Everton would consider themselves a "big" club, based on their history, as a founding member of the Football League (and Premier League), and many honors, both domestic and internationally. So a decision like this is somewhat neutral. The PK decision in the Liverpool match was a very close call. Only on the slowest of replays with a tight close up showed that Crouch's trailing foot was inches outside the 18 yard line at the exact moment of contact. Technically not a PK, but at real-time speed I expect most referees would give the PK in this situation. So this is not really in the "dodgy call in favor of a big four team" category.
The difference on Cahill's goal was that he was positioned between Bridge and the ball. Bridge never got close to it, nor did Cahill's boot get particularly close to Bridge's head.
If our recent poster thinks that Everton as a founding member of the league gets the benefit of calls only has to look a few weeks back to the Merseyside Derby to see how false that is...and that match resulted in the suspension of the referee for a week. But, let me say something about Cahill's kick...it was the Italian defender and not Wayne Brisge (looked a lot like him) who was right there with Tim. However, on on eof the replays he does flinch and move to the side. However, there is no way anyone is calling that one or Twellman's back.
A player's reaction to a foul should be a factor when calling PIADM. ATR 12.13 tells us that one criteria for PIADM is if the act "caused the opponent to cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play." The important reaction is not a reaction designed to draw a whistle, it is the reaction to not get injured.
Damn, I said my prior post would be my last yet here I am. This is one of the cornerstones to my take on the situation, and I didn't realize there was some dispute over this particular point until now. A lot of people are saying that the defender turning his head indicates that Taylor's kick is dangerous. My position is that the defenders already knew there is a potentially dangerous situation and went to head the ball anyway, otherwise they concede a goal. The one defender turns his head because he knows he is sticking it in there and is likely to be kicked. It isn't a reaction at all.
I wasn't talking about the player's body language while the play was happening; I was talking about his reaction after the ball was in the back of the net. E.g. did he run around the field chasing the ref and cussing at him or did he just stand there silent, disappointed that his team had conceded an important goal.
But this is like a chicken v. egg argument. The only reason they know it's a dangerous situation is because they see the act that Twellman is about to commit. And nowhere is it stipulated that Twellman has a right to perform that act--or even that he has to. What if Twellman had headed it down and back toward an onrushing midfielder? That would be a perfectly legitimate play on the ball that is not dangerous and would not cause any defenders to flinch or back away from the challenge. So it's not like this is the only manuever that Twellman could have executed. Again, I think this is a borderline call based on the Laws and left completely up to the referee's opinion. I don't think we can analyze this and come up with the "right" answer for this particular scenario. All we can do is discuss it and learn from it for the next time it happens in one of our matches. And, feeding off of that notion, I might be wrong but I don't think this point has been raised. For those that have argued along the lines of Twellman having a "right" to the ball here: what if one of the defenders had continued his attempt to head the ball and wound up getting kicked in the head? Assuming the ball doesn't go in the net, would you call dangerous play on the defender based on the logic that they played dangerously and interefered with Twellman's right? And for those allowing the goal in general (including myself) would your decision change if the ball went in and Twellman kicked the Fire defender in the head on his follow though? And, at that point, are you calling Twellman for dangerous play or a DFK for a kicking foul?
I totally disagree that an attacking player has the right to do a high kick and expect defenders to back away, under any circumstance. If the ball is at head height, and a defender makes a play for the ball with his head, the attacker that kicks or attempts to kick the ball is guilty of dangerous play, period. It doesn't matter if the attacker starts his kick prior to the defenders making a move on the ball.
I don't think you can call dangerous play and IFK if the player gets kicked. You've gotta rule it as kicking and give a DFK. So effectively, the argument is that PIADM is not a viable decision in this situation, if you take the approach you described above. I'm not too comfortable with that yet.
Where getting deep into "what ifs" so this is kind of tough. But the ball could be in the net (and therefore out of play) by the time contact is made. Probably not in this situation (about 12 yards from goal), but if it was closer to net, it's a definite possibility. During EURO 2004 (not sure if you were around here, yet) I remember there being an extensive discussion about this, but in the defensive penalty area. I will try to find that thread. Which approach are you talking about? I'm throwing out some questions for discussions but my personal position is consistent in that I think this was a judgment call and Stott was right to err on the side of the attacker in this particular incident.
Wow, my memory failed me (sort of). There was a discussion, but it certainly wasn't "extensive." https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118548 Probably not worth going off on a tangent in that direction, but I figured I would show you what I was talking about.
You're correct, nobody has the right to high kick and expect the defenders to back away. However, players do have the right to play the ball in a legal manner, including bicycle kicks. They also have the right to expect that, provided there is no current challenge on the ball by the opponent, once they initiate the bicycle kick that it will not be considered a dangerous play. Only if there is another pre-existing challenge on the ball that is prevented in fear of injury would a bicycle kick be considered dangerous play. Sorry, but this is just wrong.
I don't get the impression that post-kick contact is going to matter to those who have said that there can be no debate about this call and that this has to be a goal. Brace yourself for those who are going to argue that it is not kicking, but instead striking the attacker's bicycle-kicking foot/leg with the defenders head!!! The laws are clear that you cannot use your head as a weapon!!! So, if the ball went in, just call advantage and if the shot just misses, consider a pk, and in either case consider giving a yellow or red to the defender for not allowing the glorious attempt to proceed uncontested, especially if the foot is bruised at all by the defender's forehead. Extra smileys for emphasis. Most of this post is sarcasm.
