RefSix

PIADM or Sending off

one

RefChat Addict
#3
Great clip. It's a difficult one.

On a similar scenario if red had used his foot (not head), it would have been a minimum yellow to white and DFK to red. A third scenario, if white had puled out of the shot, it would have been an easy IFK to white.

In the OP, red certainly played in a dangerous manner and prevented white from playing the ball. On the other hand White endangered the safety of his opponent by following through with that attempted shot and kicking the opponent's head.

Gave this a bit of though. For me the fairest outcome is IFK to white for the first offence of PIADM and send white off for EF kick to the head. Very difficult to sell and I am not convinced it's the best answer. Open to better suggestions.
 
Last edited:

one

RefChat Addict
#4
If he had any contact it cannot be PIADM but becomes a direct free kick foul.
Assuming you mean DFK/Pen to white, while this may seem like what the wording in law says, I doubt it is actually meant that way or at least it's not the spirit of it. We don't want a free pass for players to have a shot at opponent's head if the opponent tries to have a header at a low ball, and get the reward of a free kick for it too.
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
#5
Open to better suggestions.
I'd count them as simultaneous offences. So, punish the kicker with a red and direct free kick to the guy who stuck his head in as it is the more severe offence. Easier sell, and I'm leaning that way as the defender was making the best of the situation having been grounded, as opposed to actually getting on the ground to do it (if that makes sense?)
 

spuddy1878

RefChat Addict
#6
That is a tough one indeed.

Attacker has done nothing more than tried a shot on goal and the defender (mad man) has put his head there, i could go with defensive free kick but no cards for the attacker.
 

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
#7
That is a tough one indeed.

Attacker has done nothing more than tried a shot on goal and the defender (mad man) has put his head there, i could go with defensive free kick but no cards for the attacker.
Think you've got this spot on. The attacker had no idea that the defender's head was there, nor could he be expected to. He clearly fouls the defender but I'd struggle to justify any card at all.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#9
Red to the striker for me, reason being,he has booted the defender in the head so am kinda obligated to send him off.
Should the head have been there? Ideally not but as he is already on the ground, his head has a right to be, somewhere
Sorry striker, an unfortunate red for me, and no chance an going to caution the defender for playing in a dangerous manner, that would be suicide.

Its similar to one i had recently, in six yard box, defender headed ball, flag went up, whistle blew and split second later attackers overhead kick landed square on the defenders mush. Total accident. Reason i says similar, but not exactly the same was we just warned the attacker to be extra careful, restarted with the offside.
And yes I can read the two outcomes are different, think the main difference being play had stopped in our case, although am sure on other day the decision could have been different.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#10
I'd count them as simultaneous offences. So, punish the kicker with a red and direct free kick to the guy who stuck his head in as it is the more severe offence. Easier sell, and I'm leaning that way as the defender was making the best of the situation having been grounded, as opposed to actually getting on the ground to do it (if that makes sense?)
I can live with this alternative. It won't be easy to sell to attacker "but he put his head there ref". I would also like to see the defender punished in some form for having a part in it all.

That is a tough one indeed.

Attacker has done nothing more than tried a shot on goal and the defender (mad man) has put his head there, i could go with defensive free kick but no cards for the attacker.
I have a problem with this logic. Think the scenario that an attacker is about to kick the ball on goal. A defender sneaks in and kicks it first, this causes the attacker's swing to kick the defender's calf with force. This is clearly a FK to defender and most likely a sanction. But using your logic the attacker has done nothing wrong as he was about to take a shot on goal and the defender put his foot there.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#11
I have a problem with this logic. Think the scenario that an attacker is about to kick the ball on goal. A defender sneaks in and kicks it first, this causes the attacker's swing to kick the defender's calf with force. This is clearly a FK to defender and most likely a sanction. But using your logic the attacker has done nothing wrong as he was about to take a shot on goal and the defender put his foot there.
But putting your foot/calf in a position to be kicked is not generally considered to be a particularly dangerous thing to do. Conversely, I think we've all previously established that PIADM can (theoretically) be given for putting your head somewhere it shouldn't be? So unfortunately, for that reason, I don't think your hypothetical example lines up particularly well with this clip.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#12
But putting your foot/calf in a position to be kicked is not generally considered to be a particularly dangerous thing to do. Conversely, I think we've all previously established that PIADM can (theoretically) be given for putting your head somewhere it shouldn't be? So unfortunately, for that reason, I don't think your hypothetical example lines up particularly well with this clip.
I am not disputing PIADM. In fact my first post in this thread gives the restart for PIDAM.

My problem is with kicking the opponet not being punished. It's irrelevant of if the opponent should have been using his head or not. When you are trying to kick the ball, the onus is on you to be careful and mindful of the safety of the opponent, be it his foot there or his head.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#13
The defender is on the ground. The defender has a head. His head should not be getting mistaken for the football, whether on purpose or by accident. Its like handball for me, and the arguement of, where is he meant to put his hands, cut them off? Whats the defender meant to do here, remove his head, just in case an opponent decides to volley it?
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#14
I am not disputing PIADM. In fact my first post in this thread gives the restart for PIDAM.

