The Ref Stop

PIADM

  • Thread starter Thread starter JH
  • Start date Start date
Peter Grove said:
I don't think they're complicating it - they're just not over-simplifying it. As @one has pointed out, not all instances of PIADM are cautionable offences - therefore it shouldn't be included in the list of them. However if circumstances dictate and the referee so chooses, it could be a caution. To say that it either should or shouldn't be a cautionable offence would be an over-simplification and wrong.
Click to expand...

Peter would you say the laws support a red card (SFP) for PIADM?
 
The Ref Stop
Peter Grove said:
I don't think they're complicating it - they're just not over-simplifying it. As @one has pointed out, not all instances of PIADM are cautionable offences - therefore it shouldn't be included in the list of them. However if circumstances dictate and the referee so chooses, it could be a caution. To say that it either should or shouldn't be a cautionable offence would be an over-simplification and wrong.
Click to expand...
You all over think some of the most basic simple matters.......go out and referee what is in front of you........
 
During games, I doubt any of us spend any time agonizing over the detail debated on here. From my perspective, I just can't resist any opportunity to point out how badly the book is written. Probably just as well it's a literary pile of :poop:, otherwise we'd have nothing talk about!
 
I don’t think that’s quite fair. The book is much better now. And when “we” find holes, the author(s) have been kind enough to comment on email, even if understandably they don’t want to get trapped into agreeing on holes or poor wording.

In this case PIADM DOGSO is something I definitely would take from this thread onto the field of play.

Thumbs up from me;)
 
5...4...3...2...1...

tables.jpg

And breathe...

Or Particular Individuals Ascended-and Dropped-onto Mahogany.

This is in danger of spiralling as another one did. Post nicely and respectfully - my BS filter is faulty and tolerance level is low.
 
Tealeaf said:
5...4...3...2...1...

View attachment 2026

And breathe...

Or Particular Individuals Ascended-and Dropped-onto Mahogany.

This is in danger of spiralling as another one did. Post nicely and respectfully - my BS filter is faulty and tolerance level is low.
Click to expand...

WWE your not a secret fan are you :facepalm:
 
Men in Black said:
Big fan seen every series so far, I ignore the absolutely stunning hot women & focus on relationship development, it’s all about personality not looks ;)
Click to expand...

I can't invasive you as a referee on a catfight on Love island ! ....I think you'd just prefer to knock one out!! :D
 
bester said:
Peter would you say the laws support a red card (SFP) for PIADM?
Click to expand...
I would say they don't specify one way or the other - leaving it up to the referee to decide. They don't specifically exclude it, so for me that leaves the matter open. I think it's interesting that the old wording, quoted earlier in the thread by @bester was removed. Was it simply for brevity - or was it to remove the implication that the maximum sanction you could give was a caution and therefore allow the referee more options? There's no way to be sure but in the end, the fact that it's no longer there does seem to give the referee more leeway. I think it would be unusual but not impossible.

As for it not being included in the list as a mandatory caution I think that's perfectly correct and understandable - again it's done so as not to unduly constrain the referee. Not every case of PIADM is necessarily worthy of a caution - some are and some aren't.
 
JH said:
A lot of debate on another thread about playing in a dangerous manner.

It is specifically an IDFK offence and is NOT listed as a cautionable offence.

?
Click to expand...

I think you slightly misunderstand IFABs intent in the vagueness of the laws. Understanding this is important in understanding the application of the laws.
USB is a deliberately vague term. It's not designed to cover every possible scenario, and the LOTG don't list everything that fall under USB. It's left this way so referees can apply it to what they deem a serious breach of the laws.

A seriously dangerous act can thus be sanctioned with a card.

You state that the LOTG don't specifically state that one could caution for PIADM; well, there's always been plenty of things the laws didn't state. In fact for a very long time they didn't specifically state that a bad tackle is a caution :D
Finally, as referees, once we know the laws, we work out how to find out how to apply them to different scenarios. Perhaps X passage in the laws doesn't apply, but we can argue for Y instead. Perhaps that's not the neatest, but it works. We use our understanding to apply the laws.

You say that the LOTG don't specifically state that PIADM is a cautionable offence.

I say they don't specifically state that it isn't.
Having said that, the relatively new offence of 'tackles or challenges' 'using CRUEF' means one could argue the line between PIADM and a DFK offence becomes blurred.
If the LOTG specifically say you can't do it, then you can - just use your understanding of the spirit of the laws/game there.

And a highly, necessarily risky tackle would seem to warrant a card, whether or not it was at a player or near one, and whether or not contact is made. Part of the purpose of cards is a preventative tool, after all.

There are a number of things we caution for that aren't explicitly stated as a cautionable offence in the LOTG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top