Bending down to head the ball

[Tim Punter]

Had an incident today. 1-1 in a semi final cup game. Corner to blues, and ball bouncing around in the box. Ball is about 3ft off the floor, and red defender stoops to head, forward nicks it off him and I think he then scores or another player.
Reds are screaming for a foul, but I said that is too low and forward had every right to go for it.
Defender stays on the floor for treatment, but there is no visible damage to him.
Would you have given the foul as the safe option, given the circumstances of the game? But if I had given a free kick then blue team would have exploded with rage!
General thoughts on fouls anywhere on the pitch for this situation?

 

[RustyRef]

Was there any contact by the attacker on the defender? What is pretty clear is that it can't be playing a in a dangerous manner by the attacker as the defender has put his head there, but if the attacker took a swing at it and made contact with the opponent's head it is probably a foul. No different to if the defender was stood up tall and the player kicked him where no man wants to be kicked.

 

[Tim Punter]

Yes, probably should gone for the safe option and given it, but couldn't see any contact between the forward and defender.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Yes, probably should gone for the safe option and given it, but couldn't see any contact between the forward and defender.

If the lowered head was close to an opponent, you may consider that as dangerous play(?)

 

[Tim Punter]

If the lowered head was close to an opponent, you may consider that as dangerous play(?)

But the defender stooped down to head the ball, so I didn't think the attacker foot was in a dangerous position and there wasn't any obvious contact

 

[socal lurker]

But the defender stooped down to head the ball, so I didn't think the attacker foot was in a dangerous position and there wasn't any obvious contact

Dangerous by the defender putting himself in danger by putting his head in a place the ball is naturally kicked.

 

[CapeTownRef]

For me the player that stooped to head the ball is endangering himself. I'd give an indirect free kick to the defending side.

 

[george.g]

For me the player that stooped to head the ball is endangering himself. I'd give an indirect free kick to the defending side.

I do believe this is one of the hardest calls to sell in football sometimes.

 

[wazztie16]

I do believe this is one of the hardest calls to sell in football sometimes.

Along with offside in their own half...

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

For me the player that stooped to head the ball is endangering himself. I'd give an indirect free kick to the defending side.

Did you mean an ifk to the attacking team?
Law 12 states:
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.

 

[Tim Punter]

Did you mean an ifk to the attacking team?
Law 12 states:
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.

That would have caused a proper uproar. Disallow the goal and give and ifk to the attacking team instead. In one fail swoop annoys both teams equally! Tempting to give that a go next week if the same thing happens.

 

[JamesL]

That would have caused a proper uproar. Disallow the goal and give and ifk to the attacking team instead. In one fail swoop annoys both teams equally! Tempting to give that a go next week if the same thing happens.

If you deem the defender to have committed an offence then obviously you can apply advantage and award the goal, providing you haven't already stopped play

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

That would have caused a proper uproar. Disallow the goal and give and ifk to the attacking team instead. In one fail swoop annoys both teams equally! Tempting to give that a go next week if the same thing happens.

As shown in the OP, play continued and a goal was scored. As James has stated, the advantage would apply.
I was questioning your post indicating a free kick to the defence, as I don't understand the rationale for that.

 

[Tim Punter]

As shown in the OP, play continued and a goal was scored. As James has stated, the advantage would apply.
I was questioning your post indicating a free kick to the defence, as I don't understand the rationale for that.

I was joking about disallowing the goal, as I would clearly play the advantage. I am still a bit unclear about why the defender could be penalised for stooping down. Has anyone given a free kick against a player doing this, as you state for "threatens injury to someone (including the player themself"

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I was joking about disallowing the goal, as I would clearly play the advantage. I am still a bit unclear about why the defender could be penalised for stooping down. Has anyone given a free kick against a player doing this, as you state for "threatens injury to someone (including the player themself"

I've seen this offence penalised correctly twice in the last year (both matches had a Level 3 referee)
On both occasions their reasoning was that a head lowered below the opponent's waist whilst running towards the opponent was dangerous.

 

[Tim Punter]

I've seen this offence penalised correctly twice in the last year (both matches had a Level 3 referee)
On both occasions their reasoning was that a head lowered below the opponent's waist whilst running towards the opponent was dangerous.

That is fantastic advice, as next season may be my first one with scored observations, so already worrying about missing things like this!

 

[one]

General thoughts on fouls anywhere on the pitch for this situation?

The decision is situational based. Assuming we all agree that the defender has put himself in a dangerous situation. Three feasible options and obviously advantage can be applied if you deem fit

IFK to attacker: have to make sure the criteria for PIADM are met. No contact and, it has to prevent the opponent from playing the ball. Your case fails the second criteria as the attacker played the ball.

DFK to defenders: if opponent makes contact with the defender and you deem it careless or higher, regardless of the defender puting himself in danger, the DFK has to be given to defenders. Because of contact PIADM doesn't apply and even if it did, as the offences happen at the same time the DFK Trump's the IDK. In your case it sounds like no contact so move on to next option.

No FK: so we failed the first two options. The defender didn't prevent the attacker from playing the ball and the attacker wasn't careless. There really is no reason to stop the game. In your case it sounds like you made the right call.

The only other option that can be argued is IFK to defender claiming the attacker played in a dangerous manner. This also fails the PIADM criteria as the defender went for it anyway so there was no prevention for fear of injury.

 

[JamesL]

This also fails the PIADM criteria as the defender went for it anyway so there was no prevention for fear of injury.

I don't think this bit is quite right. The criteria is plays in a manner which threatens injury, which includes fear of playing the ball. (I'm not quoting word for word so forgive) So the fear of playing ball is not a minimum criteria to be met before PIADM can be the offence

 

[OldNavyRef]

Yes, probably should gone for the safe option and given it, but couldn't see any contact between the forward and defender.

You didn't see any contact. You can only give what you see. Just do what is right with the information you have.

You seen the defender lower his head in a dangerous manner in the box, you probably expect the defence to be doing everything at 110% as they are desperate inside the box, so a little of what is expected from the game here.

Them claiming high foot when the defender has bent into it, is an easy sell also. A quick verbal, no deliberate contact and the defender has bent into it.

If you didn't see the contact, the goal easily stands. Get out of there fast by running to the happy people (the team that scored). If they continue to swarm you, ask for the captain. Quick explanation and add, if you want to discuss it in more detail we can chat in the changing room at HT/FT.

 

[socal lurker]

I don't think this bit is quite right. The criteria is plays in a manner which threatens injury, which includes fear of playing the ball. (I'm not quoting word for word so forgive) So the fear of playing ball is not a minimum criteria to be met before PIADM can be the offence

I think this is yet another example of IFAB making poor language choices. For PIADM (at least at adult competitive levels), I do think we want some actual impact on the opponent before making a call—the whole point of fouls is to not let someone get an unfair advantage. So unless the opponent holds back or is somehow limited in how he can get to the ball, I don’t think a call is warranted—but the more dangerous the action, the less I would need to see re the opponent for a call to make sense.

At young ages (or adult recreational levels with limited skills), I think it makes far more sense to make PIADM calls to affect behavior. Especially at young ages were the opponent may not be astute enough to hold back to avoid potential injury,