Question Number: 31922

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/21/2017

RE: competitive Under 11

Brian of Jackson, NJ USA asks...

Playing in a Dangerous Manner. What is the correct call if, when a player is playing the ball on ground in a dangerous manner, he is kicked by the opponent who is trying to play the ball -- say, if the referee hasn't blown the whistle yet for the dangerous play.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brian
The foul of playing in a dangerous manner happened first so that is the foul that is called and the restart is an indirect free kick. That is easy on paper yet more difficult in a game,
The reason is that PIADM does not exonerate the opponent who kicks the player on the ground. If that action is reckless then the player can be cautioned for unsporting behaviour and there may be some head scratching to restart with an IDFK for the team of the player just cautioned.
Now the technical answer is premised on the PIADM clearly happening first. The Laws state though that the referee punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time. So if the referee deems that both fouls were committed at the same time the kicking foul would be the one that is punished with a direct free kick.
Many referees will be tempted to punish the kicking foul if it is done recklessly with no regard for the opponent on the ground: If I was confronted with a situation where a player that has fallen on the ball, tries to play it and an opponent with total disregard for the players safety recklessly kicks him while on the ground it is highly likely that I would penalise the kick on the opponent and a caution to boot. On the other hand it is accidental and unintentional with limited force then the PIADM might be the call,

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Brian,
If I have a player on the ground who is guilty of PIADM I blow the whistle & award the INDFK ! If an upright opponent chooses to kick away at the player on the ground then I likely call the DFK for that action against him .

It is NOT a foul to PLAY the ball on the ground!

IF a player goes down on top of the ball we do NOT immediately blow for PIADM we give them a few moments to get up and rejoin the land of the upright players.

As they arise they are playing the ball & they are entitled to legally shield that ball as it is within playing distance. If they lollygag or remain there continually blocking access to the ball using their arms head or body that could be seen as either USB or PIADM and an INDFK.

The opposition has the right to challenge but not the right to kick away at a covered ball beneath a player. I suppose we could see the player on the ground react to a challenge with an arm block or head block or squeeze a ball between their legs and roll or jump away and put themselves in harms way.

But my thinking is just as when you run in on a keeper who dives on a ball at your feet . KNOWING once they have possession we can not challenge. I will NOT accept a lunge slide tackle feet first into a keeper as nothing but contact WILL Occur!

In some ways the opponent who is trying to say roll out he ball from under a downed player cannot just drive forward into and through the player with careless, reckless or excessive force on the hope to pop the ball free.

If for example the ball is located between a downed players legs and the opponent tries to sole roll it out that is perfectly fine .

Then if the downed player was to say clamp the thighs or calves to pinch the ball and then roll or summersault away the ONLY real shot the opponent has would be to kick at the legs. THAT makes the player on the ground guilty of unfair PIADM . If I was into making the call for PIADM and a LATE reckless challenge was initiated by the opposition. The INDFK awarded in the attacker's favour but a caution to the attacker for misconduct has merit. . Still I punish foolish aggression quicker than a foolish tactic.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Brian,
Although there is a principle that an offence occurs when the referee decides it has, rather than when the whistle is blown, I would agree with my colleagues that in this particular situation most referees would be reluctant to penalise a player who falls to the ground and then gets kicked by an opponent. As has been pointed out, simply playing the ball from the ground is not an offence so I think I would prefer to take the view that if it wasn't clear enough that the referee had already had time to blow the whistle, then maybe the PIADM hadn't actually occurred yet. It's a bit of a fudge, admittedly but I think this might be an example where there is one decision that is technically correct according to the letter of the law and another that is better for the good of the game (not to mention the referee's match control).