Question Number: 34434

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/28/2021

RE: Local Sunday league Adult

Maughan Nicholson of Hexham, Northumberland England asks...

Watching two professional matches in recent months, the defender has been penalised by award of a penalty for high kicking in the penalty area.
My view is dangerous play = indirect free kick.
Please can I have the explanation?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Maughan
The offence of playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, THREATENS injury to someone (including the player them self) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. That has an indirect free kick restart.
Now once there is contact by the offender it gets escalated beyond threatens to a penal foul of kicking an opponent. Generally such action is also reckless which will result in a caution.

The most recent high profile one of these was the kick by Luke Shaw in the England game v Hungary. Shaw raised his boot to play the ball and he made contact with the Hungarian forward's head which resulted in a penalty kick and a caution. The referee was of the opinion that Shaw's boot was head high which is way too dangerous and once there was contact it had to be a penal foul. Clearly a boot that his head high is dangerous and it will result in a direct free kick or a penalty kick if the player makes contact high on the player.

Older Laws of the Game books had the following wording and I quote
"" A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed.""
While no longer stated like that in the current Law book the intent is still very much the same

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Maughan,

Once a dangerous kick makes contact with the opponent, it becomes 'carelessly kicks an opponent' (although there's a pretty good chance it is reckless at least, especially if it's head-high).

Because the player has committed 2 offences - PIADM, and carelessly/recklessly kicking an opponent, we punish the more serious one - the one that warrants a direct free kick.

Bear in mind that NOT making contact doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a free kick. For PIADM - high foot - it almost certainly does, but when you have situations of a wild slide tackle that misses the ball which the player has to jump over, this would still be a DFK for 'attempting to kick/trip'.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Maughan,

It's very difficult to be sure without actually seeing the offences in question but it's very possible that the incidents you refer to, might have fallen into one of the two categories mentioned by my colleagues.

It seems likely these were either high kicks that actually ended up making contact with the player (making them direct rather than indirect free kick offences) or they were offences that although they had some of the appearances of a so-called high kick, were in fact judged by the referee to be an illegal attempted kick of an opponent.

P.S. I've just watched the highlights of the Brentford vs Everton game from yesterday. If the incident that led to the penalty in that game is one of those you refer to, then that was a clear case of a "high kick" that made actual contact with the opponent, so it could only have been a direct free kick (or penalty) offence.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Maughan.
the deal is, for ONLY an INDFK there must be NO actual contact, with the opponent unduly influenced by the danger presented to stay out of harms way or avoide injuring his counterpart . However, in the opinion of the referee, if the offical determines it was an ATTEMPT to kick the opponent, which IS a DFK offence, thus PK if inside the defende's penalty area ..

A PIADM where we might only award an INDFK is more of a careless foul with no contact. Easy guys carefull! Generally we dislike weak fouls resuting in easy goal scoring chances unless they are truly unavoidable. To to see it as cautionable and only an INDFK the act must be reckless with absolutely no consideration for the opponent being shown but again NO contact. The moment there is contact, even minor, it becomes a DFK offence of kicking an oppenent.

When the foul gathers the energy or drama to be seen by the referee as reckless or of an excessive nature of actions endangering & threatening an opponent These are more often upgraded to DFK status of an attempt to kick the opponent rather than just an unsafe effort to play the ball.

I should note that if the action prevented a goal & or met the criteria of a DOGSO it could still be a red card send off, reduce the team by a player, even if only an INDFK. The down grade of only cautioning a player who flirts with DOGSO criteria in the PA, such actions must be seen as a reasonable play for the ball gone wrong . The PK is considered as restitution for a thwarted goal scoring opportunity rather than a red send off sliegh ride.
Cheers