Sliding tackles with your head.

[RobOda]

Had this happen in a derby match, repeatedly...

So, two queries:

1. Defender decides to do a sliding tackle with his head. Wins the ball, gets booted in the face for it as the striker was going to shoot/cross. What's your decision and sanction?

2. Same as above, but in the defending penalty area?

 

[socal lurker]

Repeatedly?!?

This is a definite have to see the particular play. And it brings up the ongoing question of whether the opponent has to hold back for PIADM, which IFAB kinda sorta tried to clarify but put in oddly unclear language. In a youth game, i’m probably calling PIADM as soon as I see anyone besides a keeper going headfirst at a ball on the ground. At a high level, it becomes more likely it is a kicking foul if the oppo can’t resist kicking someone in the head.

 

[RobOda]

Repeatedly?!?

Yes. Well, twice really. I know the lad, he's very passionate/emotional - nearly always gets himself a caution for dissent, puts his body on the line type of player. Anyway I have no idea why he wouldn't use his feet, but he did a sliding head tackle twice in the game. Both times he was nicely evaded by the striker, so I could play on (normally I go PIADM for that nonsense), but I wanted to query what the hypothetical foul would be if he had won the ball and got smacked in the face.

My instinct is to penalise him for that - PIADM as you said, but I just weep for match control if the kick-to-the-face led to a penalty - and yet, penalising the striker in this instance seems wholly unfair as well.

 

[Anubis]

I cant really picture the senario.

but from what picture I can put together, am penalising the defender

could we penalise before any potential contact from the striker and restart with idfk?

 

[JamesL]

Yes. Well, twice really. I know the lad, he's very passionate/emotional - nearly always gets himself a caution for dissent, puts his body on the line type of player. Anyway I have no idea why he wouldn't use his feet, but he did a sliding head tackle twice in the game. Both times he was nicely evaded by the striker, so I could play on (normally I go PIADM for that nonsense), but I wanted to query what the hypothetical foul would be if he had won the ball and got smacked in the face.

My instinct is to penalise him for that - PIADM as you said, but I just weep for match control if the kick-to-the-face led to a penalty - and yet, penalising the striker in this instance seems wholly unfair as well.

The question you have to ask is does he prevent a nearby opponent from playing the ball by threatening injury to themself... If matey has kicked the ball then the answer to that is most certainly no and, in law, becomes a foul by the kicker. If the answer is yes then the head Diver is guilty of PIADM.

What we would do in real life, I think would be to say that matey on the floor is challenging carelessly or recklessly and give the attacking team a DFK instead. Pray this isn't in the PA basically

 

[Kes]

I'd keep it simple and go for the PIADM option (on the guy with his head to the floor) in both instances.

Idiotic thing to do anyway. Heading the ball is for when it's in the air, not on the floor ...

 

[one]

Both are DFK for the sliding player team. It's SFP and the more serious offence takes precedence here. You could argue PIADM happened first but not for me.

Had the opponent's pulled out of the kick then IFK for opponent.

 

[Trip]

In practice I'd award a DFK (or pen) in exactly the same way I would if the sliding challenge had been feet-first. I don't think its SFP unless the attacker could obviously have pulled out, or if it would have been SFP without the head being there.

Like One, I'd be happy with IFK to attacker if he pulls out as a result of the PIADM.

 

[socal lurker]

In practice I'd award a DFK (or pen) in exactly the same way I would if the sliding challenge had been feet-first. I don't think its SFP unless the attacker could obviously have pulled out, or if it would have been SFP without the head being there.

Like One, I'd be happy with IFK to attacker if he pulls out as a result of the PIADM.

Well, if he'd done it with his foot, you'd either have nothing or a kicking foul on the attacker, as the sliding player cleanly won the ball and was then kicked . . .

 

[one]

I don't think its SFP unless the attacker could obviously have pulled out, or if it would have been SFP without the head being there.

I don't get this. Are you saying if he didn't kick his opponent's face deliberately you won't give SFP? Even if he could not have pulled out this meets the definition of UEF.

If he can obviously pull out and he doesn't, I'd give VC.

 

[socal lurker]

I don't get this. Are you saying if he didn't kick his opponent's face deliberately you won't give SFP? Even if he could not have pulled out this meets the definition of UEF.

Maybe, maybe not. The attacker is kicking a ball in place a ball is meant to be kicked, not headed. He's not using EF, he's using the amount of force appropriate to kicking a ball. I'm not sending off an attacker when a numb skull sticks his head where it doesn't belong unless I conclude the attacker had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the kicking.

 

[Russell Jones]

When teaching the new referee course, we are hammering home the message that player safety is paramount. In that context, I'm fully supportive of the red cards we are increasingly seeing when eg players make contact with the head of an opponent because their boot is high and they hadn't given due consideration to the fact that their opponent might be heading it.

However, I have near zero sympathy with a player who gets injured by playing in the manner described in the OP. It's so obviously not going to be expected by the opposition that to a large extent 'all bets are off'. As others have said, if no contact is made by the opponent then PIADM is a straightforward call. If, as in the OP, contact is made then I think the most correct and fair decision is to penalise the first / original offence by the player doing the sliding tackle with his head. For me, that most definitely equates to a careless challenge ....

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

Unlike the sections on Reckless and Excessive Force, no mention is made in the above of the opponent.

The only caveat I'd give to the above is that if I was clear in mind that the attacker had clear sight of his head on the ground and went through with the challenge anyway then that would be a whole different story!!

 

[Trip]

Well, if he'd done it with his foot, you'd either have nothing or a kicking foul on the attacker, as the sliding player cleanly won the ball and was then kicked . . .

That's exactly my point. I would award a DFK to the defender who got kicked.

 

[Kes]

When teaching the new referee course, we are hammering home the message that player safety is paramount. In that context, I'm fully supportive of the red cards we are increasingly seeing when eg players make contact with the head of an opponent because their boot is high and they hadn't given due consideration to the fact that their opponent might be heading it.

However, I have near zero sympathy with a player who gets injured by playing in the manner described in the OP. It's so obviously not going to be expected by the opposition that to a large extent 'all bets are off'. As others have said, if no contact is made by the opponent then PIADM is a straightforward call. If, as in the OP, contact is made then I think the most correct and fair decision is to penalise the first / original offence by the player doing the sliding tackle with his head. For me, that most definitely equates to a careless challenge ....

This ^ ^

1. Don't go sticking your head in a place where others have a right to have their feet.
2. Don't go sticking your boot up to a place where others have a right to use their heads.

Rocket science it ain't ...

 

[Trip]

I don't get this. Are you saying if he didn't kick his opponent's face deliberately you won't give SFP? Even if he could not have pulled out this meets the definition of UEF.

If a attacker accidently kicks an opponent in the face because the opponent has just put his face on the ground where the ball was then it's hardly the attacker's fault that the face got kicked. The attacker's challenge does not endanger the safety of his opponent, the opponent is endangering his own safety.