - so little time to make a decision

 

[rayb]

Coming to this late because of the time differences involved - if awarding an indirect free kick to the attacking team for an offence in the goal area the kick is not taken 10 yards out, but should be on the "6 yard line"

Ahh yes, thanks for the correction for the correct restart. I should have researched the restart before posting that line.

In your experience is this a common, rare or very rare incident - ie IDFK for non contact PIADM foul in the goal area?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Ahh yes, thanks for the correction for the correct restart. I should have researched the restart before posting that line.

In your experience is this a common, rare or very rare incident - ie IDFK for non contact PIADM foul in the goal area?

Very rare - one which referees often choose to ignore is the goalkeeper raising a knee close to another player when collecting the ball in his hands, but free kicks for PIADM are usually for scissors kicks close to an opponent.

 

[rayb]

Very rare - one which referees often choose to ignore is the goalkeeper raising a knee close to another player when collecting the ball in his hands, but free kicks for PIADM are usually for scissors kicks close to an opponent.

Oh right. Yes defenders doing scissor kicks I can image would be quite rare too. I didn't think about the keepers knee situation though. I suppose as it's a non-contact incident it would easier to ignore and then maybe warn the keeper for next time.

If the knee makes contact with the attacker though then it would then be an easy penalty I suppose.

Thanks for your insight and I now know that I was presented with an incident on my first adult game that was quite rare - great for learning though

 

[Will_A]

Actually in hindsight of my hindsight maybe letting play go on was a safe option as well - I might have got more flak from the attackers if I awarded a foul against them.

Then again by letting things go am I making a rod for my back as I have read so often on this forum.

So many options - so little time to make a decision

If you let play go on the ball ends up in the net, you’re going to have arguments from defenders.

There’s no easy way out without getting grief (part of the job I’m afraid!) but the grief involved after a decision/non-decision results in a game changing incident (I.e goal, red card etc) is far worse than if you give a soft defensive free kick.
You’ll get about 30 seconds of flak before they forget about it and get on with playing!

 

[rayb]

If you let play go on the ball ends up in the net, you’re going to have arguments from defenders.

There’s no easy way out without getting grief (part of the job I’m afraid!) but the grief involved after a decision/non-decision results in a game changing incident (I.e goal, red card etc) is far worse than if you give a soft defensive free kick.
You’ll get about 30 seconds of flak before they forget about it and get on with playing!

If it ends up in the goal I don't think I'll get flak from the defenders as the attackers were not really aggressive towards the defender on the ground. There was no complaint from them on the day either, just from the attackers that thought the defender couldn't "jump over the ball while on the ground"???

Yes I understand that "Flak Minimisation" could be a factor in this situation but also want to keep true to the LOTG.

 

[GraemeS]

The defender is entitled to a) fall over and b) attempt to play the ball having fallen. The only way you're getting to PIADM is if he's making no attempt to play the ball and is only using his body to shield in the hope of getting a FK - by your description this doesn't happen. So I'd be looking for the first contact on the defender by an attacker and then as the majority on here are saying, award the defensive FK. It gets you out of the tricky situation in a relatively non-controversial way and as a bonus, is 100% supportable in law!

With respect to the requests for a penalty - we've established that the only possible options here are attacking IFK for PIADM, or defensive FK for kicking if there is contact, or no-call and see what happens. So a penalty is never on the table. Penalty is only given for a direct FK offence that has taken place in the opposing penalty area. And the fact the players didn't really know what they were appealing for should be a good sign to you as the referee that you don't need to get overly-stressed about them being unhappy - they're just complaining and hoping, not actually expecting anything in particular.

 

[rayb]

The defender is entitled to a) fall over and b) attempt to play the ball having fallen. The only way you're getting to PIADM is if he's making no attempt to play the ball and is only using his body to shield in the hope of getting a FK - by your description this doesn't happen. So I'd be looking for the first contact on the defender by an attacker and then as the majority on here are saying, award the defensive FK. It gets you out of the tricky situation in a relatively non-controversial way and as a bonus, is 100% supportable in law!

With respect to the requests for a penalty - we've established that the only possible options here are attacking IFK for PIADM, or defensive FK for kicking if there is contact, or no-call and see what happens. So a penalty is never on the table. Penalty is only given for a direct FK offence that has taken place in the opposing penalty area. And the fact the players didn't really know what they were appealing for should be a good sign to you as the referee that you don't need to get overly-stressed about them being unhappy - they're just complaining and hoping, not actually expecting anything in particular.

Thanks GraemeS. That makes a lot of sense.

So if the player on the ground is actively trying to kick the ball I shouldn't make a call until either he gets kicked by the opposition or if the ball gets trapped in the grounded players body with them making no attempt to get it out (aka shielding the ball).

Would that be an accurate description for this type of situation?

It did seem to stay around him a long time with both those conditions not being true.

I also like your take on the attackers arguments not being a valid one and therefore not worth worrying about - that's another gem I can remember going forward.

 

[GraemeS]

Thanks GraemeS. That makes a lot of sense.

So if the player on the ground is actively trying to kick the ball I shouldn't make a call until either he gets kicked by the opposition or if the ball gets trapped in the grounded players body with them making no attempt to get it out (aka shielding the ball).

Would that be an accurate description for this type of situation?

It did seem to stay around him a long time with both those conditions not being true.

I also like your take on the attackers arguments not being a valid one and therefore not worth worrying about - that's another gem I can remember going forward.

What actually qualifies as "dangerous play" has to be a judgement call, so I'd hesitate to say this is 100% correct in every possible situation. But as a general guideline that you can use as a starting point for making a decision, it sounds like you're in line with how I'd approach this.

 

[Kes]

Some sound advice given here.

The only addition I can make is to be wary of a fallen player who quite willfully remains on the floor and keeps trying to play the ball. One quick attempt to clear or boot the ball away I'll accept, but if they choose to remain on the floor and continue to do so and/or just get in the way then that's an example of PIADM for me and I'll award the IDFK against them.