Question Number: 30914

Law 11 - Offside 10/18/2016

RE: competetive High School

Richard of Frostburg, MD USA asks...

In a game this weekend, a ball was in the air coming down and our player was in position to head the ball. The opposing player was facing our player and put her foot up to hit the ball and subsequently she hit our player in the head. The referee called dangerous play but I questioned him at the half as to why the player was not carded. He said that dangerous play fouls are not subject to being carded. I disagree. So, is he nuts or am I? Thank you.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Richard,
no you are not nuts but chances are the CR is not either although we do live with crazy at times lol . It does appear possibly our CR could rethink his words that dangerous play fouls are not subject to being carded and direct some research into foul recognition but he is primarily correct. PIADM is a INDFK offence that in theory involves NO or very minimal contact and the PENAL DFK foul criteria of careless reckless or excessive does not apply to this type of foul .
Cards usually are not needed to accompany PIADM, as the idea of careless, reckless and excessive apply only to the DFKs NOT the INDFKs. However, there is still a case for misconduct within the act itself. PIADM usually involves no contact or minimal contact BECAUSE the other player is pulling out BECAUSE it is dangerous to continue.

You use the word HIT when saying the foot contacts the head? Was it forceful? Or was it a light brushing? Given your description of actual contact between the head and foot the PIADM could have been upgraded to DFK status as kicking an opponent. In your incident it appears it was the high foot into the face that created this infraction . Given the CR deemed it ONLY as PIADM he has, for what ever his reasoning) discounted the fact the boot made contact with the face. Occasionally the culprit is responsible for making contact occur as in bending down too low to get to a ball that was being kicked normally and even in trying to pull away could not stop the initiated contact, In THAT case, the stoop caused the PIADM but the contact was more to do with momentum then deliberate action.

PIADM to be considered for yellow card it must be for persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game (no specific number or pattern of infringements)
or defined as USB unsporting behaviour

For a straight red card and send off a PIADM infringement that denied an obvious goal or goal scoring opportunity for DOGSO as an incident involving a free kick per the LOTG or if the PIADM was considered as deliberate VC .

So the referee is correct in PIADM is not classified as careless, reckless or excessive but he is incorrect if he stated cards are in fact not at all possible for PIADM just unlikely. If the PIADM might be seen as DFK in another match by another referee the 3 criteria would apply making a card possible for the reckless or a red for an excessive action but then it would NOT be PIADM infraction
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Richard,
NFHS Rule 12-6 states: A player shall not participate in a dangerous play, which is an act that an official considers likely to cause injury to any player. This includes playing in such a manner which could cause injury to any player. This includes playing in such a manner which could cause injury to self or another player (opponent or teammate). Penalty: Indirect free kick.

From what you described, the referee was correct in calling the contact dangerous play and awarding the indirect kick.

The referee does have two additional options if the situation was different. One would be a caution for unsporting conduct which the referee can give for any act that he/she deems as being unsporting. (NFHS Rule 12-8- 1f). If the referee believes that the kick to the head was an intentional violent act, the referee could also give a disqualification (red card) for violent conduct (NFHS Rule 12-8-2a).

However, as stated above, I believe that the correct call in this situation is a dangerous play.

I hope that you are having a successful season. As mentioned before, I lived and refereed in Frostburg for several years. Perhaps, you and I worked together. I understand that your fall weather has been great for soccer. I hope that it continues.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
This would be a call that has a difference between NFHS and FIFA. In FIFA once there is contact on a foul it gets elevated to a direct free kick. So PIADM only involves non contact fouls.
In respect of disciplinary sanction it is a matter for the referee to decide in both codes.
Up until the new Law amendment which happened on the 1st June the FIFA Laws stated that playing in a dangerous manner involved 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.
Note that in FIFA it just said high probability not that it was a mandatory caution. I suspect that the same rationale is present in NFHS and it is left to the referee to decide based on the circumstances. There can be circumstances where the offending player while guilty of a foul is not totally at fault due to the actions of the opponent who may have contributed to the situation such as lowering the head, came in blind side of the player at the very last moment etc etc.
I recall Abou Diaby of Arsenal kicking John Terry of Chelsea in the head a number of years ago and it was not even a foul nor any sanction given. In my opinion it should have been a penalty kick and at least a caution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GEB-TYLMmQ

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/29/article-0-00DA7B8F00000578-603_964x681.jpg