Question Number: 31515

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/7/2017

RE: Competitive Adult

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

This question is a follow up to question 31496

In question 31496, Referee Grove appeared to imply that the wording of the definition of playing in a dangerous manner had changed in a way that no longer required opponents to be be prevented from playing the ball for fear of injury.

However, the full text of this definition is: 'Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.'

The previous wording was 'Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.'

It appears to me that the action merely being dangerous to someone is not enough, and opponents must still be prevented from playing the ball for fear of injury for it to be called. The only apparent effect of the wording change is to condense (albeit clumsily) the definition into one sentence.

Could I seek some further clarification on both Referee Grove and the rest of the panel's view of the current wording and how much weight we should give to the wording change?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jack
Previously the Laws stated that PIADM was committed only with an opponent nearby and prevented the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury and the action became an offence only when an opponent was adversely affected.
From the new wording that is now part of the Laws Referee Grove has opined that changing the definition, the IFAB has seemingly made a more flexible interpretation of PIADM possible.
I recently had a debate with a player about a PIADM that I awarded against him for a high boot. He was claiming that the opponent close by made no attempt to head the ball so how could it be PIADM when the opponent was not adversely affected. My view was it was dangerous and that players can anticipate say a high boot coming so they decline to play. The opponent did not pull back so it was not obvious that he was affected yet IMO still a dangerous play which is supported now in Law
I believe the majority of time that PIADM is called it will be the *expected* offence of PIADM with the obvious visible reaction

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Jack,
I think it's a simple matter of grammar. If you say something is included, that means it is not the only thing involved and that other things or possibilities can be part of the definition.

The way the old wording was written, a literal interpretation would mean that even though a player did something that was clearly dangerous, unless it also prevented an opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury, it would not meet the definition of PIADM. Under the new wording, grammatically and logically speaking, PIADM is no longer restricted in the same way, which gives the referee more flexibility in how to interpret it. Ref McHugh has given a good example of this in his answer.

Incidentally, the person responsible for many of the Laws changes and most of the actual wording, David Elleray, was a school teacher at Harrow School in England for over 30 years and one of the things he specifically said he wanted to achieve as part of the 2016-17 re-write was to clear up any ambiguities or unclear wording that could lead to misinterpretations of the Laws. So although I have no way to be 100% sure, I would have to believe that this slight change in meaning/interpretation was intentional on the part of the IFAB and so I would tend to disagree with your characterisation of it as clumsy.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Jack,
The LOTG are often fraught with slight imperfections as we try to include all possibilities into a limited vocabulary. Under FIFA interpretation the opponent or opposition must be unfairly affected to see PIADM as a foul. The fact that SOME opponents will play through an unsafe act and other may choose not to or even fail to understand that there was an offence at all is no longer a reason to not make a call. In a situation similar to Ref McHugh's I had a defender have his foot up at face height to stab a ball wide of the goal. The attacker had his back to the ball and the foot missed his head by mere inches so he was unaware all he had to do was lean back to head it mind you he would have had studs inside his ear if he had played the ball

As a DFK offence will be attributed to kicking a player in the head while that player was trying to head the ball which might have been deemed as PIADM if it was too low and if the kick was a reasonable response to play the ball at a reasonable height.

I think if the opponent in the opinion of the referee COULD be affected as a possibility rather than a certainty but I still maintain there is no foul unless the referee determines the opposition COULD be affected by the unsafe act. The key is where is the opponent is he challenging for the ball or is he simply watching from a distance? I did consider if they wanted to punish an unsafe act even amongst teammates in which case an opponent does not even need to be there as it is part of rules in USA High school NHSF that one can be guilty of PIADM without an opponent in the vicinity.

The bicycle kick is one act that I often think is permitted with little regard to the opposition in proximity & while spectacular looking goals can occur I look very close to see if the follow through or leg swing is creating danger to a defender nearby.
Cheers