For some reason, this post made me think of something. Everything I've seen above discusses the either the LOTG, the ATR, or, frankly, myths. The above post made me remember that bicycle kicks are explicitly addressed in the Additional Instructions to Referees: Does this add anything to the discussion? Not specifically, but it is certainly worth noting that FIFA takes the time to explicitly address the issue of scissors and bicycle kicks. In fact, I think that it sort of contradicts your notion that "[t]hey also have the right to expect that, provided there is no current challenge on the ball by the opponent, once they initiate the bicycle kick that it will not be considered a dangerous play." FIFA is explicitly stating that all bicycle and scissors kicks are susceptible to being called dangerous and that all such judgments are in the opinion of the referee. I don't see any justification for arguing that a referee is only to judge the danger of such a kick at the time that it is initiated.
I was just pointing out that Everton is in reality just as big as Chelsea (although currently not blessed with such a rich benefactor), so a call possibly going against Chelsea in favor of Everton is not an indication of a a surprising decision. Actually, I don't believe that any of the clubs get any such benefit over any others. It's just stuff dreamed up by fans and encouraged by the media to sell newspapers, keep phone-in shows interesting, and keep people watching the games! And in the interests of accuracy, the referee in the Merseyside Derby, Mark Clattenberg was not suspended for a week. He did not referee a match on the following Saturday because he was previously scheduled out, due to refereeing a UEFA match on the following Thursday, and the travel involved. The "suspended" myth was started in the press, but had no basis in reality from the EPL Officials operation. Perhaps you are confused with the referee, Rob Styles, in the Liverpool/Chelsea game who was definitely suspended (actually announced by the referee chief Keith Hackett), for giving an incorrect PK in Chelsea's favor. But again, I think it was just an error, not a deliberate or even subconcious attempt to favor Chelsea, or disfavor Liverpool.
All I meant was that if the attacker ends up kicking the defender and you determine it was the attacker's 'fault' not the defender's 'fault,' then you must call kicking against the attacker, not dangerous play -- so it would be a DFK not an IFK. Sure, kicking another player while performing a bicycle kick may be deemed dangerous, but if contact is made I would say the infringement has escalated to kicking (DFK), not PIADM (IFK).
Who feels that the defender's reaction after the ball went out of play likely would have been different if a goal had not been scored? I do. Who feels the the defender's reaction after the ball went out of play would have been different if he had gotten kicked in the face and a goal had been scored? I do.
Well shoot, practically any play on the field is potentially dangerous to the opponent. Any hard kicked ball, keeper punt, slide tackle, regulard tackle, etc can result in an injury. There has to be some sort of litmus test in deciding the difference between an inherently dangerous action and an actual dangerous play infraction. My reasoning is not complex: whoever actually creates the dangerous situation is the one that gets punished. I don't feel that Taylor created any sort of dangerous situation alone, it was the defenders who did. If there is no room for opinion on this topic, then why would the referee not call it otherwise?
I agree a bicycle kick is fine as long as the ball is played in a legal manner. In a legal manner includes playing the ball in a manner such that it does not endanger yourself or any other players. In my experience - a bicycle kick performed in the vicinity of another players head, is dangerous. And I have never seen a situation where I would say the dangerous situation was caused by the person playing the ball with their head. See here I disagree. Just because one player "starts" a bicycle kick prior to someone else putting their head in there, in no way means it's not a dangerous play on them. If someone wants to perform a maneuver that has their foot high in the air where someone's head could be, it is their responsibility to ensure that no one HAS a head in the area. Just my assertion - but in my opinion the person performing the bicycle kick is the one causing the potentially dangerous situation.
This is exactly why I mentioned a players foot or head being in an "atypical" position earlier. Having a head in an area where feet are swinging is clearly dangerous (I hope we can all agree on that). If a foot is in the area where a head normally resides, I believe that foot is causing the dangerous situation. If a head is somewhere that the feet normally reside, then its the head that's causing the dangerous situation. If I were to lower my head for a ball at the knees, before a person came in to kick at it, would the foul be on the person playing the ball with his feet? If I'm on the ground playign the ball while sitting on my butt, and then someone comes up and wants to kick it, is the person who is standing on his feet trying to play the ball causing the dangerous situation? No... and it doesn't matter that I was playing the ball while on the ground before they arrived. The foul is still on me for endangering myself. Anyway, it's clear I'm not going to change your mind on this, so I'll stop trying.
I said this several posts back, and I think it bears repeating because it really is the crux of the disagreement between many in this thread: Timing is the critical issue. I agree with some of what refereejoe and Wahoo say -- even though they seem to be at odds fundamentally on this issue. If a player lines up a bicycle kick -- or a diving header at knee level -- while nobody is nearby, THEN someone rushes in and sticks in his or her head or foot, respectively... the dangerous play is on the 2nd player, not the first player. Conversely, if the defending player is already in the vicinity of the first player, and the first player winds up for a bicycle kick while the defending player is preparing to head the ball...the dangerous play, if any, goes against the attacker/first player. In each situation involving this sort of actions by the players, it is up to the referee to decide whether an infringement has occurred and, if so, against whom. I.e. 'in the opinion of the referee' !!
Sorry, was responding to this: Now, responding to this... Bingo. Although not nearly as cut and dry, I think the Taylor incident falls more under the first scenario. Obviously the defenders are in the immediate vicinity and going for headers, but I definitely believe Taylor gets the benefit of the doubt. Stott probably decided that all three players involved knew exactly what they were getting into, regardless of the danger to themselves and each other. If the (professional) players are willing to put themselves in that position knowingly, who are we as referees to stop them?
And I feel that this situation leans more toward the second scenario. To each his own. This is a logical thought pattern and may be along the lines of what the referee actually was thinking. I'm not entirely convinced I agree with it, though.
I think this is exactly what the ATR means when it indicates that the referee should take the skill level of the players into account when making the PIADM call.