Question Number: 30127

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/20/2016

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

Am watching live right now tonight's A-League match of Perth Glory v Brisbane, around the 56m mark, there was a 50/50 ball contested by the Perth keeper and an on coming Brisbane forward that contained a hight foot challenge by the forward, with the keeper lunging to also get the ball.

The CR allowed play to run it's course, however, I'm interested in the panels thoughts about a possible PIADM.

Already the match has 8 goals, so I hope the highlights find the time to show the incident.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
Highlights that I have seen only show the goals. So in the absence of a video it is not possible to comment
In the 50/50 challenges it can be six of one half a dozen of another. Are both player guilty of PIADM and is it fair to call one rather than the other. Also the referee does not have the luxury of the multiple views that we have or the slow motion, freeze frame replays. On some instances the referee can be looking at it from behind and generally we can be as we are catching up rather then ahead or level of play in such situations which can obscure the challenge. If as you say a forward raises his boot towards the GK in a 50/50 challenge then it is certainly PIADM and if there is contact it is a penal foul. May also merit a card if it is reckless.
Now as you know from experience there can be a fine line of what constitutes a raised boot constituting PIADM. At one end of the scale there is the boot that is clearly raised with studs showing in the direction of the opponent. That is certainly dangerous. At the other end there is the foot that is raised with the point in a pointing down / sideways position aimed only at the ball perhaps with the opponent to the side which is less dangerous. We also have to take account of some other factors in the judgement equation such as chance of playing the ball, does the player lunge and leave the ground, is there an element of lack of regard for an opponent, had there been an increase in intensity with some headlong actions. Safety is a key priority for referees and they should certsinly take a strong line on dangerous play and tackles.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russel,
with no visual hard to discern the action? I often see PIADM in such 50/50 situations. look at 27.04 minutes in the WC match that high outstretched leg by the Argentinian keeper and of course the collision between the German keeper driving a high knee into the side of the head of the Argentinian attacker at 55. 58 of actual match time


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drdnFWSmuYE

or the infamous high boots into the chest or thighs that turn PIADMs with a possible yellow card into a DFK fouls and should be red cards for SFP Cheers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nd4GBB1s3s Webb missed it but then what was yellow card for? boot imprint on shirt?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kns7WotXek #2 yellow but for me red!

If you watch the 2006 Portugal Holland match in the first half there are high boots into and around the PA. I am looking for a download of that match if anyone has one?
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Russell,
Being Australian myself (I do not support either of these teams though) I did record the game, though unfortunately I haven't been able to locate any online footage of the incident for my colleagues.
I'm amazed that this saw no action from the referee.
PIADM is the first concern - and even with a poor view of the incident (missing the contact), the manner of the challenge was extremely dangerous. 60-40 ball between keeper and striker (keeper got it first so it wasn't 50-50). Keeper catches the ball, but the striker, running at full speed, takes a leaping kick with his studs directed straight at the keeper at chest height trying to kick the ball.
Had there been no contact, there was simply no way this challenge could be made safely - so that's definite PIADM. At a minimum he has entered the challenge with little regard for the safety of his opponent, so with the boot raised anywhere near the opponent at that sort of pace in that manner, that's already a caution in my books.
But, as we've seen by the grossly dislocated finger, he made heavy contact with the keeper's hands. Contact escalates PIADM into a penal foul (kicks an opponent).
So here, we have a striker - running at full speed, makes a leaping (so, can no longer control his momentum) kick with studs raised towards the keeper at chest height, makes a late challenge on the ball and thus kicks the ball while it is in the keeper's hands. For me, the flying kick and the late challenge makes it excessive and endangering the safety of the opponent, so I believe it should have seen a red card.
While the injury is not relevant to the referee's decision, it does tend to reinforce the argument of endangering the safety of an opponent.
While the striker certainly had a chance of winning the ball - the keeper only beat him by moments - when making a challenge it is always the obligation of the players to ensure they are doing so with due care for their opponents. Sometimes when penalising a player for a desperate challenge that he felt he 'had' to make despite it being dangerous, they'll respond with 'what am I supposed to do, not challenge him?'
Well, the short answer is yes. Can't challenge safely? Don't challenge. The fact that he was unable to win the ball does not then entitle him to attempt the challenge anyway in a dangerous manner.
The referee had a clear view of the incident which is why I'm so surprised at the lack of action - even without the clear view, the flying kick anywhere near the keeper should be enough for PIADM at a minimum. The fact that the referee had a clear view may be why the AR didn't flag, given he also would have had a clear view - although wireless communications should be used to overcome the situations the rest of us face where the AR thinks the referee has seen it when he hasn't. Of course, it's possible they were used and the referee was adamant it was no foul.