The Ref Stop

Dangerous Play

B

boblardo

Active Member
Level 5 Referee
Think I missed a caution on saturday for Dangerous play but as I was lucky enough to have NAR's this week one thought i got it spot on the other said he would have cautioned so wanted to get some clarity.

Reds v Greens in an evenly contested affair. High Ball from Greed defence heading towards the red PA when the green attacker raises foot to control the ball. Red defender comes from behind to head the ball away, bending down to about chest height and gets caught in the face.

I blow and award a direct free kick for DP, aggreived red player believes it should be red card which I was 100% sure it wasn't hence why DFK only.

One of NAR's said he would have cautioned the other agreed with my decision, on reflection a YC could have been an easy sell as it was the only flash point in the whole game but wondered what everyone elses thoughts were?
 
The Ref Stop
Not all contact is a foul and not all fouls need a card. You said you weren't 100% sure, that's good. Trust your instinct. If you had a chat with the offender, you are seen to be doing something.

If this was the only flash point and I'd been observing, I'd have been happy to see you do more than just give the free kick. That doesn't mean you have to pull a card out; just that you acknowledge that there has been a flash point by having a word.

Also you will have been a lot closer (hopefully) than either AR. If my AR had offered an opinion different from mine, I'd have asked what made them think what they did?
 
If by "dangerous play" you mean "playing in a dangerous manner" then that is an indirect free kick offence and therefore one involving no contact. Once there's contact and assuming you deem it to be a foul, it can't be dangerous play/PIADM any more, it's just a kicking foul. Whether you then consider it to be reckless or using excessive force, requiring the appropriate card or merely careless so just a free kick (with probably, as Brian suggests, a word to the offender) is up to your best judgement.
 
First thing I'd be considering is whether that is a normal, natural position for someone to be heading the ball. If it is and that person then gets 'caught in the face' then it's hard to argue that the attacker's actions weren't reckless and therefore worthy of some form of card. If, however, the head was unnaturally low then this need not be the case. Without seeing the incident I'd be leaning towards a yellow card
 
boblardo said:
Think I missed a caution on saturday for Dangerous play but as I was lucky enough to have NAR's this week one thought i got it spot on the other said he would have cautioned so wanted to get some clarity.

Reds v Greens in an evenly contested affair. High Ball from Greed defence heading towards the red PA when the green attacker raises foot to control the ball. Red defender comes from behind to head the ball away, bending down to about chest height and gets caught in the face.

I blow and award a direct free kick for DP, aggreived red player believes it should be red card which I was 100% sure it wasn't hence why DFK only.

One of NAR's said he would have cautioned the other agreed with my decision, on reflection a YC could have been an easy sell as it was the only flash point in the whole game but wondered what everyone elses thoughts were?
Click to expand...
To me, what you have described is reckless play.

"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to,
or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"
 
JH said:
To me, what you have described is reckless play.

"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to,
or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"
Click to expand...

I think you need to see this to know if it was merely careless or was reckless. Two key factors suggest to me it might merely be careless-- the opponent "came from behind" (so the kicker was apparently unaware of the opponent) and the opponent was "bending down" (meaning the kick, while a bit high, was not at head level).

This is also likely enough of a wobbler between reckless and careless that the temperature of the particular game could be the deciding factor in whether to give the caution.
 
socal lurker said:
I think you need to see this to know if it was merely careless or was reckless. Two key factors suggest to me it might merely be careless-- the opponent "came from behind" (so the kicker was apparently unaware of the opponent) and the opponent was "bending down" (meaning the kick, while a bit high, was not at head level).

This is also likely enough of a wobbler between reckless and careless that the temperature of the particular game could be the deciding factor in whether to give the caution.
Click to expand...
Agree that you need to be there to give a definitive answer. However, IMO, other things being equal, kicking someone (in this case in the head) at 'chest level' is highly likely to be Reckless, even when done completely unintentionally
 
To me, you have described a situation wherein no foul has occured. The red player, you say, bent down to head the ball and came from behind the green player to do it. Sounds like neither (or both?) were playing on the edge here and I would prefer to carry on.
 
boblardo said:
what everyone elses thoughts were?
Click to expand...

From the training videos that I saw last month that sounds very similar to your description, it would be a caution - due to contact with the head/face.

So, yeah, for me based on the training that's what I'd have gone for.
 
CanuckRef said:
To me, you have described a situation wherein no foul has occured. The red player, you say, bent down to head the ball and came from behind the green player to do it. Sounds like neither (or both?) were playing on the edge here and I would prefer to carry on.
Click to expand...


This ^^

I thought the same based on how the scenario has been laid out in the OP.

You might even argue there could be a case for the free kick to be given the other way against the player trying to head the ball (PIADM). ??
 
Kes said:
You might even argue there could be a case for the free kick to be given the other way against the player trying to head the ball (PIADM). ??
Click to expand...
surely a red card for red player then, since he headbutted green players foot, therefore being violent conduct?! ;)
Based on what has been described, green player didn't kick the ball and kicked the red player in the face, that surely has to be a DFK "kicks or attempts to kick" but agree a yellow would be harsh if green is stooping down to head it.
 
RobOda said:
I disagree, this is 'chest height', and I think a head has more business being at 'chest height' than a foot.
Click to expand...
This is the key point. EITHER the head is at a height where it has every 'right' to be, in which case the height of the foot probably makes the challenge Reckless OR the head is unreasonably low in which case the option is there to penalise that player for PIADM
 
Russell Jones said:
This is the key point. EITHER the head is at a height where it has every 'right' to be, in which case the height of the foot probably makes the challenge Reckless OR the head is unreasonably low in which case the option is there to penalise that player for PIADM
Click to expand...
What about if the ball is EXACTLY midway between a players foot and head.......
 
Brian Hamilton said:
That's why teams pay us isn't it? We are the arbitrator of any disputes.
Click to expand...
I was making the point about a post that said there is NEVER a time when the ball is not either "head height" or "foot height." I asked about when the ball is EXACTLY half way, so therefore there is a time it is not clear cut. Not that we shouldn't be making the call.
 
You just need to make a gut decision at the time, as you do with many refereeing decisions. If the head and foot height are exactly or even close to being half way I'd be tempted to say that neither player is at fault and let play got on (unless of course it needs stopping for a head injury).
 
Russell Jones said:
This is the key point. EITHER the head is at a height where it has every 'right' to be, in which case the height of the foot probably makes the challenge Reckless OR the head is unreasonably low in which case the option is there to penalise that player for PIADM
Click to expand...
There's no option for PIADM here - there was contact.
 
This is fairly arbitrary without seeing the incident but for me it would centre on whether the kicker had been careless or reckless. If he is unaware of the challenger (as they are coming from behind) and their foot is at most chest height then I don't deem it sanctionable.

The grey area imho is the bicycle kick - anyone going for it knows that they will be putting their foot at a natural head height and using force to execute the kick. If they try to pull it off in a crowded area then they had better get it spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top