Question Number: 34547

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/31/2022

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 34542

One additional question, please.

Which part of the Law 12 will you apply in this case?

Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Petr,

Headbutting (for instance, in the case of a mistimed header attempt) would fall under 'strikes or attempts to strike (including headbutt) an opponent in a manner that is careless, reckless or using excessive force'

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
For me, the part of the law that applies here, is the part that says it is an offence to challenge an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
In my original answer I stated that it was an offence under challenges for the ball.
Those of us who pay attention to law changes will recall that Law 12 used to state tackles an opponent in a careless, reckless etc way was guilty of a Law 12 penal offence. IFAB the law makers were of the opinion that tackles seemed to infer that it did not include aerial or other challenges so challenge was added in 2016/17. The explanation given was "tackles’ implies a challenge with the foot but some challenges can be with other parts of the body..."

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr,
Aerial challenges where heads collide are certainly considered under the auspices of an offence whereby an opponent on tackling a player has challenged in a manner CRUEF. (Carless Reckless using Excessive Force) Law 12 Fouls and Miscoduct

One could consider it as jumping into an opponent or striking an opponent & as you attested often it is viewed as an incidental headbutt by going up into the air with your eyes closed and not acted upon at all.  .

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits the following
offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:
I looked at it from these 4 potential fouls
my opinion no)
jumps at (my opinion unlikely)
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt) plausable but not in this case
tackles or challenges (my definition choice)
If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick

I think it is best seen as an unacceptable challange/tackle attempt to win the ball! Unlike a couple of WC events like the purposeful head butt by ZIDANE into the chest of Materazzi. Or say the Manuel Neuer knee strike into the head of Gonzalo Higuaín. THOSE were acts deserving of a red card. Zidane for VC and SFP by Neuer.

The reality is we should be able to clarify or determine the difference between a vicious strike or or action designed to impact the opponent as a separate issue than trying to challenge & win the ball in a mistimed or ill conceived tackle/challenge. . The fact is the challenge/tackle fair or unfair and how much of a safety issue, is it in terms of timing, force and positional reality? The term headbutt which is included as a strike implies VC more so than SFP which could only occur if it was part of a challenge Although it could be an excessive action, heads clashing accidentaly is not an automatic expulsion as they can be part of an ugly challange rather than than a deliberate act of aggression. ITOOTR the fact is if it is considerd as a DFK offence then it is judged as it was careless, it was reckles, it was excessive, be it looked at as a tackle/challange or a strike.
Cheers

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 34550