Ref4Me

England vs Hungary penalty

Alex Rush-Fear

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet, so figured I'd do it myself! For those who haven't seen it:

Penalty and a yellow card the correct call for me, assuming that contact has indeed been made (which I think there was, although I've yet to see a photo or video which 100% proves whether there was or wasn't).
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
The Referee Store

Justylove

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Looked like a penalty when I watched it. Shaw not only had his foot high, he'd also jumped off his standing foot to make the clearance.

Think the Hungary player was cute and brave in seeing and sticking his head him to challenge as Shaw sort of telegraphed his intent.
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Seems about right.

Would you being going for a red had the player approached at the other angle and gone in studs side?
 

Robbo_6

New Member
Level 6 Referee
As a biased Englishman I was at first in denial. However, after they showed the replays I couldn't have many complaints. It's a textbook free kick anywhere else on the park so had to be a pen. There was no conclusive evidence to show that Shaw didn't touch him so had to stick with the ref's decision.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
Level 5 Referee
I personally don't think there was any contact but Shaw had a poor game last night and took a foolish risk. 😔
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Are we saying IDFK if no contact? Yeh right
Besides, don't see how contact or no contact counts for anything
PIADM. Indirect free kick. Which I think without the contact this fits into. Similar has happened in the PL. Graham Scott iirc.
 

Viking

Q-1994, Re-qualified 2019 Worcestershire UK
Level 7 Referee
We have careless, reckless and dangerous fouls. No card, YC and RC respectively. However, PIADM is not an automatic RC even though you are acting dangerously. I assume we're all agreed that any challenge above the waist involving the foot, needs special attention. So, in the OP's instance, the player has acted so dangerously, that he has thought it correct to jump to then kick the ball at head height, whilst also kicking the opposition player in the head. He looks to be off both feet when he makes contact with the head.

If players go in at full force, off their feet and take the standing leg of a player, even though they played the ball, the challenge can be classed as dangerous as the player's out of control and it's a RC. Why are we not applying the same level of dangerousness to what Luke Shaw did? He was off his feet and kicked someone in the head. It's not just reckless, it's dangerous. Why are we not sending these players off?
 

ChasObserverRefDeveloper

Regular Contributor
I didn't see the televised match as I was at a live match as the FA Observer, but on the way home heard the "expert" on the radio:
"I can see why he gave it. It was dangerous play so it's a penalty"
He was asked if he was surprised that it wasn't over-turned by VAR. "No, it was dangerous and he kicked him in the head so it's a pen., I suppose"
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Would the reckless challenge hence the yellow not override the PIADM and also why its a pen
Yes. Is the short answer. If you decide it is a challenge and not threatening injury whilst trying to play the ball of course. Contact puts it in the CRUEF category anyway. If it's no contact is where we have to decide if its a challenge ie is he competing or contesting for the ball or is it threatening injury whilst trying to play the ball.
It's a reckless challenge. Direct free kick, contact or no contact.

(Penalty kick in this case of course)
Not sure it fits with the definition of "challenge". Is Shaw competing or contesting for the ball here?
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
PIADM is one of the poorest sections of the book (and it has some competition!)
It's a load of &^$*!
'High foot Ref' would be a better term to use
I'd ask someone to explain it to me, but I honestly don't think anyone knows what it really means, even if they think they do
 

Max2

New Member
Level 3 Referee
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet, so figured I'd do it myself! For those who haven't seen it:

Penalty and a yellow card the correct call for me, assuming that contact has indeed been made (which I think there was, although I've yet to see a photo or video which 100% proves whether there was or wasn't).
Spot on decision
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
PIADM is one of the poorest sections of the book (and it has some competition!)
It's a load of &^$*!
'High foot Ref' would be a better term to use
I'd ask someone to explain it to me, but I honestly don't think anyone knows what it really means, even if they think they do
Its when someone plays in a dangerous manner
 

Mr Dean

Well-Known Member
Yes. Is the short answer. If you decide it is a challenge and not threatening injury whilst trying to play the ball of course. Contact puts it in the CRUEF category anyway. If it's no contact is where we have to decide if its a challenge ie is he competing or contesting for the ball or is it threatening injury whilst trying to play the ball.

Not sure it fits with the definition of "challenge". Is Shaw competing or contesting for the ball here?
Playing in a dangerous manner is also tricky to define because some say that "preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury" is a requirement for PIADM. If this is the case, the Hungarian player definitely was not prevented from playing the ball for fear of injury - he went for it, fully committed.

However, others say that "preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury" is just an example of PIADM in which case Shaw is guilty of PIADM. If Shaw is also guilty of committing a reckless challenge, the most serious offence is punished. But now there is debate about whether Shaw committed a "challenge". The law says that the challenge must be against an opponent so challenging the ball but not against an opponent is not an offence even if it's reckless, which adds more confusion.

Also, how can a player be guilty of playing in a dangerous manner but not endangering the safely of an opponent?

Simply put, law 12 needs rewriting.
 
Top