Dangerous play (high foot)

Hi all,
Me again, I was just wondering if you would be kind enough to share your views on high foot (dangerous play) incidents. Couple of times over last few weeks i have had it where a player has kind of dangled there foot in around stomach to lower chest area and defender has headed it and i have allowed play to continue, this caused uproar on sunday when i then had to give a handball on edge of box a few seconds later. If for example an attackers foot is reasonably high,do you guys always give the idfk if the defender heads the ball cleanly and apparently unimpeded? Apologies if this is deemed a stupid question I am wondering if should maybe take the easier option and just give it when that kind of scenario occurs but also conscious we aren't there to be popular?!
Thanks in advance.

Think about the opposite, is the defender by putting his head where feet should be the one committing the act of 'dangerous play'? I've given it...........

For me, there is a region up to about stomach height where a player can expect to use his foot without having to worry about an opponents head (obviously they're still responsible for not putting their studs into an opponents knee/thigh etc.). If an opponent deliberately puts his head that low in an attempt to play the ball, they're the one I'll penalise. If it's borderline, go with the high boot as that's more dangerous and to be honest, more in line with what players will expect.

Similarly, above that height it becomes their responsibility to make sure the opponents head doesn't get too close. I've had some shouts for "high foot ref!" when both players have gone in for the ball with their feet - and in the absence of any contact, that's simply getting waved away. Same for when a player miles from anyone else controls a chest high ball with an outstretched leg - who's that dangerous to?

I'm with GraemeS on this.

I think that a little above waist height is a reasonable height for a play to have their foot when challenging for a high ball, so if a player sticks their head down there then I'd be penalising them. Not sure how well that would go down with the players as most seem to struggle to grasp the concept of the player putting his head in the way as being the one playing in a dangerous manner.

I am glad has raised this point as I have encountered a few incidents this year when one player has ducked his head about 6 inches and his opponent has his foot 4 to 5 feet above the ground dangerously close to this marginally ducked head. I give the decision to award the IDFK for playing in a dangerous manner against the player with the high foot only to met with ' you cannot give that ref he has ducked his head if anything it should be a free kick to us' . This does seem to be the latest players misconception of the laws that is creeping in.

My weakness with this is when both players have really high feet. A few times when there has been no major contact, even both players only making contact with the ball, I have made no decision. In retrospect there have been a few of these where I should have stopped play - even where it has been impossible to judge the worst offender - pick one, blow, make the decision, IDFK or DK if contact, don't shirk it. If you don't blow for high feet there will be likely be problems with match control soon!

I also wonder...how many ref's have given an attacking idfk in defensive penalty box for this offence??

santa sangria said:

My weakness with this is when both players have really high feet. A few times when there has been no major contact, even both players only making contact with the ball, I have made no decision. In retrospect there have been a few of these where I should have stopped play - even where it has been impossible to judge the worst offender - pick one, blow, make the decision, IDFK or DK if contact, don't shirk it. If you don't blow for high feet there will be likely be problems with match control soon!

Click to expand...

I disagree. If both players are going in with their boots, is that automatically more dangerous than two players going in for the same challenge at ground level? "High feet" isn't an offence alone unless it also counts as dangerous play and I think if two players are both going for a high ball with their feet and both their bodies stay a reasonable distance away, where's the increased danger level?

GraemeS said:

I disagree. If both players are going in with their boots, is that automatically more dangerous than two players going in for the same challenge at ground level? "High feet" isn't an offence alone unless it also counts as dangerous play and I think if two players are both going for a high ball with their feet and both their bodies stay a reasonable distance away, where's the increased danger level?

Click to expand...

You are right - sometimes there is no danger - I'm talking about times when there is... good news is I put this into action today (and gave a pen for a GK wiping out a player with his arm as he dived and reached around... it was like a tackle from behind with his arm... anyway I digress...

Hi all this is on a different subject but help needed please .
In a recent match two players slid in quite hard on a 50/50 challenge , they both got the ball but one of the players feet ended up in the other ones chest from momentum. I let play continue and none of the players argued about it . Was I right or wrong ?

Maddison said:

Hi all this is on a different subject but help needed please .
In a recent match two players slid in quite hard on a 50/50 challenge , they both got the ball but one of the players feet ended up in the other ones chest from momentum. I let play continue and none of the players argued about it . Was I right or wrong ?

Click to expand...

Treading a very fine line of getting his marching orders in todays over refereeing ways. Its one of those YHTBT moments to see actually what went on. Personally if all was taken in the spirit of the game and no-one is bitching about it maybe a casual word in his ear saying that he's on your radar and any more like that and he's first to use the Pantene!!! Boots and chests aren't a good mix on a football pitch!!!

I would like to share my views on high foot Challenges (dangerous play) As a level 7 Referee i would give a Indirect free kick but i would Send the player off for this incident and the reason why i would do this is because a Couple of times over last few years that i have been refereeing i have had to send the player off for a high foot challenge these are reasonably high, If both players are going in with their boots, this is automatically more dangerous as two players going in for the same challenge "High foot " and the high foot challenge would be classed in my opion as use of excessive force as this is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponant it also counts as dangerous play and I think if two players are both going for a high ball with their feet and both their bodies stay a reasonable distance away, where's the increased danger level this is where a player can expect to use his foot without having to worry about an opponents head (obviously they're still responsible for not putting their studs into an opponents knee/thigh etc.). If an opponent deliberately puts his head that low in an attempt to play the ball, they're the one I'll penalise. If it's borderline, go with the high boot as that's more dangerous and to be honest, more in line with what players will expect. Similarly, above that height it becomes their responsibility to make sure the opponents head doesn't get too close. I've had some shouts for "high foot ref!" when both players have gone in for the ball with their feet - and in the absence of any contact, that's simply getting waved away. Same for when a player miles from anyone else controls a chest high ball with an outstretched leg - who's that dangerous to so deffinatelly a indirect free kick and sending off

I think this might well break the record for dead thread resurrection Please raise a new thread for this if you want to open discussion on it.