PIADM

[JH]

A lot of debate on another thread about playing in a dangerous manner.

It is specifically an IDFK offence and is NOT listed as a cautionable offence.

PIADM does not mention contact.

Common examples as I see it:

High foot without contact = PIADM, no sanction

High foot with contact = Reckless kick/tackle/challenge, yellow card

Thoughts?

 

[one]

PIADM does not mention contact.

But the law infers no contact for PIDAM in other ways.

As you mentioned the law is specific on PIDAM being IFK. It is also specific on "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick". Therefore if an offence involves contact it can not be PIDAM.

And here is the bit of (philosophy) inference rule for it

If PIDAM then IFK
AND
If Contact then DFK (NOT IFK)
therfore
If Contact then NOT PIDAM

 

[Mintyref]

A lot of debate on another thread about playing in a dangerous manner.

It is specifically an IDFK offence and is NOT listed as a cautionable offence.

PIADM does not mention contact.

Common examples as I see it:

High foot without contact = PIADM, no sanction

High foot with contact = Reckless kick/tackle/challenge, yellow card

Thoughts?

PIADM is always about those nearly made contacts........if there is contact then it is a foul and you need to make the judgement about severity and potential colour of card. Simple really, don't over think it.

 

[Big Cat]

A lot of debate on another thread about playing in a dangerous manner.

It is specifically an IDFK offence and is NOT listed as a cautionable offence.

PIADM does not mention contact.

Common examples as I see it:

High foot without contact = PIADM, no sanction

High foot with contact = Reckless kick/tackle/challenge, yellow card

Thoughts?

The reason for the endless debate.....again, is the fragmented, opaque, nonsense in the book. I agree that PIADM is not specified as a cautionable offence, yet the FA codes contradict this (C1 DP). If the FA can't decipher the book, that speaks volumes. Ultimately therefore, it's down to interpretation and I would agree with your examples

 

[one]

It is specifically an IDFK offence and is NOT listed as a cautionable offence.

If the laws does not specifically say PIDAM is not a cautionable, it doesn't mean it can not be one. Lack of an assertion does not mean the opposite is true.

followed by a list. It is not a closed list because the word "including" is used to describe it. So you can deem a PIDAM unsporting behaviour and caution for it and it would be supported bay law.

EDIT: so in your example of high foot with no contact for a PIDAM, it is possible to sanction if you deem it USB or even SFP for that matter. However as mentioned in another thread, it would be an easier sell if you went for a "attempting to kick" and not PIDAM.

 

[Big Cat]

If the laws does not specifically say PIDAM is not a cautionable, it doesn't mean it can not be one. Lack of an assertion does not mean the opposite is true.
View attachment 2022
followed by a list. It is not a closed list because the word "including" is used to describe it. So you can deem a PIDAM unsporting behaviour and caution for it and it would be supported bay law.

Fair point, it's just daft however to have a section on PIADM and then not reference to it elsewhere!

 

[Big Cat]

My thinking is always;
1) Clearly no contact - IDFK
2) Any contact whatsoever - DFK
3) Serious Foul Play (Defined) - Red Card
4) Reckless Play (Defined) - Yellow
5) PIADM (Defined) - Discretionary Yellow; despite not being explicitly listed as a caution
SFP is easy'ish' to distinguish from PIADM and RP because the former is more specific

 

[one]

My thinking is always;
1) Clearly no contact - IDFK
2) Any contact whatsoever - DFK
3) Serious Foul Play (Defined) - Red Card
4) Reckless Play (Defined) - Yellow
5) PIADM (Defined) - Discretionary Yellow; despite not being explicitly listed as a caution
SFP is easy'ish' to distinguish from PIADM and RP because the former is more specific

There is some overlap in some of your points. For example A reckless attempt to strike an opponent with clearly no contact is as you say a yellow card but its a DFK.

 

[JH]

As you mentioned the law is specific on PIDAM being IFK. It is also specific on "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick". Therefore if an offence involves contact it can not be PIDAM.

Good point.

If the laws does not specifically say PIDAM is not a cautionable, it doesn't mean it can not be one. Lack of an assertion does not mean the opposite is true.
View attachment 2022
followed by a list. It is not a closed list because the word "including" is used to describe it. So you can deem a PIDAM unsporting behaviour and caution for it and it would be supported bay law.

This is where I disagree. Yes it is an open list and not everything is included in it. But ask yourself why would they go through the trouble of putting "Shows a lack of respect for the game" in cautionable offences that is mentioned NOWHERE else on 115 pages, but not PIADM which is 3 pages before? It would be easy to put PIADM in there, but they haven't. Hence why I for one am confused about whether it should be a yellow card.

 

[Big Cat]

There is some overlap in some of your points. For example A reckless attempt to strike an opponent with clearly no contact is as you say a yellow card but its a DFK.

Believe me, no attempt to simplify the rules will ever leave one with a feeling of completeness!

 

[Big Cat]

Good point.



This is where I disagree. Yes it is an open list and not everything is included in it. But ask yourself why would they go through the trouble of putting "Shows a lack of respect for the game" in cautionable offences that is mentioned NOWHERE else on 115 pages, but not PIADM which is 3 pages before? It would be easy to put PIADM in there, but they haven't. Hence why I for one am confused about whether it should be a yellow card.

Because 'they're' incompetent

 

[one]

This is where I disagree. Yes it is an open list and not everything is included in it. But ask yourself why would they go through the trouble of putting "Shows a lack of respect for the game" in cautionable offences that is mentioned NOWHERE else on 115 pages, but not PIADM which is 3 pages before? It would be easy to put PIADM in there, but they haven't. Hence why I for one am confused about whether it should be a yellow card.

Because everything in that list is USB, no ifs no buts. However not every PIDAM is USB and putting it in that list is contrary to the fact that only some PIDAMs are USB.

 

[Big Cat]

Because everything in that list is USB, no ifs no buts. However not every PIDAM is USB and putting it in that list is contrary to the fact that only some PIDAMs are USB.

Yet, the only way to report it to the FA is by classing it as USB

 

[JH]

Because everything in that list is USB, no ifs no buts. However not every PIDAM is USB and putting it in that list is contrary to the fact that only some PIDAMs are USB.

But where are you getting this information if it's not in the book?

 

[one]

But where are you getting this information if it's not in the book?

The lotg has given me (the referee) the power to deem some circumstances as USB even if they are not in the book.

If you look at the list itself, even some items in there are open ended. For example the circumstance of "circumventing the law" only has an example in the list. You may consider other cases of "circumventing the law" which are not in the book as USB.

 

[JH]

View attachment 2023
The lotg has given me (the referee) the power to deem some circumstances as USB even if they are not in the book.

If you look at the list itself, even some items in there are open ended. For example the circumstance of "circumventing the law" only has an example in the list. You may consider other cases of "circumventing the law" which are not in the book as USB.

Fair enough, I think it should be more clear in the book for consistency's sake.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Shall I order more popcorn?

 

[bester]

The below passage used to be in LOTG.

Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by playing in a dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player

 

[Mintyref]

Shall I order more popcorn?

Only if I can have a double gin with mine......why do they complicate such a simple issue? Traffic wardens perhaps?

 

[Peter Grove]

I don't think they're complicating it - they're just not over-simplifying it. As @one has pointed out, not all instances of PIADM are cautionable offences - therefore it shouldn't be included in the list of them. However if circumstances dictate and the referee so chooses, it could be a caution. To say that it either should or shouldn't be a cautionable offence would be an over-simplification and wrong.