Attempt to trip .

[Big Cat]

Correct. But, in fairness, the book gives a pretty unambiguous description of what PIADM is ie risk of injury or fear of injury. It's also a separate subject heading because (IMO) it's designed to cover those instances that fall outside the remit of the listed DFK offences and awards only the sanction of an IDFK. If it were down to me, I'd do away with the pointless IDFK and have every offence (including offside) punished with a DFK. It'd make life a lot simpler.

I find PIADM a useful 'arbitrage' of a decision
Players are not generally expecting a FT when there's no contact, so the announcement of 'IFK' indicates that I know the Laws better than they do
Every decision is different, but I'm just saying that I frequently side with PIADM

 

[Kes]

I find PIADM a useful 'arbitrage' of a decision
Players are not generally expecting a FT when there's no contact, so the announcement of 'IFK' indicates that I know the Laws better than they do
Every decision is different, but I'm just saying that I frequently side with PIADM

I get you.

Watch out though, the follicle dissection society may descend on you for that transgression now that you've posted it ...

 

[socal lurker]

Correct. But, in fairness, the book gives a pretty unambiguous description of what PIADM is ie risk of injury or fear of injury. It's also a separate subject heading because (IMO) it's designed to cover those instances that fall outside the remit of the listed DFK offences and awards only the sanction of an IDFK. If it were down to me, I'd do away with the pointless IDFK and have every offence (including offside) punished with a DFK. It'd make life a lot simpler.

I can see that argument at the higher levels of the game--indeed, how many times do we ever see PIADM in professional games? But in lower levels games, I think the PIADM IFK is an important part of managing a game. Especially true in youth games where players don't yet fully understand and control their bodies--but not necessarily to the point we want DFKs for it. If the call had to be a DFK, I think refs would let things go that really warrant stoppages at those levels.

And an aside: a couple of years ago, careless tackle became careless tackle or challenge. Many examples of PIADM come when challenging an opponent for the ball, so there are I think many non-contact plays that could equally be considered PIADM or a careless challenge.

 

[Kes]

I can see that argument at the higher levels of the game--indeed, how many times do we ever see PIADM in professional games? But in lower levels games, I think the PIADM IFK is an important part of managing a game. Especially true in youth games where players don't yet fully understand and control their bodies--but not necessarily to the point we want DFKs for it. If the call had to be a DFK, I think refs would let things go that really warrant stoppages at those levels.

And an aside: a couple of years ago, careless tackle became careless tackle or challenge. Many examples of PIADM come when challenging an opponent for the ball, so there are I think many non-contact plays that could equally be considered PIADM or a careless challenge.

Can't agree with that mate.

Under what guise (youth or otherwise) can you say that PIADM doesn't also fall within the remit of careless, reckless or excessively forceful when it comes to giving free kicks? It's all about the contact (which PIADM isn't designed for). That's my point about the ambiguity of the way Law 12 is worded.

 

[socal lurker]

Can't agree with that mate.

Under what guise (youth or otherwise) can you say that PIADM doesn't also fall within the remit of careless, reckless or excessively forceful when it comes to giving free kicks? It's all about the contact (which PIADM isn't designed for). That's my point about the ambiguity of the way Law 12 is worded.

You lost me. PIADM is outside the c/r/ef framework. For determining whether there is a foul, c/r/ef applies solely to 7 of the DF offenses. But I think I'm agreeing with you about ambiguity, not disagreeing. While I often think I know what IFAB meant, it is often less clear than it should be. I think it is clear that what IFAB meant is that all contact fouls are DFKs (but not that contact is required for DFK fouls--we all know that a punch that misses is still a DFK and a sendoff.)

PIADM is actually a good example of drafting ambiguity.

Playing in a dangerous manner 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.​

​

Does "and includes" mean that what follows is necessary for a PIADM offense to occur or is one of the examples of how a PIADM offense occurs. It's a terribly awkward way of framing. (I think "and includes" means that is what makes it a foul; I've seen others argue that it is not a requirement. I think it is a requirement--but one that we often fudge at younger ages where the players may not be aware enough to fear injury from what the opponent does.)

 

[Big Cat]

Maybe we should all experiment with our Match Control by giving a PK for a FT in the clear absence of contact inside the PA
I'll report back when my side of the experiment is complete

 

[zarathustra]

I once gave a free kick on the edge of the area for an attempt to kick/trip with no contact.

Attacker had to hurdle a defenders sweeping leg and stumbled as he landed.

Couple of complaints, nothing major though, I can't recall if the free kick was scored.

 

[one]

If it were down to me, I'd do away with the pointless IDFK and have every offence (including offside) punished with a DFK. It'd make life a lot simpler.

It certainly does for us and in general it makes not difference in most cases, especially offside. But what does it do for football and the fairness of its laws (punishment fitting the crime) ? Imagine giving a penalty for a double touch, a 6 second violation or indeed all the IFK offences by keepers in their area.

 

[Kes]

I once gave a free kick on the edge of the area for an attempt to kick/trip with no contact.

Attacker had to hurdle a defenders sweeping leg and stumbled as he landed.

Couple of complaints, nothing major though, I can't recall if the free kick was scored.

Did exactly the same for exactly the same reason not 6 weeks ago. And yes, they scored directly from the free kick.

 

[Kes]

It certainly does for us and in general it makes not difference in most cases, especially offside. But what does it do for football and the fairness of its laws (punishment fitting the crime) ? Imagine giving a penalty for a double touch, a 6 second violation or indeed all the IFK offences by keepers in their area.

I know what you mean but in the grand scheme of things - a shot at goal whether direct or immediately after 1 touch amounts to pretty much the same thing.

 

[one]

I know what you mean but in the grand scheme of things - a shot at goal whether direct or immediately after 1 touch amounts to pretty much the same thing.

But then in the PA there is the very minor difference of a large wall of defenders standing in front of the shot

 

[Kes]

But then in the PA there is the very minor difference of a large wall of defenders standing in front of the shot

Not sure what your point is there.
Surely there's a "wall" whether it's indirect or not?

 

[one]

Not sure what your point is there.
Surely there's a "wall" whether it's indirect or not?

You can't have a wall for a DFK in the PA.

 

[Kes]

You can't have a wall for a DFK in the PA.

I know that! (It's currently called a penalty or something isn't it? )
My point was, there's still 11 players in front of the ball (that's why I used " around the word wall).
Anyway, players would soon adapt and it would certainly make transgressions more impactful not to mention making the game more exciting.