A&H

PIADM and threshold

Viridis1886

Viridis1886

That doesn't matter. It's still a foul!
Level 5 Referee
Game at the weekend where a player went sliding in to tackle and totally missed the ball and player. The player had to leap to get out of the way of the player which allowed the opposition to gain possession. Other than having to leap over the tackle, the player was otherwise unimpeded.

I gave a free-kick for PIADM as in my opinion if he hadn't need to leap he would have retained possession. Obvious confusion from the defending team as no contact had been made. "What, are we giving fouls for no contact now ref?"

I'm quite happy with my decision, but it made me wonder where other people's threshold is for this sort of thing.
 
The Referee Store
As @socal lurker says, probably better to just give a DFK in this situation. There doesn't have to be any contact for it to be a foul. PIADM would be more for instances of high feet or even a low head where a player puts themselves in a dangerous position.
 
Viridis1886 said:
Game at the weekend where a player went sliding in to tackle and totally missed the ball and player. The player had to leap to get out of the way of the player which allowed the opposition to gain possession. Other than having to leap over the tackle, the player was otherwise unimpeded.

I gave a free-kick for PIADM as in my opinion if he hadn't need to leap he would have retained possession. Obvious confusion from the defending team as no contact had been made. "What, are we giving fouls for no contact now ref?"

I'm quite happy with my decision, but it made me wonder where other people's threshold is for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
You were totally correct in law to award the IDFK for PIADM since that's what the book says.

As the two perceptive gentlemen above have said though, you'd also have been correct (in law) to give the DFK.

Players are often baffled when you award an IDFK for anything other than offside since they don't know the laws. Did it myself not so long back for exactly the same thing as you describe, except it was two yards outside the penalty area giving them a set-up shooting chance only IDFK. As I stood there and whistled for the IDFK, arm aloft, I remember thinking "Bugger, I could just have easily given this as direct".
 
In law you were spot on:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
  • plays in a dangerous manner
  • impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
--

As others have said, far easier to give a DFK for careless/reckless tackle/challenge to avoid confusion.

Still fresh in my mind from the refereeing course is the attempts to aspect of fouls.
 
The answer to any player who complains is "if he taken the man, he would have got a Red Card. So, just accept the free-kick for the tackle, as his tackles needs to be eliminated from the game".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top