A&H

Playing with only one boot on

L

LC

Active Member
Level 6 Referee
Incident that has just happened on the tele in the match between Preston and Walsall

A Walsall player went in for a tackle and in doing so he lost one of his boots. Once play had gone on he went and retrieved it before attempting to put it back on. Before he could get it on the ball came back to him and he controlled it before passing to a team mate. He did this with the boot still in his hand.

The ref played on but technically should it not been an indirect free kick to Preston as he was not wearing the equipment required to play?
 
The Referee Store
No, but you could claim that the player became a danger to himself by not wearing appropriate footwear and then award an IDFK to his opponents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LC
Ah ok. There was no opponent near him so there was no danger so play on was probably correct then.
 
I can remember a few years back when Nani played a lovely ball to unlock the defence in a Champions League game for Man Utd, he too had no boot on at the time and an indirect free kick was given. Always sticks in my mind that one. Not that im a bitter United fan or anything!!!!!!!;);)
 
Then there's the Beckham play in a WC qualifier several years ago. Got clipped, boot comes off, plays the ball away, ball right back to him immediately, then whistle for IFK, told to leave the pitch to fix his equipment, not allowed on until the next stoppage.

Of course, to counter that, there was a play in the Championship (I think?) earlier this season where a guy was fouled, boot came off, advantage played, he gets up, runs after the play, ball comes to him at the top of the penalty area, he belts it (with the foot with boot on) into the back of the net for a goal. Kick-off.
 
There is no IDFK offence for playing with incorrect equipment, unless you conjure up a yellow card. Seems to be one of those common myths perpetuated by some dogy interpretations of PIADM.
You can't do him for playing in a dangerous manner unless it's prevented anyone from playing the ball for fear of injury (to either party).
 
bester said:
There is no IDFK offence for playing with incorrect equipment, unless you conjure up a yellow card. Seems to be one of those common myths perpetuated by some dogy interpretations of PIADM.
You can't do him for playing in a dangerous manner unless it's prevented anyone from playing the ball for fear of injury (to either party).
Click to expand...
So as I said, you could award an IDFK for playing in a manner dangerous to himself. The purpose of the appropriate footwear is to protect the feet of the player. No footwear, no protection, dangerous...
 
How does it fulfill the criteria of "It's committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the player from playing the ball for fear of injury"
 
Your line is prefaced by

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself).

So a player, with all those delicate bones inside his foot, plays the ball without suitable footwear and you think that doesn't threaten injury to himself?
 
No, I don't. Would your decision be any different if he played the ball with the still booted foot? A player trying an overhead kick is far more likely to injure himself.

IMO the whole paragraph has to apply before a PIADM offence has been committed.

Why would Law 4 say a goal should be allowed if the player plays the ball immediately after losing his boot if it could be considered as PIADM?
 
No boot/sock only foot kicking a football inflated to the correct air pressure? I remember an english expert on the tv after the Beckham incident mentioned above talking about the fragility of the bones in the foot and the risk of damaging them with a hard strike on the ball with a bootless foot.

LOTG Page 69 said:
If a player loses his footwear accidentally and immediately plays the ball and/or
scores a goal, there is no infringement and the goal is awarded because he lost
his footwear by accident.
Click to expand...

After the "immediate" duration has passed, get your boot on before trying to you try to get back involved with the game or it is PIADM.

It does amuse me that we have junior grade referees (I mean no offence with that, just a statement of fact) arguing with an assessor? I am not saying I agree with everything Brian says, but on basic matters of law like this?

What has come over you lot?
 
SM, you don't learn anything by taking someones word as gospel if you disagree with it.
I'm am amused by the concept that something transforms from being completely fine to dangerous play purely because a few seconds have passed.
 
lol I don't take Brians word as gospel. But that said, he has proven me completely wrong more than once on this here forum (something which I am grateful for I might add).

Let's imagine the scene, the player has the ball, loses his boot through a challenge, he gets the ball away from him IMMEDIATELY - before a challenge comes in. He is likely to have lost his boot through no fault of his own, difficult to see how you would lose your boot but keep the ball otherwise, it makes perfect sense to me that moving the ball immediately away from you hence removing the danger is allowed else your punishing a player for something which his opponent has done?
 
A player loses his boot in a challenge, a few seconds have passed and before he can get his boot on he plays the ball...
 
Yes, however I'd extend immediately until he has a reasonable chance to put his footwear back on.
 
Wow. Kind of making it up as you go along with your definition of immediately. Curious as to what you think "a reasonable chance to put his footwear back on" is, 2 seconds? 2 minutes? 45 minutes?

Actually I am not that curious. Better to say, each to their own and if that is what you would do, good luck to you. :)
 
Obviously at a maximum until the next stoppage in player as the player would've been asked to leave the FOP to correct his equipment. As no offence has been committed I can extend immediately as long as I like.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Your line is prefaced by

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself).

So a player, with all those delicate bones inside his foot, plays the ball without suitable footwear and you think that doesn't threaten injury to himself?
Click to expand...

Thanks Brian. Been a Levl 4 but still learning. I've always awarded IDFK for incorrect equipment and never had any complaints. I was right but wrong. The IDFK should be for playing in a dangerous manner (to himself. try explaining that to a player :).
I think I'll stick to incorrect equipment when explaining it to players on the FOP but use the dangerous manner when explaining to assessors or other referees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top