The U.S. women's team just had one of those great 6-yard indirect free kicks in its game against Brazil. A Brazilian player was called for dangerous play because of a high boot. Her foot made contact with Becky Sauerbrunn's head, and I've seen some interpretations that suggest contact should be an automatic DFK/PK for kicking an opponent. That's not how the Laws are written, of course. But in practical terms -- if a high boot makes contact with someone's head, is it usually a DFK/PK? From my vantage point, I thought it was a fair call. The defender was pretty clearly playing the ball and had no intent toward Sauerbrunn.
Actually, someone pointed this out, which would seem to indicate this should've been a PK: http://theifab.com/laws/fouls-and-misconduct/chapters/fouls-and-misconduct-faq
Not if it's only careless. It has to be reckless ( yellow) or dangerous ( possible red) And FIFA hasn't seen to consider any kick to the head automatically one of those.
I don't understand what you're writing here. If you carelessly kick an opponent, it's a DFK (or PK). It seems like @Beau Dure now realizes the last sentence of the second paragraph in the original post is incorrect. Kicking is a DFK foul. "High boot" is shorthand for PIADM, which requires a dangerous play that prompts an opponent to be affected. But for it to be PIADM and an IFK, there should be no contact. Without seeing the play in question, the only technically correct justification/out a referee would have for giving an IFK when a high boot makes contact is if the referee somehow determines that the kicked player caused the contact by making a movement to avoid the initial danger of the challenge and they there would have never been contact but for the kicked player's actions. But that's pretty much as absurd as it sounds.
"Slightly down" implying that, in your eyes, she created a dangerous situation? Because, if so, we are talking about something else now and we are reassigning guilt for the foul. Having just tuned in, the 67' high boot, which seemed to make contact, is the type of thing that possibly gets a red card in a men's match because of the likely reaction from the fouled player.
The suggestion that a kick to the head of an attacker in the PA is not a PK foul is, um, making my head hurt.
I wasn't watching super closely live, so I'm not sure if there was actual contact (but I think there probably was). What I do know is that the US player had a red welt on her head from contact of some sort and the referee was gesturing while explaining to the player that it was the ball that hit her head, not the boot. So at least in the referee's opinion, there was no contact. She thought the contact to the head was the ball.
Didn't the laws use to say something along the lines of considering a high probability of misconduct if contact is made?
The worse part about this decision was the restart. Multiple defenders only 6-7 yards away that all should have been on the goal line.
Technical points: The laws specifically state now that if there is contact it can't be an IFK. Pg. 95 under Direct free kicks. The less than 10 yards from the free kick exception only applies if players are on goal line between the posts. Pg 106. 5th bullet point. Dangerous play is supposed to only be called if the situation created is dangerous AND stops the opponent from playing the ball. Pg. 97 under Playing in a dangerous manner. I'm not criticizing with this post just making some points for clarification.
So if it was the ball and not a foot that caught Sauerbrunn (and something certainly did), would that be an IFK? And yes, the restart was ridiculous. Tried for a couple of minutes to get everyone back on the line and then basically gave up.
She didn't try very hard. You have a whistle loud enough to blow ear drums out. If they don't listen, use it. No excuse not to get everyone 10 yards or on the goal line.
At that point it's more debatable. Lack of foot-to-head contact means you're now deciding between PIADM (IFK) or "attempting to kick" (DFK/PK). Or, potentially, no foul at all. In the penalty area, against the defending team, I suspect many--if not most--referees are going to err on the side of the IFK if they know or believe there was no contact. But it's not automatically the right answer and, as I've pointed out before with the lack of official criteria around "attempting to" fouls, there isn't a lot of official instruction in this area. I made the point about there possibly being no foul at all because if a referee decides the defender did not "attempt to" kick her opponent AND the referee also concludes that the "high boot" didn't cause the attacker to change her play on the ball, you really have no technical case for a PK or IFK. At that point, by the LOTG, you have no infraction. Of course, if the attacker appears to have a head injury from the ball hitting them, which was a result of a "high boot," "no foul" is easier to write on the internet than it is to sell in a game.
Well, it shouldn't be an IFK. The US attacker didn't flinch putting her head into the challenge, so nothing from the defender should qualify as PIADM. You've either got a PK or nothing. Honestly, I lean toward nothing. Two players are grappling/holding each other. Defender goes for the kick, attacker goes for the head. Defender gets there first, clears the ball and then you have foot/contact in the aftermath. Not every bit of contact after a challenge is a foul. If this was, to take an example, a defender hitting the calf of an opponent after clearing the ball with a tackle, we wouldn't even think of discussing a PK in most situations. You can absolutely make the technical argument it should be a PK. I wouldn't call it, though. As @socal lurker alluded to above, the VAR implications here are pretty interesting. If no foul had been called, there's not (or shouldn't be) enough evidence here to show that to be a clear and obvious mistake and that a penalty needs to be awarded However, given an IFK was called and contact occurred, that is a clear and obvious mistake in the application of the Laws and the VAR would be doing a spot-check to see if a penalty was missed. The question would then become whether or not a referee would be obligated to change the call to a PK OR if they would have the ability to change their subjective decision to no foul (EDIT: or, if in a real twist, they'd be allowed/forced to stick to the incorrect IFK restart if they determined it wasn't clearly and obviously a penalty) . Given penalty incidents can be reviewed but IFKs can't, I don't think anyone has a real answer to that question.
1:12:00 on YouTube is the point where there is a high boot that I thought was a red card, by the way. It's amazing there was no misconduct given for this. Screen shot at the moment of contact is attached (and note that the defender missed the ball entirely).
I agree at this level -- in youth matches, there is a long tradition of applying PIADM without the flinch, as the players are less skilled and able to undersatnd the risk. (As an aside, the language change on PIADM refers to "includes preventing anearby opponent...", which is an odd word choice as the writing is unclear as to whether that is a specific requiredment or one of the ways that it can apply.) That again makes sense to me a this level. At the levels I do, where the players don't hve teh same control or decision making ability, I'm going to call the PK if there is contact. (And likely PIADM if there is not -- a bit age depednent there.)
The player had a choice to make a play on that ball in another way, she chose to make a very dangerous high kick and kicked someone right in the face with her boot. That is DFK/PK - it cannot be PIADM because she kicked her in the face. Bad call. It's either a PK or it's nothing.
And the attacker had a "choice" to play the ball in another way if we want to get theoretical; she didn't have to attempt to head the ball. The reality is two international players did exactly what you'd expect them to do in that situation. The high boot did not affect the attacker at all. As I said, you can easily make the technical argument for a PK here. But I'd argue pretty strenuously that in any high-level match "nothing" is both the preferred and expected decision.
This is something that I have a problem with when people say it. That ball was clearly at header height. Not kicking height. I say clearly because I know the line blurs when you reach a certain point. The issue is that in situations like this, while you are allowed to kick the ball, you are responsible for making sure you can do so in a safe manner. While this is not a scissors or bicycle kick I think the concept speaks for itself. It's the kicker that inherits the risk of not hurting someone when playing this way. Not the person attempting to head the ball at a level where clearly that is the appropriate method of play. The argument that "you shouldn't try to head a ball with my foot there" doesn't fit because, why is your foot there?
Toledo awarded a PK, and appeared to add on a YC upon the advice from the VAR (Chapman) in the NYC v NY match today.. There was contact to the head due to a very high boot on an attempted clearance.