Question Number: 21082

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/3/2009

RE: level 8 Under 12

michael of nyc, ny usa asks...

This question is a follow up to question 21043

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if in the
opinion of the referee, a player:
? plays in a dangerous manner
? impedes the progress of an opponent
? ? commits any other offence not mentioned.
----------------- so far so good.

What is dangerous manner? If it is dangereous, it should be a DFK. Is not impeding a DFK?

These are all dangereous. ? kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
? trips or attempts to trip an opponent
? jumps at an opponent
? charges an opponent
? strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
? pushes an opponent
? tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following three offences:
? holds an opponent
? spits at an opponent
? handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his
own penalty area)

WHAT ELSE IS THERE THAT IS IMPEDING AND DANGEREOUS BUT NOT A DFK? impeeding and dangereous are confusing?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Fouls require three things!
An opposing player
Incident occurs on the field
Ball in play
Contact fouls are DFKs! Only players can create a DFK
Non Contact fouls such as impeding (formerly called obstruction is interference with an opponent when the ball is NOT within a playable distance (generally measured as about two strides at the current speed of pursuit.) If there is significant actual physical contact of a forceful nature it moves up in stature and becomes a dfk offence.

Shielding or shepparding the ball into the keeper's clutches or out of play into touch to win a goal kick or throw in is in fact legal impeding as long as the player doing the shielding can realistically play the ball whilst keeping the opponent at bay. If the opponent pulls or pushes to get around the shielder it is a dfk if the shielder uses the arms or backs up it is holding and the free kick goes the other way! This is a difficult test for foul recognition simply because what passes as fair play is not the same at the grassroots as it is at the elite or professional level!


PIADM is similar to impeding except it PREVENTS you from fairly playing the ball when it is in fact playable but to TRY and do so it endangers you or an opposing player.
PIADM has some false or myth tendencies known as
(1) Playing the ball while on the ground or
(2) High kick.
While such actions COULD on occasion create PIADM criteria we apply a reasonable condition to the act itself. For example simply accidentally falling onto the ball is NOT PIADM or an indfk offence just because the opponent cannot kick away at the ball UNLESS once there the player has made no effort to regain their feet or improperly shields the ball while trying to play the ball away! Many a good goal is scored from the seat of the pants. The dangerous action must be created by the player unfairly preventing the opponent from being able to play the ball. The greater the skill the less likely the act will stop the play for the ball. If contact does occur we could again upgrade to dfk status!
You may recall the John Terry incident in which he did a diving header at a ball being cleared by a defender and got knocked unconscious. Some thought a PK for being kicked in the head others thought an INDFK out for PIADM for using his head at just below chest level. The referee decided there was no fault, there were no cards and the restart was a goal kick. While a high foot can flinch out a challenge from an opponent or a low header for a ball that was reasonably played with the foot will occur and require your intervention. it is not often easy to differentiate and will vary considerably between youth, skill, elite and older ages as to what requires a quicker whistle or no whistle at all!!

Misconduct where we stop play solely to show a card or offside are both INDFK restarts.
Indfks are for the technical or procedural violations against the laws of the game rather than against an opponent!
INDFKS can be generated by players or substitutes!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Impeding is another way of saying a player gets in the way of an opponent - in order to slow him down or redirect him so that the opponent cannot get to the ball. It is unfair if the player cannot play the ball himself, and deliberately tries to keep an opponent from playing it as well. The DFK equivalent is the unfair charge - a charge off the ball is always unfair and is a DFK. With impeding there is really no contact, just obstruction. Please note: if the player can actually play the ball, but is simply shielding the ball, that is NOT impeding.

Playing in a dangerous manner (should have been covered in your entry level class!) means a player is keeping an opponent from being able to safely play a ball by putting themselves in the way - even if by accident.

