England vs Hungary penalty

[Anubis]

Could you explain why that's not an IDK for a high foot though? I see no intent. Is it because he could see the player coming? If he couldn't see the player coming would that have had a bearing on the decision? (Or it doesn't matter about intent because it's dangerous anyway?)

I'm not having a go at you but ordinarily high foot fouls are giving as IDK's even if they're outside the box per your example above.

Thanks in advance.

as above. contact equals direct


bear in mind also, high boot, by definition, is no offence.

 

[one]

Could you explain why that's not an IDK for a high foot though?

There is no such thing as high foot being IFK. That's player speak. In refereeing terms, playing in a dangerous manner is an offence. If there is no contact, it's IFK. If there is contact the it would also fall under other offences punishable by DFK which would be the more serious offence. And the more serious offence was punished here because there was contact.

Also keep in mind, you can still punish it by a DFK offence if the is no contact. For example attempting to kick an opponent.

 

[GraemeS]

I was thinking about this the other day. So are we saying that the distinction between "dangerous play" for IFK and "attempting to kick" for DFK is down to us judging the intent of the player?

I thought a huge part of a justification for the constant tinkering with the HB law was because we aren't psychic and therefore can't be trusted to judge intent in the case of a HB? But we are expected to judge intent when making the distinction I outlined above, or at any point when penalising any "attempting to ..." offence?

 

[socal lurker]

I was thinking about this the other day. So are we saying that the distinction between "dangerous play" for IFK and "attempting to kick" for DFK is down to us judging the intent of the player?

I thought a huge part of a justification for the constant tinkering with the HB law was because we aren't psychic and therefore can't be trusted to judge intent in the case of a HB? But we are expected to judge intent when making the distinction I outlined above, or at any point when penalising any "attempting to ..." offence?

I think there has been a lot of overstatement over the years that we don't judge intent. Of course we do. But we don't do it by reading minds, but by viewing the action and the reasonable interpretation of the action. On a no-contact scenario, I don't think it is usually difficult to tell if the player's actions were the actions or trying to kick the ball or of trying to kick the opponent. If the ball is in the area of the foot, I'm going to consider it an attempt on the ball absent evidence to the contrary.

But really, I don't think anything changed at all regarding handling when we moved from "intentional" (for all fouls, including handling) to "deliberate" (only for handling). And really, I don't think "unnatural position" really does either--"unnatural position" was long taught as a way of identifying handling that was in fact deliberate, based on an earlier action.