Question Number: 32593

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/14/2018

RE: Youth-Adult, rec and competitive

Barry Stewart of Chilliwack, BC Canada asks...

On the Croatia first goal in the game vs England: if I had seen that high foot near an opposition head in any of my games, I would have called it. Here, three defenders gave a meek wave of their hands to appeal for a foul but none was given.

Would a knee-high header - just ahead of a defender's attempt to kick the ball - also have been no call for playing in a dangerous manner? (And how about if the defender just missed the ball and kicked the low head?)

https://photos.imageevent.com/barstewart/worldcupreffingvids/englandcroatia/Z7110314CroatGoal.MOV

Here's a screen grab from the 2014 Netherlands-Mexico game. There was also no call on this play, though again, the feet are far higher than the head is low. This could have been a Mexico IDFK in the penalty area -- or even a PK.

https://photos.imageevent.com/barstewart/worldcupreffingvids/englandcroatia/huge/Holland-Mex2014.png

Your thoughts? I seem to have few people agreeing with me on the Croatia goal, so far. There's no appealing now, certainly, but I'd like to know for the future.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Barry,
if at the WC in 2014 when the German keeper knees the Argentina player in the head and GETS the free kick in HIS favor no wonder we do not see a PIADM call on a play like this. lol I think the earlier one was a clear free kick in favor of Mexico. The 2018 one here though not so certain, the defender had leaned and stooped to head the ball, the attacker's foot was placed to play the ball, it arrived ahead of the head, did not contact the head, nor did the defender pull away in terror of getting kicked. It was a matter of timing but I see no CR calling this one back unless there was actual contact. It was not a wild kick it was a purposeful redirect and I did not see the defender pull away or flinch . Remember the opponent must be affected or prevented from playing the ball to receive the INDFK a DFK is CONTACT!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Barry
Law 12 advice tells us that 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. With contact it is a direct free kick for kicking an opponent not an IDFK
It is a matter of opinion here. I can look at it and say that Walker dives DOWN to head the ball. The first reaction of the referee will be that Walker was certainly not prevented from playing the ball for fear of injury so we are left with threatening injury to someone. The fact that both players are going in the same direction is a factor. Had the Croatian player being facing the opposite way I believe it would have been called. In real time this will look to the referee that the England player caused the risk to himself by diving and then determining if it was not PIADM as a consequence. Walker was unperturbed by the incident and I feel it was more a lame appeal for the goal to be disallowed. I have seen three still shots of this and Perisic boot ranges from high head height to normal all in the space of a second or so. One image has Walker almost on the ground with Perisics boot low.
https://goo.gl/images/mDmqfK
Personally I think it was poor defending really as Walker should have gone to the ball rather than waiting for it to cone to him at this lower level. That for me is the consequence of a right back playing in the middle as one of three central defenders.
On the Hernandez one it is certainly a foul as the Netherlands player has kicked the player. Add in the raised boot by the other opponent in Hernandezs direction it is certainly a foul.
These can be tight calls in the Pro game. At lower levels I would certainly call both yet I can see why then are not given at the top levels.