England vs Hungary penalty

[Big Cat]

Its when someone plays in a dangerous manner

Playing devil's advocate, a player PIADM must therefore 'endanger the safety of an opponent' and must therefore be sent off!
I get it, but most could be forgiven for having no clue. Further twisting of words could include 'disregard to danger' or 'excessive force' to differentiate between yellow and red, but 'acts without precaution' doesn't really fit, so a caution seems necessary at a minimum. And it has to be bereft of contact to fit the definition
Typical of the book IMO. A load of nonsense. Which is probably why we very rarely (if ever) see IDFK's for PIADM
We're left with flimsy and barely decipherable definitions, yet we blame players for not knowing the Laws

So I've expanded upon your 'its when someone plays in a dangerous manner' reply (which was lacking somewhat )

 

[JamesL]

Playing devil's advocate, a player PIADM must therefore 'endanger the safety of an opponent' and must therefore be sent off, leaving no room for a caution.
Typical of the book IMO. A load of nonsense. Which is probably why we very rarely see IDFK's for PIADM
We're left with flimsy and inconsistent interpretations of definitions that are inconsistent, yet we blame players for not knowing the Laws

You can play in a dangerous manner without endangering the opponents safety.

Example 1 you want to clear the ball but I dive in head first along the floor, you are unable to play the ball through fear of injuring me. I am guilty of playing in a dangerous manner.

Example 2 you want to head a ball, however, I raise my boot to around head height, as a result of that you flinch and pull out of your attempt to play the ball, I play the ball but you weren't able to play the ball through fear of being injured by my raised boot. I am guilty of playing in a dangerous manner but at the same time innocent of endangering your safety.

Neither of these scenarios would require any sanction but idfk.

 

[Big Cat]

You can play in a dangerous manner without endangering the opponents safety.

Example 1 you want to clear the ball but I dive in head first along the floor, you are unable to play the ball through fear of injuring me. I am guilty of playing in a dangerous manner.

Example 2 you want to head a ball, however, I raise my boot to around head height, as a result of that you flinch and pull out of your attempt to play the ball, I play the ball but you weren't able to play the ball through fear of being injured by my raised boot. I am guilty of playing in a dangerous manner but at the same time innocent of endangering your safety.

Neither of these scenarios would require any sanction but idfk.

I get it... ! My updated post reflects that. Sorry, I hadn't finished when you replied! But, probably, the vast majority of Refs won't get it because it's opaque

I tell you what interpretation I'd like to see disseminated via 'secret teachings'. That lying on the ground behind the wall is not football and could be outlawed by classing it as PIADM. I guess that could be seen as 'acting without precaution' (at a push)

 

[JamesL]

I get it... ! My updated post reflects that. Sorry, I hadn't finished when you replied! But, probably, the vast majority of Refs won't get it because it's opaque

I tell you what interpretation I'd like to see disseminated via 'secret teachings'. That lying on the ground behind the wall is not football and could be outlawed by classing it as PIADM. I guess that could be seen as 'acting without precaution' (at a push)

Lose the CRUEF thinking and you are there. They are DFK offences. You don't apply CRUEF to PIADM so if it hits one of the CRUEF offences then you go direct free kick and relevant sanction.

I think the wall scenario would need special provision, because it fails on the "preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball".

 

[Big Cat]

Lose the CRUEF thinking and you are there. They are DFK offences. You don't apply CRUEF to PIADM so if it hits one of the CRUEF offences then you go direct free kick and relevant sanction.

I think the wall scenario would need special provision, because it fails on the "preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball".

I don't really agree. But I'm more than happy to beg to differ on an argument to which there's no right or wrong. Even if you've been instructed otherwise by someone else (who themselves will be subject to the same 'classic LOTG vagary')
IMO, without CRUEF, there's no other basis upon which to decide which sanction is necessary (if any)
Like I say, we (almost) never see PIADM. Is it any surprise?

 

[JamesL]

I don't really agree. But I'm more than happy to beg to differ on an argument to which there's no right or wrong. Even if you've been instructed otherwise by someone else (who themselves will be subject to the same 'classic LOTG vagary')
IMO, without CRUEF, there's no other basis upon which to decide which sanction is necessary (if any)
Like I say, we (almost) never see PIADM. Is it any surprise?

PIADM has no sanction. If you are thinking the player has been careless, reckless or used excessive force you'll be looking at one of the 7 offences that can be committed Carelessly, recklessly, or using excessive force and therefore are direct free kicks.
It is no surprise because it's a very specific offence of which a number of conditions have to be met but at the same time can't be one of the 7 DFK CRUEF offences.

I think the word dangerous lends itself to a sanction so I do understand any confusion and referee may have in wondering when to apply PIADM or CRUEF but they are totally independent of each other and a player guilty of PIADM is not sanctioned.

 

[Big Cat]

PIADM has no sanction. If you are thinking the player has been careless, reckless or used excessive force you'll be looking at one of the 7 offences that can be committed Carelessly, recklessly, or using excessive force and therefore are direct free kicks.
It is no surprise because it's a very specific offence of which a number of conditions have to be met but at the same time can't be one of the 7 DFK CRUEF offences.

I think the word dangerous lends itself to a sanction so I do understand any confusion and referee may have in wondering when to apply PIADM or CRUEF but they are totally independent of each other and a player guilty of PIADM is not sanctioned.