The classic examples - stop me if you've heard this - include the player who is covering up the ball on the ground. Perhaps they stumbled, and are on all fours, but the ball is under them. No opponent can kick it without kicking the player, so it is termed playing in a dangerous manner. Now, if there is no opponent nearby trying to play the ball, there is NO offense.

Another widely used example involves the 'high kick' - in other words, someone puts their foot up where normal people expect to play the ball with their head or chest and if this attempt to play the ball with the foot makes an opponent draw back to keep from getting kicked, we say the player is playing in a dangerous manner - IDFK.

You'll note again there is no contact. If the player actually kicks the opponent, we've moved into DFK territory.

The last example is the reverse of the high kick. If a player tries to use his head where most folks would use their foot or knee, then an opponent who wants to use his foot to play the low ball has to not kick it or risk kicking the player. So the player is called for PIADM.

So, like all fouls, impeding and PIADM require the action to be on the field, between opponents while the ball is in play. The difference lies in the lack of contact and/or intent, and thus the lesser penalty. Hope that helps.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Michael, you seem to have some very basic confusion that leads me to believe someone did a poor job at your certification course as these concepts shouldn't be confusing. Impeding the progress of an opponent is by definition an IFK offense. Period. Why would you think it's a DFK offense as it's not one of the 10 DFK fouls.

Advice To Referees should help. Here's what's there:


12.12 THE INDIRECT FREE KICK FOULS
A second group of offenses is described in Law 12 for which the correct restart is an indirect free kick. These are referred to as 'indirect free kick' fouls.

12.13 PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Playing 'in a dangerous manner' can be called only if the act, in the opinion of the referee, meets three criteria: the action must be dangerous to someone (including the player committing the action), it was committed with an opponent close by, and the dangerous nature of the action caused this opponent to cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play. Merely committing a dangerous act is not, by itself, an offense (e.g., kicking high enough that the cleats show or attempting to play the ball while on the ground). Committing a dangerous act while an opponent is nearby is not, by itself, an offense. The act becomes an offense only when an opponent is adversely and unfairly affected, usually by the opponent ceasing to challenge for the ball in order to avoid receiving or causing injury as a direct result of the player's act. Playing in a manner considered to be dangerous when only a teammate is nearby is not a foul. Remember that fouls may be committed only against opponents or the opposing team.

In judging a dangerous play offense, the referee must take into account the experience and skill level of the players. Opponents who are experienced and skilled may be more likely to accept the danger and play through. Younger players have neither the experience nor skill to judge the danger adequately and, in such cases, the referee should intervene on behalf of their safety. For example, playing with cleats up in a threatening or intimidating manner is more likely to be judged a dangerous play offense in youth matches, without regard to the reaction of opponents.

12.14 IMPEDING AN OPPONENT
'Impeding the progress of an opponent' means moving on the field so as to obstruct, interfere with, or block the path of an opponent. Impeding can include crossing directly in front of the opponent or running between the opponent and the ball so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying progress. There will be many occasions during a game when a player will come between an opponent and the ball, but in the majority of such instances, this is quite natural and fair. It is often possible for a player not playing the ball to be in the path of an opponent and still not be guilty of impeding.

The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).



I believe part of the problem is you are looking at the phrase "playing in a dangerous manner" and thinking that this should mean something that is a very serious offense due to the word dangerous in the phrase. In actuality it is a LESS serious offense than any of the 10 direct free kick fouls in that it only brings the punishment of an IFK and, consequently, never a penalty kick. You should place the emphasis on the word "manner" in the phrase. For example, a player executing a "high kick" as described by Ref Maloney may be playing in a dangerous manner but doesn't actually commit the much more dangerous ACTION of kicking an opponent. If the player committing the action does it in a dangerous manner only, he is punished by awarding an indirect free kick to the opponents. If the action escalates to a more serious offense that actually involves contact then the punishment is the more severe DFK or PK. Dangerous manner usually implies no actual contact whereas the direct free kick fouls involve contact or the attempt at contact which are more serious offenses.

Hope this helps.