Question Number: 30839

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/1/2016

RE: Competitive Adult

Jack Smith of Sydney, New South Wales Australia asks...

I noticed that the wording has changed slightly for the direct free kick offences in Law 12 in the most recent Laws. In addition to 'tackles', there is now another word, 'challenges'. These words both imply that contact is not required in either of these offences (just careless / reckless / excessive force).

Taking the addition of this new word into account, if a player swings his boot near an opponent's head as part of a challenge for the ball, at regular head height, and the opponent is unable to play the ball (lest he will be kicked), can I now award a direct free kick for carelessly challenges an opponent, instead of an indirect free kick for playing in a dangerous manner?

If not, why not? It's clearly careless to swing a boot close to an opponent's head and if effort is made win or play the ball, it's clearly a challenge.

If so, which 'high foot' (as players call it) offences should be punished with a direct free kick, and which (if any) should be punished with an indirect free kick?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jack
The word tackles' implied a challenge with the foot but some challenges can be with other parts of the body (e.g. knee) and technically were not covered. That is why challenge was added.
However for a direct free kick to be awarded there must be contact or an attempt to kick or strike or jumps at an opponent. So no change on playing in a dangerous manner. It is still an indirect free kick if there is no contact and no attempt to kick or strike nor a jump at the opponent which are all not part of PIADM

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jack,
that was a good spot as I too raised an eyebrow at the change.
Granted a tackle is most often though of as a slide or foot tackle where a leg is extended to knock the ball away from an opponent but one does CHALLANGE for the ball in any number of ways, using all available body parts except the arms/hands to do so. The head, chest, shin, knee are but a few. There are penal DFK fouls where we CAN hold the attempt (thus no contact) as punishable . For tackling purposes the attempt to strike seems rather far fetched. However the Attempt to Trip or Attempt to Kick COULD certainly push the INDFK of PIADM aside should the referee decide it met that criteria more than another . As too the penal foul of JUMPS AT requires no contact and in of itself can go directly to a red card send off as an act of aggression. A tackle which contacts the ball first does give pause to see or think foul but the follow through actions can certainly CREATE foul in how these tackles are performed .
Cheers