My problem is with kicking the opponet not being punished. It's irrelevant of if the opponent should have been using his head or not. When you are trying to kick the ball, the onus is on you to be careful and mindful of the safety of the opponent, be it his foot there or his head.
But we're talking about wildly different punishments? Going for the ball, missing and getting the opponent on the foot/leg is something we see all the time and is pretty much the definition of "careless". We'd all just give the FK and get on with our lives. If that's what you're saying you'd give, then we agree.

But what I don't buy is that this "standard foul" suddenly becomes a red card offence because - and only because - the opponent has done something that is the definition of PIADM and is against the laws. I know I'm using "player language" here, but the attacker is in the area with the ball at his feet, so is "entitled" to attempt a shot. By law, the opponent is not entitled to put himself in danger by attempting to play the ball with his head when it's inches off the ground and the opponent is taking a shot.

Only one player here has deliberately chosen to do something that is contrary to the LOTG. To then penalise the other player with a red card feels very unfair to me.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#15
But we're talking about wildly different punishments? Going for the ball, missing and getting the opponent on the foot/leg is something we see all the time and is pretty much the definition of "careless". We'd all just give the FK and get on with our lives. If that's what you're saying you'd give, then we agree.

But what I don't buy is that this "standard foul" suddenly becomes a red card offence because - and only because - the opponent has done something that is the definition of PIADM and is against the laws. I know I'm using "player language" here, but the attacker is in the area with the ball at his feet, so is "entitled" to attempt a shot. By law, the opponent is not entitled to put himself in danger by attempting to play the ball with his head when it's inches off the ground and the opponent is taking a shot.

Only one player here has deliberately chosen to do something that is contrary to the LOTG. To then penalise the other player with a red card feels very unfair to me.


What about hypothetically replacing the defender with a gk who makes the first save then dives to get in the way of the follow up and gets mullered in the nut?
red card all day long
so why it be different to smack the defender in the coupon?
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#16
What about hypothetically replacing the defender with a gk who makes the first save then dives to get in the way of the follow up and gets mullered in the nut?
red card all day long
so why it be different to smack the defender in the coupon?
Not interested in trolls like you and your ridiculous hypotheticals. And for future reference, you can take this as a general statement going forward. HNY.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#17
Not interested in trolls like you and your ridiculous hypotheticals. And for future reference, you can take this as a general statement going forward. HNY.

So no difference then. red card. The only difference to an outfield player and a gk is the gk can use hands in the area.
Smacking gk in head, red card
smacking defender in the head, red card

Maybe not of interest to you but a reasonable statement for someone else to agree with.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#18
But we're talking about wildly different punishments? Going for the ball, missing and getting the opponent on the foot/leg is something we see all the time and is pretty much the definition of "careless". We'd all just give the FK and get on with our lives. If that's what you're saying you'd give, then we agree.

But what I don't buy is that this "standard foul" suddenly becomes a red card offence because - and only because - the opponent has done something that is the definition of PIADM and is against the laws. I know I'm using "player language" here, but the attacker is in the area with the ball at his feet, so is "entitled" to attempt a shot. By law, the opponent is not entitled to put himself in danger by attempting to play the ball with his head when it's inches off the ground and the opponent is taking a shot.

Only one player here has deliberately chosen to do something that is contrary to the LOTG. To then penalise the other player with a red card feels very unfair to me.
I can't add to my previous response to convince you. Well I can actually I ask you a question.

It's fairly obvious the kick to the head in OP in not deliberate. For me though he should have taken care to avoid it and under the circumstance it's excessive force.

Let's say the attacker did actually see it coming and and could have avoided it but went through with the shot anyway knowing well he would end up kicking the opponent's head. Nothing else has changed, the defender still 'has done something that is the definition of PIADM'. What would you do?
 

es1

RefChat Addict
#19
I can't add to my previous response to convince you. Well I can actually I ask you a question.

It's fairly obvious the kick to the head in OP in not deliberate. For me though he should have taken care to avoid it and under the circumstance it's excessive force.

Let's say the attacker did actually see it coming and and could have avoided it but went through with the shot anyway knowing well he would end up kicking the opponent's head. Nothing else has changed, the defender still 'has done something that is the definition of PIADM'. What would you do?
i don't think it's excessive force, he's attempting to score a goal not kick his head into next week!

that was clearly the outcome but i'd suggest the force used was appropriate for his intended actions

i think football would expect a defensive free kick here but i think red card for the attacker does not fit the crime.
 
#20
So no difference then. red card. The only difference to an outfield player and a gk is the gk can use hands in the area.
Smacking gk in head, red card
smacking defender in the head, red card

Maybe not of interest to you but a reasonable statement for someone else to agree with.
Think the difference here is expectations. As a forward you can reasonably expect a goalkeeper to be diving at your feet and you need to consider your actions in that context. However you do NOT expect a defender to try and head a ball that is inches off the ground, regardless of his starting position. As @GraemeS says, the defender has done something contrary to the LOTG. If he'd gone with a leg instead then we'd be viewing the actions of the attacker as (most likely) Careless or (at worst, if we felt he was very late) Reckless. I see no reason to change the sanction for the attacker just because the defender has done something ludicrous ....
 
Top