I get what you're saying, but PIADM is by essence a form of 'endangering the safety of an opponent' in the English Language
Maybe this translates differently in other languages, but what chance does the layman, commentator, player, spectator or even Referee have of understanding the difference according to the book? And is there even a point to understanding the intent of the book when PIADM is rarely identified for good reason
What is it called when a player acts with disregard to the safety of an opponent? It's called reckless (although even that is not explicitly stated), but loses it's PIADM status because it's too dangerous! You couldn't make it up
To make matters worse, even the FA don't get it because they give us a caution code for DP (Dangerous Play). So they did make it up, predictably!

 

[zarathustra]

Playing devil's advocate, a player PIADM must therefore 'endanger the safety of an opponent' and must therefore be sent off!
I get it, but most could be forgiven for having no clue. Further twisting of words could include 'disregard to danger' or 'excessive force' to differentiate between yellow and red, but 'acts without precaution' doesn't really fit, so a caution seems necessary at a minimum. And it has to be bereft of contact to fit the definition
Typical of the book IMO. A load of nonsense. Which is probably why we very rarely (if ever) see IDFK's for PIADM
We're left with flimsy and barely decipherable definitions, yet we blame players for not knowing the Laws

So I've expanded upon your 'its when someone plays in a dangerous manner' reply (which was lacking somewhat )

PIADM isn’t a red card offence, it can only occur when no contact has been made so shouldn’t be looked at the same way as you would at a potential foul when challenging for a ball.

I can’t remember the last time I gave PIADM, but I view it as a player does something which causes a player to pull out because of the risk of injury to their opponent (think some one going to shoot and pulling out when the defenders dives in and heads the ball away at knee height) or to themselves (when a player pulls out of heading the ball because a player has gone to kick it and head height.

Obviously this doesn’t cover every eventuality, but it works for me.

 

[socal lurker]

In practical terms, the overwhelming majority of PIADM is a high kick of a ball that could be reasonably headed on controlled with the chest by an opponent, which is called because it prevents an opponent from fairly playing the ball for fear of getting hurt. (From this arises the myth that all "high kicks" are an offense.)

It is far more common in younger and less skilled levels than top levels because top level players don't back out. So instead of being PIADM, the contact with the opponent makes it a careless (or R or EF) kicking offense.

I don't think I've seen a PIADM call in a professional game more than a couple of times ever. And I don't expect that to change because at that level the vast majority of things that might have been PIADM become a CRER DFK offense. But at youth levels PIADM calls are pretty common.

In addition to the low heading that @JamesL mentioned above, the other less common version is a player staying down on the ground, on or next to a ball, in a way that makes it very difficult to kick the ball without kicking the opponent. (And from this arises the myth that all "playing the ball from the ground" is an offense.)

 

[bester]

In Europe PIADM is applied for 'high foot' offsnces routinely, their bar seems to be showing studs over shin high.

 

[JamesL]

In addition to the low heading that @JamesL mentioned above, the other less common version is a player staying down on the ground, on or next to a ball, in a way that makes it very difficult to kick the ball without kicking the opponent. (And from this arises the myth that all "playing the ball from the ground" is an offense.)

"That's obstruction Ref"

Oh! Sorry, wrong thread.

 

[RustyRef]

This was kind of my thought at the time. If you are giving a penalty you are saying Shaw kicked the opponent in the head.

On that basis, given the opponent's head was at least 5' off the floor, it surely has to be a red card for SFP.

 

[cwyeary]

This was kind of my thought at the time. If you are giving a penalty you are saying Shaw kicked the opponent in the head.

On that basis, given the opponent's head was at least 5' off the floor, it surely has to be a red card for SFP.

UEFAs RAP videos generally have these as yellows. The force is fairly low and the contact is with the top of the foot and not studs.

 

[santa sangria]

First time seeing the Shaw penalty. Couple of things stand out for me:

I see no evidence of contact.

The attacker is never going to get to the ball, arguably has no intention of playing the ball and, if there is contact, it is initiated by the attacker.


I am extremely uncomfortable with the penalty award here because it’s not a real challenge. IMHO looks like the attacker has only moved in because the defender will kick high.

 

[deusex]

No.penalty for me. Shaw clears it and opponent sticks his head in there to get a foul. Smart by him

 

[one]

The attacker is never going to get to the ball, arguably has no intention of playing the ball and, if there is contact, it is initiated by the attacker.

Very much disagree with this. Shaw is only a very small fraction of a second quicker than the attacker. The use of the word 'never ' is not warranted. The attacker has every right to assume when the ball is around head high and it's a very close contest on who gets to it first, his opponent is not going to have his foot there. Had Shaw also used his head there wouldn't be a discussion and the free kick would have been for Shaw.
Similar for who initiates contact comment. It's a contested challenge at around head high, one goes in with the head, one with the foot. Are we saying because one player is going with the foot, the other should either not challenge with head or challenge at his own peril?

 

[Anubis]

Eventually saw this, one watch, however we break it down, Shaw's boot has made contact with the attackers head. Note, Shaw has not kicked him in the head, there is no excessive force etc, Shaws boot is simply 5 foot? in the air and it has made contact with the attackers head.

i defy anybody not to give a fk to the red player on the halfway line.

pk and yc,

 

[Peter Grove]

Not sure it fits with the definition of "challenge". Is Shaw competing or contesting for the ball here?

Yes, of course it meets the definition - and quite clearly so. He's trying to kick the ball while at the same time, the opponent is going in to head it. So he and the opponent are competing and contesting with each other for the ball.

 

[Murri O]

Eventually saw this, one watch, however we break it down, Shaw's boot has made contact with the attackers head. Note, Shaw has not kicked him in the head, there is no excessive force etc, Shaws boot is simply 5 foot? in the air and it has made contact with the attackers head.

i defy anybody not to give a fk to the red player on the halfway line.

pk and yc,

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.

 

[JamesL]

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.

Contact = DFK