Everton v Man City

[Jtpetherick1]

The difference being, the below isn't part of the definition of dangerous play:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

 

[socal lurker]

The difference being, the below isn't part of the definition of dangerous play:

​

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

Well, this is another place where IFAB has been sloppy in how they draft. I'm sure there are multiple threads on this somewhere already.

PIADM is:

Playing in a dangerous manner​

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.​

The question is whether the green is required or an example. I think it is the essence of PIADM, but I'm not aware of any clarification from IFAB since this language was tweaked in that major overhaul a couple of years ago.

(Another issue is the question of where the line is between PIADM and a careless/reckless "challenge." By adding "challenge" to the "tackle" offense, there is the potential for many PIADM calls to be a DFK offense instead. Nothing in a careless challenge requires contact. Again, not great drafting--I don't think that IFAB intended to change PIADM to careless DFKs--reckless might get more interesting. But I haven't seen any guidance on this either.)

 

[one]

I think the bigger problem in that the drafting is using the word "prevent". It should be replaced with "impacts". Impacting an opponent in playing the ball for fear of injury should be enough and often a foul is given (portugal vs azerbaijan, Ronaldo over head kick, opponent was not prevented but impacted).

In the OP the opponent was not prevented or impacted for fear of injury. He was impacted for presence of another player challeging for the ball the same way as if the challenger was going for a header.