IDFK after contact

[Trip]

A long time ago when I was being observed I awarded an IDFK for "playing in a dangerous manner". It was a classic high foot. There was very light contact with the opponent, but I didn't think it merited being called a kick or trip.

My observer told me it can't be indirect if there's contact and I've lived by that rule ever since.

However, I can't actually find anything in the laws to support this view, have I missed something?

 

[JamesL]

P.87 is your friend for this one:

"If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick."

 

[Trip]

Nice one thanks.

 

[Peter Grove]

A long time ago when I was being observed I awarded an IDFK for "playing in a dangerous manner". It was a classic high foot. There was very light contact with the opponent, but I didn't think it merited being called a kick or trip.

My observer told me it can't be indirect if there's contact and I've lived by that rule ever since.

However, I can't actually find anything in the laws to support this view, have I missed something?

When you say, "a long time ago" was it before 2016?

If so, and your observer was referring specifically to PIADM then he was correct, but that was the only place where it was explicitly stated in the laws at that time, that contact meant it had to be a DFK.

As far as it being universally the case, this has only been in the laws since 2016, as the underlining in the image below shows.

Prior to that, while it may have been a widely-accepted principle, it wasn't specifically stated the laws.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

When you say, "a long time ago" was it before 2016?

If so, and your observer was referring specifically to PIADM then he was correct, but that was the only place where it was explicitly stated in the laws at that time, that contact meant it had to be a DFK.

As far as it being universally the case, this has only been in the laws since 2016, as the underlining in the image below shows.

Prior to that, while it may have been a widely-accepted principle, it wasn't specifically stated the laws.

View attachment 6262

Whilst agreeing totally with what you wrote, the observer may have seen an initially PIADM challenge which then became a contact offence of kicking an opponent, striking an opponent, pushing, or whatever.

 

[Peter Grove]

Whilst agreeing totally with what you wrote, the observer may have seen an initially PIADM challenge which then became a contact offence of kicking an opponent, striking an opponent, pushing, or whatever.

Well yes, that's what I was referring to. Prior to 2016, the laws said this:


However there was nowhere else in the laws that specifically said contact meant a DFK.

 

[socal lurker]

However there was nowhere else in the laws that specifically said contact meant a DFK.

But what IFK offense would it be?

(i don’t recall if it was in the laws or guidance, but impeding was also considered a DFK offense if it involved contact, even before impeding with contact was made a separate DFK foul)

 

[Peter Grove]

But what IFK offense would it be?

(i don’t recall if it was in the laws or guidance, but impeding was also considered a DFK offense if it involved contact, even before impeding with contact was made a separate DFK foul)

I suspect that's what motivated to IFAB to put it in the laws in black and white as a universal concept and in a prominent, difficult to miss location. There shouldn't really have been any offences with contact leading to an IFK but they did still happen. I can recall cases of impeding where, although there was contact, referees would still give an IFK, especially if the contact was only slight.

Similarly with PIADM, if memory serves, despite it already being specifically mentioned.

 

[Trip]

I think this actually was before 2016 but I can't be certain.

It was a high foot which made clean contact with the ball and ended up making very minimal contact with the chest of an opponent. It definitely would not meet the definition of kick so I'm not sure what DFK offence you'd have to conjure up to avoid the ISFK for PIADM prior to 2016.

 

[socal lurker]

I think this actually was before 2016 but I can't be certain.

It was a high foot which made clean contact with the ball and ended up making very minimal contact with the chest of an opponent. It definitely would not meet the definition of kick so I'm not sure what DFK offence you'd have to conjure up to avoid the ISFK for PIADM prior to 2016.

You lose me. How wouldn’t meet the definition of kick? If it was worthy of PIAD, it was certainly careless, and he kicked someone. Careless kicking is a foul. It‘s either a kicking foul or nothing. It’s not (and wasn’t) PIADM If contact was made.

 

[Trip]

You lose me. How wouldn’t meet the definition of kick?

It was very light contact between the sole of his foot and another player's chest which resulted from the other player making a (perfectly legal) challenge for the same ball while his foot was raised. That's not a kick, at least not in normal English usage.

 

[socal lurker]

It was very light contact between the sole of his foot and another player's chest which resulted from the other player making a (perfectly legal) challenge for the same ball while his foot was raised. That's not a kick, at least not in normal English usage.

And what does normal English usage have to do with the LOTG? A player who carelessly contacted an opponent\ with his foot has kicked the opponent. (Or, if it makes you feel better, you can think of it as carelessly challenging the opponent, which would also be a DFK.) The question for the R is whether that kick was trifling or worthy of calling the foul. What the R can't do is weasel out by calling PIADM. Whether we like it or not, that is the way the Laws are written. If the opponent was not dissuaded from or disadvantaged in challenging the ball, the minimal contact is likely trifling, and there is no foul to call. A high foot is not in and of itself a foul, PIADM or otherwise.