Question Number: 31143

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/1/2017

RE: AYSO Under 13

J of los angeles, Ca USA asks...

What would be the correct call if a player makes an attempt to head a ball that is low, at about waist height, and the opponent attempts to kick the ball simultaneously. I would think it would be a free indirect kick for playing in a dangerous manner, but for who? Thanks in advance for your response.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
What you describe can be a difficult one to call. It can go either way and circumstances will play a factor. For instance perhaps the location of the players and how the play unfold will have a bearing. A diving attacking header that is expected might go unpunished whereas a player knowingly tries to head a ball at a players foot to is more likely to be PIADM against the heading player. Conversely a player using a high boot to kick a ball that is more likely to be a header will likely to be punished for PIADM.
Sometimes it can be to use the phrase six of one and half a dozen of another when both player are perhaps equally guilty of one a high boot and the other head down. It is up to the referee to make a call and perhaps no call might be made as referenced by Referee Dawson.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi J
PIADM is ONLY when there is NO contact but there looks like an imminent threat of injury and /or the opponent STOPS his attempt due to the unsafe actions CREATED by the opponent! In many case of a 50/50 opportunity we lean to determine 51% to 49% with greater difficulty than say 60/40 or 70/30 as to pointing a finger of blame for who is mostly at fault. It relies on recognizing their positioning relative to playing the ball and who is in what I call, the dominant position, most able to effectively challenge. There will always be ball that an attacker will attack and defender will try to clear with little regard to who else is around or even an unawareness given they are focused on scoring or clearing. Many a goal been scored with a diving header low to the ground or an high overhead back flip scissors where it does seem the defender is a bit shy about getting tight yet no call is made.
I watched in pensive concern when John Terry tried to head a slightly below bouncing chest high ball as the defender kicked up and out nearly tearing his head off by using his head in place of the ball.
The referee awarded no foul, the defender was crying he was so concerned by this accidental mishap. That being said, I held the opinion John was more in the right than the high clearance by the defender and it is likely I could have awarded a PK and sent off the defender for a vey dangerous kicking action despite knowing it was not intended. If I AM awarding this as a foul it is doubtful I see it only as cautionable not BECAUSE of the horrific nature of the injury . That can happen off a simple fair challenge but the high follow through in close quarters is a VERY dangerous safety endangering action!. It STILL occurred and was always dangerous to follow through in active play with legs and feet going up past the head.

I often use the phrase, Your match Your decision Your reputation. This is because a referee offers up HIS judgment as an OPINION on a FACT of play based on his view, his interpretation of the LOTG, using his body of knowledge and experience equating what he sees with what he knows . The level of consistency in how a referee goes about this reflects his reputation but allows for each match to reflect its OWN dynamics as well. We rarely referee an adult highly competitive pro match in the same way a recreational u-12 across town association rivalry. There are consequences to any action, to any decision as failing to make a decision ,is in fact a decision which brings about its own set of consequences

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi - I would agree with my colleagues that this could be a difficult one to call. On the one hand, a player is normally entitled to attempt to head the ball even if it is low down but by the same token, a player is also normally allowed to kick the ball pretty much wherever it is - unless of course, this endangers an opponent.

The description of PIADM in the laws talks about ''any action that, while trying to play the
ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself)'' so it clearly allows for either participant in a challenge to be penalised.

This is an offence that could go either way and the referee has to make a judgement as to which player (if any) has done the endangering.

In the end it is as always, down to the referee to decide, as stated in Law 5:

''Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the 'spirit of the game' and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.''