A&H

High Foot - No Contact

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Law Q
Genuine attempt to play the ball by a defender with a high foot involving a high tariff on making the clearance
Opponent intends to header the ball, but flinches to avoid contact with the high foot
Foot and head are at least a foot from making contact
What is the correct decision?
Sanction?
What is the correct decision in the opponent's PA?
Discuss
 
The Referee Store
As Ciley says, IDFK, dangerous play preventing an opponent from making a play on the ball. And without contact.

No card needed imo.
Unless it Dogso. In which case it becomes a red under "no possibility to play the ball"
 
1554334268253.png

OP seems to satisfy almost word for word. IFK anywhere on the field (or the goal area line).

Unless it Dogso. In which case it becomes a red under "no possibility to play the ball"
For me this is not going to be a red card for DOGSO if he has actually played the ball without making contact or his attempt came close but didn't play it to avoid the opponent. If DOGSO, it's a yellow.

if it's considered reckless by the referee it's yellow. For example, he has come from distance with speed, leaps in the direction of opponent and kicks the ball in a karate kick motion. Given there is good gap between opponent and foot, may not be EF but certainly reckless. But OP sounds like no sanction.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 3357

OP seems to satisfy almost word for word. IFK anywhere on the field (or the goal area line).


For me this is not going to be a red card for DOGSO if he has actually played the ball without making contact or his attempt came close but didn't play it to avoid the opponent. If DOGSO, it's a yellow.

if it's considered reckless by the referee it's yellow. For example, he has come from distance with speed, leaps in the direction of opponent and kicks the ball in a karate kick motion. Given there is good gap between opponent and foot, may not be EF but certainly reckless. But OP sounds like no sanction.
We'll have to agree to disagree. At a recent core meeting the teaching from the CFA, following a quiz, where everyone except one person answered incorrectly, was that if a OGSO is denied by a PIADM offence then this is Dogso Red.
It doesn't matter if they touch the ball, there is no possibility of legally playing it, it can't be a genuine attempt, as they are committing an offence in attempting to do so.
Consider this, this is more in line with the question that was asked and might go some way to understanding my post.
An attacker 3 yards from goal is about to head the ball in to an empty net. A defender, with a high foot, PIADM, narrowly misses the attackers head and the action prevents the attacker from having a free header and an OGSO. IDFK and red card.
Red and IDFK?
Yes
 
We'll have to agree to disagree. At a recent core meeting the teaching from the CFA, following a quiz, where everyone except one person answered incorrectly, was that if a OGSO is denied by a PIADM offence then this is Dogso Red.
It doesn't matter if they touch the ball, there is no possibility of legally playing it, it can't be a genuine attempt, as they are committing an offence in attempting to do so.
Consider this, this is more in line with the question that was asked and might go some way to understanding my post.
An attacker 3 yards from goal is about to head the ball in to an empty net. A defender, with a high foot, PIADM, narrowly misses the attackers head and the action prevents the attacker from having a free header and an OGSO. IDFK and red card.

Yes
Ok having thought about this I would have to say it has to be a red card but not for the same reason of "no possibility to play the ball" :). Applying a similar logic as your example to most normal DOGSO-Y cards would make them red to.

DOGSO can only be yellow card if a penalty kick is awarded. IFK is not a penalty kick so if PIADM-no-contact is DOGSO, its always red :)
 
Ok having thought about this I would have to say it has to be a red card but not for the same reason of "no possibility to play the ball" :). Applying a similar logic as your example to most normal DOGSO-Y cards would make them red to.

DOGSO can only be yellow card if a penalty kick is awarded. IFK is not a penalty kick so if PIADM-no-contact is DOGSO, its always red :)
That's a good point actually. Hadn't thought of that element to it.
I disagree that my logic would make most normal Dogso-Y reds though. In an ordinary foul challenge as far as reckless it can almost always be seen as an attempt for the ball, at least, with occasional exceptions. In a piadm scenario there never is a possibility to play the ballas by doing so you are piadm.
I accept though that the correct interpretation is as no penalty kick awarded so its much of a muchness really.
 
Thanks Peeps
You've all passed my test!
I gave an IDFK inside the PA instead of a PK in a game last night
The players were actually running away from goal. Whilst the attacker flinched, it was one of those which you'd expect a defender to go for to affect a much needed clearance. I didn't feel that it was Reckless, so I there was no YC. Both teams were satisfied with the decision (not that this counts for anything!). My doubt really just stemmed from the fact that we never see this on TV
 
Actually Mike Dean awarded a FK for a foul (Hight foot) no contact the season before last. Can't remember the teams. The resulting free kick was directly scored from. His arm was not up and he awarded the goal. I'm am sure it was for a PIDADM which should have been IFK but he could have sold it for a DFK attempting to kick an opponent.
 
I am sure Graham Scott has awarded an IDFK in PA for attackers in a PL match
 
Unless it Dogso. In which case it becomes a red under "no possibility to play the ball"

I understand where you're coming from there, but would that not be a very tough sell in most situations?

I had one of these incidents perhaps last season now that I reflect on it. Ball ended on the goal line at head height, attacker went for the header, defender used his foot to clear it, I penalised it for PIADM, but on reflection is that not a case of DOSGO?
 
I understand where you're coming from there, but would that not be a very tough sell in most situations?

I had one of these incidents perhaps last season now that I reflect on it. Ball ended on the goal line at head height, attacker went for the header, defender used his foot to clear it, I penalised it for PIADM, but on reflection is that not a case of DOSGO?
A very tough sell. But correct decision.
 
I understand where you're coming from there, but would that not be a very tough sell in most situations?

I had one of these incidents perhaps last season now that I reflect on it. Ball ended on the goal line at head height, attacker went for the header, defender used his foot to clear it, I penalised it for PIADM, but on reflection is that not a case of DOSGO?

Agree--sounds like all of the DOGSO criteria were met. We just don't instantly think of DOGSO on IFK offenses because that convergence is so rare. And I bet no one on the field blinked about no card.
 
Agree--sounds like all of the DOGSO criteria were met. We just don't instantly think of DOGSO on IFK offenses because that convergence is so rare. And I bet no one on the field blinked about no card.

No complaints. If anything, the manager of the attacking team praised me for even giving it. Guess I got away with it!
 
Back
Top