UEFA Competitions 2023-2024 Referee Discussions [Rs]

That Ligue 1 POE on SFP rubbing off there.

Like you, I doubt we see that same red card on Man City vs. Real Madrid in the knockout stages.

 

Tells you how "all-in" he really is with CONCACAF.

There are things too that he is doing that is telling everyone that he's not all in.

 

Why is someone not from a CONCACAF nation not the head of referees?

 

Just incredible that this isn’t given as PIADM, in case anyone needed further proof that PIADM simply doesn’t exist in the professional game.

After the check, the VAR decision is no penalty 👀 pic.twitter.com/tP12apGqal

— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) September 8, 2023

 

I don't think this is PIADM under the circumstances (one of which is the level of play). Players certainly don't think it is.

It's a different story if it's a local U15 game where the players have significantly less control of their body. I wouldn't call this PIADM in a college game.

It has to be checking a potential handling offense on the initial Spanish shot, there may have been issues getting clean angles quickly to assess the incident....especially since the angles we are being shown are partially shielded by the player's body. That's my best guess.

 

I assume this is what they were looking at?

 

What is the argument against this being PIADM? He tries to head the ball on the ground while other players are about to challenge for the ball with their legs.

 

Did it discourage the opponent t from playing the ball with with his feet? No. The whole point of PIADM in endangering yourself is that it makes it unfair for the opponent who can’t safely challenge for the ball. Here the opponent had no problem taking the ball without injuring the player heading the ball. At youth levels, especially younger ages, we’re going to call those more quickly. Bit at the professional level, I don’t think that has any chance of being called, nor do I think it should be called.

 

I don’t want to get on a huge tangent but, for me, it comes down to the definition of “dangerous” at the high level. Dangerous isn’t defined in the laws so referees have leeway to interpret what “dangerous” means consistent with the “spirit of the game” language in Law 5.

Part of the culture/spirit of the game is for defenders to sacrifice their bodies to try to block shots and break up potential scoring opportunities in/near the penalty areas. You can define all of those actions as “dangerous” using a rigid interpretation of the word. There’s an assumption of risk present that every professional player is aware of. Here, the defender did exactly that (put his body on the line, risking injury to himself) to block the first shot and then his momentum caused him to slide past the ball. The only tool he had left was to poke the ball with his head, which he did successfully. His actions put only himself at risk, not others. So for me it’s not “dangerous,” in the context of an PIADM IFK offense…especially considering how much of a disaster indirect free kicks inside the goal area are. It’s gotta be really clear and really dangerous for me to call a PIADM offense in that situation.

 

While I agree that it’s technically an open question since the instruction on PIADM at this level is essentially nonexistent, I disagree with your reading of that line.

“Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to an someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.”

It seems pretty clear to me that the last clause is merely a clarification that preventing an opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury is one of many things that is considered a PIADM offense; I highly doubt the IFAB is trying to say that it is required in order for anything else to be a PIADM offense.

Read the clause as its own sentence (“PIADM includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.”). Are people really interpreting “includes” to mean “requires” there? What if I were to say “Offside includes a player in an offside position interfering with an opponent’s line of sight?” It’s a big stretch at best, IMO.

I guess we’ll never know until IFAB says otherwise, but I highly doubt that’s the intended reading.

 

I disagree. It’s the traditional understanding of PIADM when it involves danger to the offender. And it is completely consistent with the concept of a foul—something that unfairly disadvantages an opponent. If the opponents ability to play the ball isn’t affected, why should it be a foul? Again, at the professional level. How we call it in youth games is going to be different. (But I do agree with you that this is yet another example of why IFAB needs to hire a good editor to make their language more clear.)

 

For the sake of clarity, let me remark that there are really three different debates going on here:

1) the (most linguistically-reasonable way to read the) letter of the law,

2) the spirit of the law, and

3) the instruction of the law at the highest levels of the game.

With that said,

From a spirit of the game perspective (point 2), I think it would be better for player safety if referees stopped players from doing this nonsense before some Gavi out there gets their head blasted by an opponent. Furthermore, even if an opponent still tries to play the ball, the endangered player could be gaining an advantage by winning the ball,
clearing the ball etc. Players should not be allowed to put themselves in unreasonably dangerous situations in an attempt to gain some in-game advantage. Even at the professional level (hence the existence, for a example, of anti-doping regulations).

I must concede that is quite clear that stakeholders/instructors at the professional level see things differently, unfortunately (point 3).

Nevertheless, I think many/most of us will at least agree that, at some point low enough in the pyramid, The Game should not accept this kind of defending. Which is why (point 1) is important: I hold that the language in Law 12 does allow us to punish this behavior even if an opponent decides to challenge for the ball anyways.

 

This PIADM discussion has been very interesting to follow, given the various angles of vision on it.

 

In the EPL it should be after Webb admitted the contact from Onana should have led to an intervention.

But I’d bet money that notwithstanding the similarities, an EPL VAR would talk himself out of it by saying there was less force here than used by Onana and that the contact here seems have had less force.

 

Virgil van Dijk given an extra match ban and a fine of 116k € for this behaviour after the red card.

 

This is in the wrong thread. It is EPL.
Looks like he is saying it was his first foul of the game or his first red card in EPL.
Still, £100K is just back of the couch cushions money to him!

PH