Question Number: 30384

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/3/2016

RE: Rec and select Under 15

Bruce of Knoxville, Tn USA asks...

a defender was getting ready to clear a very lazy, high bouncing ball in the goal area without any close challenge. just as they began their kick, an offensive player came diving in with their head lowered, back bent down 45degrees and got kicked slightly in the face. The ref did not call this dangerous play (high kick) as she said the offensive player created the danger by their aggressive and uncoordinated drive. Is this a possible interpretation ?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Bruce
It reads to me that the referee was correct. It is playing in a dangerous manner and the offender is the player lowering his head down so low that he risks getting kicked by a normal kick by an opponent.
Now there can be a fine line between what constitutes a high kick and a lowered head. For me any kick that goes above waist height while affecting an opponent is PIADM while similarly a head below a similar height is too low. There can be times as well that a raised boot / lowered head is not PIADM because there is no danger as the players are not close enough or the referee deems that there was no danger to either player. If there is contact between the players it get escalated to a kicking foul if the offender is the kicker. If the offender is the lowering head it is still PIADM.
Now in a game situation it can be a difficult call. Have a look at this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8GEB-TYLMmQ
In the video the referee did not give any foul. IMO it was a penalty kick to Blue and a caution for a reckless challenge by Red. Either the referee did not see the offence or he thought that Blue contributed by a lowered head which it plainly was not?

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Bruce,
Playing in a Dangerous Manner (PIADM) can be called against a player lowering their head into the area where the feet should be. It can be a foul for a player to put themselves in danger - but only if an opponent is involved.

An attacker taking a diving header at knee height in front of an opponent challenging for the ball is an easy example of this.
If the ball is around chest high and the head drops a little and the foot is up there, I'd still be calling it against the player kicking the ball.
It starts getting more grey when it is around torso/waist height. Some referee will argue that assuming there werent studs pointed at the opponent, its a reasonable place for the feet to be and both players have contributed equally to the situation. Some referees will still place more responsibility upon the defender at that height. The referee needs to consider whose actions were more reasonable (for want of a better way of putting it, the head has more *right* to be around chest high than the feet do, and vice versa at knee level. In the middle? More difficult decision.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 30387