RefSix

PIADM or Sending off

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#21
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 ....

There is no difference though, he is just a defender who can use his hands..
The piadm is fine when a player holds ball between legs and invites trouble, or, someone for no reason falls to their knees to header a ball on the ground
This defender is already grounded and has not put himself in that position to endanger himself, its been a natural act and other thsn screwing his head off until its safe, there is nothing he can do here to avoid being scunnered
The lotg dont say its not ok to kick a grounded gk but its ok to kick a grounded defender. Both are classrd as, opponents
 
#22
There is no difference though, he is just a defender who can use his hands..
The piadm is fine when a player holds ball between legs and invites trouble, or, someone for no reason falls to their knees to header a ball on the ground
This defender is already grounded and has not put himself in that position to endanger himself, its been a natural act and other thsn screwing his head off until its safe, there is nothing he can do here to avoid being scunnered
The lotg dont say its not ok to kick a grounded gk but its ok to kick a grounded defender. Both are classrd as, opponents
The defender being on the ground is a natural act. The 'unnatural' or at least highly unusual act (which it appears you've missed entirely) is the bit where he deliberately chooses to move and head a ball that is inches off the ground!!
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#23
The defender being on the ground is a natural act. The 'unnatural' or at least highly unusual act (which it appears you've missed entirely) is the bit where he deliberately chooses to move and head a ball that is inches off the ground!!

I do get it. my point is the defender is no diff to a gk making a save and then being booted in the head at the rebound
Being kicked in the head is, being kicked in the head
Same as handball shouts when it hits his arms and there was nowhere else they could have been
If anyone is saying the conclusion to that clip is a yc to defender then that ref is welcome to it
For me, anyone who kicks someone else in the head, is (reluctantly) off
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#24
Another way to look at it?
Imagine there was no clip and a pal was telling you about whst happened
So, the defender was on the ground, went to head the ball, got his face turned into a nuclear bomb site and also it was the defender who got the card!

Piadm is not intended to penalise natural occurances,its to discourage situations that you endanger yourself, i.e holding ball between legs getting booted like a scabby sausage roll.

To say its ok to boot him because he was already on the ground indicates there is a height level at which booting someone in the face is, or is not, punishable
Which of course, there is not
 

Mintyref

RefChat Addict
#25
This one is a really difficult decision. The defender, although already on the ground attempts to head a ball in a position about to be struck by the attacker, that, by definition is piadm.
The striker is making to strike the ball, he knows the defender is down and needs to take care not to kick him.......anywhere.
I could go either way with this one and justify penalising either player.....glad I did not have to decide.
 

bester

RefChat Addict
#27
You can't pull out that quickly once you've decided to strike the ball, when the attacker makes the decision to try and shoot he can't possibly have known the defender would be committed (moronic) enough to stick his head in the way,
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#28
I wouldn't sanction either player as I don't think either player had time to consider their actions. Just get the defender checked out sharpish and restart with a defensive free kick for a careless foul
 
#29
This is a really tricky one. If the defender made a diving header I think it's easier to call PIADM against the defender.

But what complicates this scenario is the fact that the defender's head was basically already there anyway. But does that mean kicking the ball would be inherently dangerous, or does that still mean the attacker shouldn't have moved his head the foot to the right to head the ball?

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?
There's no law that says 'kicking an opponent in the head, even by accident, is a red card'.

I'm sure you're familiar with the SFP definition.

I'd argue an overhead kick is more serious than what's happened here....
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#30
This is a really tricky one. If the defender made a diving header I think it's easier to call PIADM against the defender.

But what complicates this scenario is the fact that the defender's head was basically already there anyway. But does that mean kicking the ball would be inherently dangerous, or does that still mean the attacker shouldn't have moved his head the foot to the right to head the ball?


There's no law that says 'kicking an opponent in the head, even by accident, is a red card'.

I'm sure you're familiar with the SFP definition.

I'd argue an overhead kick is more serious than what's happened here....



After misquoting me for another user before. Am stoom
 

one

RefChat Addict
#32
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.
While that may be how you think of excessive force, LOTG definition of it is somewhat different.

Screenshot_20190103-170635__01.jpg

For me, there is no doubt he endangered the safety of an opponent and that qualifies as UEF in LOTG.

I don't understand the 'unexpected' argument either. Repeat this 10 times with 10 different defenders and the vast majority if not all would go for the header. The attacker should have taken more care.

For anyone who won't sanction, I still don't have an answer for my earlier question. If the attacker could have avoided kicking the defender but still deliberately went through the swing (taking advantage of defender's PIDAM) , would you still not sanction?
 
Last edited:

es1

RefChat Addict
#33
While that may be how you think of excessive force, LOTG definition of it is somewhat different.

View attachment 2851

For me, there is no doubt he endangered the safety of an opponent and that qualifies as UEF in LOTG.

I don't understand the 'unexpected' argument either. Repeat this 10 times with 10 different defenders and the vast majority if not all would go for the header. The attacker should have taken more care.

For anyone who won't sanction, I still don't have an answer for my earlier question. If the attacker could have avoided kicking the defender but still deliberately went through the swing (taking advantage of defender's PIDAM) , would you still not sanction?
if he deliberately kicks him then that's another thing and obviously deserving of a red card!

even with the quote from lotg i'm still of the opinion the attacker used appropriate force.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#35
While that may be how you think of excessive force, LOTG definition of it is somewhat different.

View attachment 2851

For me, there is no doubt he endangered the safety of an opponent and that qualifies as UEF in LOTG.

I don't understand the 'unexpected' argument either. Repeat this 10 times with 10 different defenders and the vast majority if not all would go for the header. The attacker should have taken more care.

For anyone who won't sanction, I still don't have an answer for my earlier question. If the attacker could have avoided kicking the defender but still deliberately went through the swing (taking advantage of defender's PIDAM) , would you still not sanction?
Perhaps you're not getting an answer because the answer to that question is totally irrelevant to this situation here? If an attacker ran up to a defender lying on the ground and kicked him in the head, then of course he gets a red card. But that's not relevant to this clip, where the attacker is clearly attempting to kick the ball and the defender is doing something stupid to try and stop him doing so.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#36
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 ....
Correct answer had I been observing you on that game … :)
 
Top