A&H

Playing in a dangerous manner

SM

SM

The avuncular one
cup game, blue vs red.

Ball played in to blue, it's very low and blue puts out a leg to control the ball. Red throws himself forward and heads the ball catching the boot of the blue player in the process. The ball is under knee height at this point.

I give a idfk for piadm against red. "But I got kicked in the head ref!!!"

I know, I saw. Don't be silly enough to put your head down there again.

While I am happy with the snappy come back, I am not 100% sure this is correct in law, as there was contact made.

Thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
SM said:
cup game, blue vs red.

Ball played in to blue, it's very low and blue puts out a leg to control the ball. Red throws himself forward and heads the ball catching the boot of the blue player in the process. The ball is under knee height at this point.

I give a idfk for piadm against red. "But I got kicked in the head ref!!!"

I know, I saw. Don't be silly enough to put your head down there again.

While I am happy with the snappy come back, I am not 100% sure this is correct in law, as there was contact made.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

A rare one, but for me the correct call.

Playing in a dangerous manner (in my book at least) is one which endangers either himself and/or an opponent.

Correct decision. Did you show the offender a caution?
 
Think there's something in the good book about if there being 'obvious risk of injury' from the challenge (which this one clearly was) the player should be cautioned.

Think on second thoughts if there was contact in the challenge it should have been dfk not idfk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
SM said:
cup game, blue vs red.

Ball played in to blue, it's very low and blue puts out a leg to control the ball. Red throws himself forward and heads the ball catching the boot of the blue player in the process. The ball is under knee height at this point.

I give a idfk for piadm against red. "But I got kicked in the head ref!!!"

I know, I saw. Don't be silly enough to put your head down there again.

While I am happy with the snappy come back, I am not 100% sure this is correct in law, as there was contact made.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Contact=DFK
Tut, tut
 
Half an answer!! In fact, I said that bit!!! So not even half an answer - just repeating my question!! :)
 
SM - you are 100% correct in law. PIADM isn't just putting an opponent in danger - it's also when you're putting yourself in danger and this affects how an opponent can play the ball (and if that player won the ball and got kicked in the head, then he has affected the challenge!).
If there's contact it could be considered striking. I'm not really convinced the advise on 'contact = DFK' is really meant to cover this scenario. If you think it's a DFK, then you need to be prepared to award a PK for this.
I'm also not convinced that putting himself in danger can ever warrant a caution.
 
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

That suggest that a caution would've been appropriate in this instance.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed.

Quite clear that contact should result in a DFK.

Not an easy one to sell though in the described scenario.
 
Padfoot said:
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

That suggest that a caution would've been appropriate in this instance.
Click to expand...
The intent in the Laws there is when the action is made with obvious risk of injury to the other player. Not to oneself.
 
Padfoot said:
Does it say that? No
Click to expand...
No it doesn't you're quite right. And as such, you'd be well within your rights in Law to caution someone for PIADM likely to injure themselves. However, given the uproar when you simply award an IFK for this scenario, I think a caution would be an extremely 'brave' decision (for brave read bloody foolish!). Whilst you can issue a caution for this I can see absolutely zero necessity or benefits from so doing .....
 
I agree 100% with RJ - Cautioning here would be allowed within law technically, but incredulous to everyone on and around the pitch.

People would accept endangering an opponent by piadm as a caution, I just cannot think of a situation where endangering ONLY yourself could be seen as a caution?
 
He's been kicked in the head for being a little silly... I think he gets the point, he obviously wanted the ball and had absolutely no intention of hurting the other player. No need for the caution, that would be harsh in my eyes. Pat on the back for the bravery and commitment (I'd keep that to myself), slap on the wrist for doing so whilst putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation. Laws state that if physical contact is made, dfk is the outcome. As SM and RJ say, whilst cautioning the player wouldn't technically be wrong, I think common sense should prevail.

Interesting scenario SM, thanks.
 
I sometimes offer cookies and mars bars before the game. If the players have been nice to me, I waive the match fee and buy them all a beer in the pub after!

Everyone wants me to ref! I love being popular :D:p:cool:
 
Padfoot said:
Back to refereeing to be popular again.......
Click to expand...
Internet-Troll.jpg
 
Padfoot said:
Back to refereeing to be popular again.......
Click to expand...
No, that's not it at all.
I absolutely do not believe this is the situation in mind with that clause in the law. And given how disgracefully bad the laws are written, I don't think that's unreasonable. Don't forget that it's virtually impossible to be actually guilty of an offside violation, yet I'm sure even you, Padfoot, apply Law 11 as you assume it's intended to be applied rather than as written.
Also, the LOTG says 'should caution'. Not 'must caution'. Therefore, it's still a subjective decision on whether or not to caution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DB
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top