The Ref Stop

Croatia v Albania

Murri O

Murri O

Well-Known Member
93rd minute. Duka the Albanian kicked the Croatian defender in the head while shooting. (I'd call that a high foot.)

Duka given a YC.

I'm OK with the YC but I've sat I seminars when they say IDFK for a high foot no contact, contact with the head RC.

Opinions?

Edit. at grassroots what are we giving there?
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
Murri O said:
93rd minute. Duka the Albanian kicked the Croatian defender in the head while shooting. (I'd call that a high foot.)

Duka given a YC.

I'm OK with the YC but I've sat I seminars when they say IDFK for a high foot no contact, contact with the head RC.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Accidental kicks to the head have generally trended towards yellow unless the force is truly excessive at the pro/elite level. Even one in the Portugal game this week was called a simple foul.
 
Slightly off topic, but I see lots of overhead kicks on TV that look beautiful on the eye, but as a ref, I think they're so dangerous when a defender is throwing his head at it.
 
BCMilan said:
Slightly off topic, but I see lots of overhead kicks on TV that look beautiful on the eye, but as a ref, I think they're so dangerous when a defender is throwing his head at it.
Click to expand...
"A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."

Referees must be judging not dangerous to opponent. If it is then it's idfk where no contact occurs and DFK where contact occurs.
 
JamesL said:
"A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent."

Referees must be judging not dangerous to opponent. If it is then it's idfk where no contact occurs and DFK where contact occurs.
Click to expand...
I think i'm fairly alone with this argument, but IMO the vast majority that are in the penalty area "are" dangerous as there are often players about to head it away. Maybe more should be brave enough to actually go for the header and draw the foul / caution.
 
Another very confusing area of the book. And no surprise whatsoever that pundits use the wrong terminology
Playing in a Dangerous Manner is usually an IDFK and no sanction
Reckless, which is showing a disregard to safety is a caution
Endangering an Opponent (which very much implies 'playing in a dangerous manner' by anyone's dictionary, is Serious Foul Play

Take your pick from that load of IFAB contrdictory nonsense
 
What the game expects, is some leniency when it comes to very high tariff actions that involve scoring or preventing a goal
The situation implies that the guilty player is focused on 'the prize' rather than the opponent
 
Big Cat said:
Another very confusing area of the book. And no surprise whatsoever that pundits use the wrong terminology
Playing in a Dangerous Manner is usually an IDFK and no sanction
Reckless, which is showing a disregard to safety is a caution
Endangering an Opponent (which very much implies 'playing in a dangerous manner' by anyone's dictionary, is Serious Foul Play

Take your pick from that load of IFAB contrdictory nonsense
Click to expand...
Um, no, nothing contradictory. The more serious offense is punished. A DFK offense is more serious than an IFK offense, so in a reckless or excessive force offense, it may also be PIADM, but the DFK offense is what we sanction.

(On the other hand, adding “challenge” to “tackle” a few years ago does raise a question of how many PIADM calls of old should now be DFK offenses as a careless or reckless challenge.)
 
socal lurker said:
Um, no, nothing contradictory. The more serious offense is punished. A DFK offense is more serious than an IFK offense, so in a reckless or excessive force offense, it may also be PIADM, but the DFK offense is what we sanction.

(On the other hand, adding “challenge” to “tackle” a few years ago does raise a question of how many PIADM calls of old should now be DFK offenses as a careless or reckless challenge.)
Click to expand...
Yes, I see what you are saying but there are still some differentials.

For example the list of DFK offences only applies to against an opponent (although it is arguable that's not true as striking a team mate is a DFK offence) whereas playing in a dangerous manner is threatening injury to anyone. Challenging has to involve some element of competing for the ball as well so you could play in a dangerous manner whilst not competing/contesting for the ball.
 
JamesL said:
Yes, I see what you are saying but there are still some differentials.

For example the list of DFK offences only applies to against an opponent (although it is arguable that's not true as striking a team mate is a DFK offence) whereas playing in a dangerous manner is threatening injury to anyone. Challenging has to involve some element of competing for the ball as well so you could play in a dangerous manner whilst not competing/contesting for the ball.
Click to expand...
incuding yourself!
 
JamesL said:
Yes, I see what you are saying but there are still some differentials.

For example the list of DFK offences only applies to against an opponent (although it is arguable that's not true as striking a team mate is a DFK offence) whereas playing in a dangerous manner is threatening injury to anyone. Challenging has to involve some element of competing for the ball as well so you could play in a dangerous manner whilst not competing/contesting for the ball.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, some PIADM won’t fit, most noticeably perhaps the low head that dissuades an opponent from playing th ball to avoid injuring the person heading low. But the most classic form of PIADM involves a foot somewhere dangerous to an opponent, which sure seems like a careless or reckless challenge. (Though I don’t think that is what IFAB really had in mind in drafting.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top