Question Number: 32323

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/20/2018

RE: Intermediate Under 14

Phil of Tarzana, CA United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32318

Thank you for all your comments. It may have been the event that referee McHugh mentioned. It's been awhile & I had thought that the defender did not use his foot to stop the ball & had slid off the pitch.

In the video, I would certainly believe that it would be an IDFK because he stopped the ball with his foot & then dropped to the ground.

However, if he was already on the ground after sliding & saw the ball coming toward him, I would think that he could use his head, don't you?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
Yeah each situation will be different. If the player is already on the ground and he uses his head because that is all that he can play the ball with then no issue for me.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI phi,
The LOTG say a circumvent is trying to get around the LOTG but in a scramble to clear the ball we can lunge at a ball to slide tackle with the foot to strip a ball and it goes straight to our keeper that technically was a challenge to win the ball more so than a deliberate kick to the keeper. If you were standing and a bouncing ball came to you, you could knee or thigh pass it to the keeper rather than raise your foot.

If a player was head first lying on the ground and he lunged to head a ball as that was his nearest body part I would not see it as a circumvent possible PIADM though. . I think you could take a stab and get away with it but if you had time to turn around or get up on your knees hard to say what a referee might think. Most tend to get uneasy if they see something different, but they hopefully do not look for what is not there! .
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Phil,
In my previous answer I mentioned my interpretation that circumvention is when a player contrives an artificial manoeuvre to enable the use of a body part other than the foot, when the situation is such that the entirely normal course of action would have been to use the foot and the only plausible explanation for not using the foot is that the player is trying to avoid the restrictions in the law.

The extension of that is that if the ball (and/or player) is in a situation where use of a body part other than the foot is entirely normal then it is not circumvention. So yes, if the player is already on the ground as part of the normal course of events and the ball simply 'presents itself' to be played with the head then I probably wouldn't see that as circumvention, using the 'spirit of the law' argument.

However in my opinion that doesn't translate into saying that any time the player does not use the foot to settle the ball to the ground, it is therefore not circumvention.