QPR v Sheff Weds Part One

[RustyRef]

Yes it is not wrong in law. Not quiet sure what is the recommended action to take once you stop play clearly "for injury" and after seeing the injury 20 seconds later, you think/know that it was at least a foul. If you didn't see it then I'd say stay with the original decision. If you did see it but you were day dreaming at that moment and now the replay in your head tells you it was a foul, what do you do? How can you sell it?

The only way I can think of selling it is going over to the assistant and having a chat, but then you are killing him as everyone will think he alerted you to it. Especially in this situation when it is on the far side to the active assistant.

 

[IslandReferee]

In my mind, coming from way across the pond, first and foremost the referee was in a bad position in my mind on that corner kick. I would like to have in the box on that one and at the very least 4 yards to the left. Second, the player did duck his head down and received a boot to the face. I get that. But if this exact play happened at midfield, would there have been a high kick penalty? In my mind, there would have not been. Great discussion and a great video on a number of things. What is considered a high boot? What do you judge when a player dips their head down? And, what if this happens in the box? Mahalo

 

[one]

@IslandReferee it's best to discuss this in terms of 'playing in a dangerous manner' (PIADM) rather 'high foot'. 'High foot" is not something mentioned in law and is only an offence if it fits the definition of PIADAM or one of other offences. Same thing is applied for a 'low foot' if it fits PIADM.

Anyway for me this was PIDAM with contact which makes it a penalty. Is it a red? Possibly yes. But I am not sure. The amount of blood is misleading. It only takes a small amount of contact/force to split open an eyebrow and once done blood stream is not proportional to the actual cut.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Allegiances aside.... if he sees it it’s a PK and RC.... ️️

 

[Big Cat]

I don't really get the book's reference to PIADM
It is not clearly reconciled with either a caution or dismissal, it is only referenced as an action for which an IDFK can be awarded
Yet WGS has a C1 code for DP, which is not (strictly) USB. I know these codes are meaningless, but this does illustrate my point

 

[Abeverley]

High foot is another one of those things people shout for when they mean dangerous play.
If a player puts is head low then in my opinion it’s dangerous play and he concedes the free kick.

 

[Abeverley]

Low for me is at the point or below where a knee or kick would be the usual and expected action of the other player. Just like high foot usually ends up as dangerous play because it usually prevents someone heading the ball

 

[one]

I don't really get the book's reference to PIADM
It is not clearly reconciled with either a caution or dismissal, it is only referenced as an action for which an IDFK can be awarded
Yet WGS has a C1 code for DP, which is not (strictly) USB. I know these codes are meaningless, but this does illustrate my point

Offences and sanctions are related but independently decided. Hope this makes sense. Any offence can have a sanction. Think of it the same way as a deliberate handball. It's description in the book is something you can give a DFK for. It doesn't relate it to a sanction at that point. Its other places that describe it can be a sanction (yellow or red).

 

[QuaverRef]

High foot is another one of those things people shout for when they mean dangerous play.
If a player puts is head low then in my opinion it’s dangerous play and he concedes the free kick.

I can see your point but it’s a tough sell

 

[QuaverRef]

Once you spot the foul, the blood sells the red card for you.

Same thing happened a few years ago, Boro v Brighton. Gaston Ramirez and the Brighton player went into a challenge together and a free kick was given against Brighton. Ramirez was down injured and it took Mike Dean a few minutes to show a red card, and was definitely sold by the injury to Ramirez (stud marks and a gash down the side his shin)

 

[Big Cat]

Offences and sanctions are related but independently decided. Hope this makes sense. Any offence can have a sanction. Think of it the same way as a deliberate handball. It's description in the book is something you can give a DFK for. It doesn't relate it to a sanction at that point. Its other places that describe it can be a sanction (yellow or red).

Yes, but HB is referenced under SPA, DOGSO; hence the clear sanction. PIADM is not referenced under any sanction, although endangering an opponent is the key consideration to a careless foul, RP or SFP
I just consider this to be an omission. Why define something and then not reference it?

 

[one]

Yes, but HB is referenced under SPA, DOGSO; hence the clear sanction. PIADM is not referenced under any sanction, although endangering an opponent is the key consideration to a careless foul, RP or SFP
I just consider this to be an omission. Why define something and then not reference it?

If you send off here it will be for kicking an opponent with EF. Any PIDAM with contact will have an equivalent DFK offence associated with it you can use.

 

[Big Cat]

If you send off here it will be for kicking an opponent with EF. Any PIDAM with contact will have an equivalent DFK offence associated with it you can use.

It is not Law to caution someone for PIADM, because the offence is not listed under any sanction. PIADM could be taken into account when assessing RP or SFP, but the DP code under C1 simply doesn't reconcile with the book

 

[one]

It does if you consider this statement:
"There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:"

So the list in the book is not an exclusive list and the law has allowed you to have other reasons than the ones specified in the list. And your administrators have given you options for some of those other reason. I don't use your system but I am sure it would also have an option of 'other'. The option 'other' is justified by the book the same way.

 

[Big Cat]

including

Good point. The list is not exclusive; that's the nugget I was missing. I just think PIADM is so common, it would justify an entry in the list, because some of the other entries, we may never see!

 

[one]

Good point. The list is not exclusive; that's the nugget I was missing. I just think PIADM is so common, it would justify an entry in the list, because some of the other entries, we may never see!

The problem with that would be that not all PIADMs are USB. And to simply include it in that list would be wrong.

I am sensing deja vu (I have feeling we discussed this before somewhere with @JamesL contributing as well).

 

[Big Cat]

The problem with that would be that not all PIADMs are USB. And to simply include it in that list would be wrong.

I am sensing deja vu (I have feeling we discussed this before somewhere with @JamesL contributing as well).

I don't think PIADM warrants special attention in the book. It is already dealt with under careless, reckless and dangerous, with the caveat that contact determines DFK or IDFK. The special reference in the book to PIADM brings nothing to the table except confusion imo

 

[Peter Grove]

There used to be some additional advice about PIADM that I believe was only removed as part of the effort to reduce the overall amount of words in the Laws rather than because it was invalid. It went as follows:

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

Although this actual wording is no longer there, I think the basic concept behind it still has validity.