What is the correct Restart?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by IllinoisRef, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. Paper.St.Soap.Co

    Paper.St.Soap.Co Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    I previously held a position within our SRC and would often sit in on disciplinary meetings. Overall, it depended on the group. I found that most of the time the only party who truly understood the LOTG was the referee. I don't say this to be rude, just an observation.

    So the point was that most of the time the technicalities we discuss here never come into play. More time would be spent discussing how the report was written as it pertained to the description of events, not the LOTG.

    One particular league liked to second guess the referee and overturn things for silly reasons. Even the most thorough report would be ignored. But this league was not the norm and they've started to move the other way now.


  2. soccerman771

    soccerman771 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas area
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    You don't have to show a card in order to caution a coach. I've seen it done before by a high level ref in a tournament. Simply tell the coach the infraction and you are cautioned.

    From Wiki:
    Team officials such as managers and coaches may not be cautioned or sent from the technical area in the above manner. However, according to Law 5 the referee "takes action against team officials who fail to conduct themselves in a responsible manner and may, at his discretion, expel them from the field of play and its immediate surroundings."
    The league sanction for a sent-off coach or manager is normally a ban from being in the dugout or in the changing room for a certain number of matches thereafter. The particular football association determines the length of the ban.
  3. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    Unless you're dealing with rules of competition that provide for it, "caution" is not used with coaches. Irresponsible behavior in the technical area can be punished by expulsion. USSF recommends ask, tell remove as the process for handling coaches. See ATR 5.10:

  4. kicker1

    kicker1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis
    It's a very simple scenario:
    sub on bench is "part of the team" and cannot be considered an outside agent...
    punishment CANNOT be a foul (e.g. tripping) -- it can only be misconduct. This also means it cannot be a dropped ball restart. It must be an IFK from the spot where ball was, in the scenario you described.
    As for YC/or RC or nothing: YC is probably best option for Unsporting Behavior, unless it was in the "excessive force" area (RC). But it would NOT be for a foul at excessive force, because only the players ON the field can commit fouls.


  5. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    Are you saying you would actually let this sub stay after doing this (the YC)? If so, I hope you run faster than all the people that are going to try and run you down.

    If you are implying a double caution scenario then I withdraw my statement.
  6. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    You may not like it but there are 10 Direct Free Kick FOULS, one of which is deliberately handling the ball. A foul is committed by a player, against an opponent or opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play. Hence, there are also Indirect Free Kick FOULS, PIADM, Impeding the progress of an opponent, and charging an opponent off the ball are 3
  7. wguynes

    wguynes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    Altoona, IA
    Your statement is so self-contradictory, I don't know where to begin.

    • Deliberate handling is not done against an opponent.
    • Playing in a dangerous manner might be a stretch, but is it really done against an opponent? (Ok, I might concede that one.)
    • Impeding the progress? (Same as above, but less so)
    • Charging an opponent as an example of an IFK foul? (Well... uh... see that other list)
    All of the DFK offenses can be fouls. But to say "there are 10 DFK fouls" is not clear. There may be up to 9. None of the unlisted IFK offenses come even close to a foul by your own definition. You see my frustration, I hope.

    Anyhow, back to the original point. The unspecific use of the word foul where it should not be contributes to confusion. In my view, your post is classic evidence of that. This cavalier use of the term is what results in misunderstandings such as many people believing that Serious Foul Play must be a "foul" in order to be applied.
  8. NHRef

    NHRef Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern NH
    We are into word games here. You cannot "caution" a coach where "caution" is the LOTG term and you have exactly 7 reasons for the "caution".

    You can "caution" the coach, where "caution" is a warning to stop. In other words, the "ask" or "tell" from ask/tell/remove.
  9. wguynes

    wguynes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    Altoona, IA
    You are using a word, "caution," that has a very specific meaning to referees and the Laws of the Game. You must attempt to avoid using the term except for the 7 specific offenses that may be committed only by a player or substitute and result in the showing of a yellow card.

    There is a reason the wiki quote said "takes action" when dealing with coaches.
  10. soccerman771

    soccerman771 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas area
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    Correct. However, using the word "caution" gives reference to a term and speaks in a language the coach understands. It also references a yellow, which is about the level they are at. Saying you are warned or you need to stop, or something along those line may sound threatening and could incite unintended results. Saying cautioned puts it in terms the coach can comprehend.

    I try not to get into legal mumbo jumbo talk as it usually doesn't do anything to promote constructive debate. This thread is the exception.
  11. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    Actually what jkc wrote is pretty accurate. It's not his definition. See the ATR:

    Deliberate handling is considered an offense against the opposing team. ​

    PIADM is not an offense unless it interferes with an opponent, as is also true of impeding. The GK offenses, like deliberate handling, are offenses against the opposing team in that it unfairly keeps or takes the ball from play.​

    And charging off the ball is, according to USSF a form of impeding. Again from the ATR:​

    [/FONT]
    Only if that off-the-ball-charge becomes, in the opinion of the referee, careless, reckles, or endangers an opponent, does it become one of the direct free kick fouls (which were formerly known as the penal fouls [5th graders everywhere lost out on a lot of snickering when they made that change]).

    (Prior to the great rewrite, charging an opponent while not in playing distance of the ball was a separately delineated infraction.)
  12. IllinoisRef

    IllinoisRef Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Country:
    Brazil
    Jim Allen posted my question on the website.
  13. Paper.St.Soap.Co

    Paper.St.Soap.Co Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Good job clearly presenting the question. I'll accept Jim's answer but I still feel like the substitute's actions warrant more than just a caution.

    My small, petty victory is Jim said the substitute can't be shown a red card for SFP! Hahaha....
  14. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Iforgotwhat8wasfor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Well I read 7 pages and was itching to say something, then IL and MA beat me to it.

    But since I had to read 7 pages, I'll say it anyway...:)

    Don't confuse the hoops your association makes you jump through with what the duties the LOTG confer. The LOTG's say you caution and dismiss for a variety of misconduct and they don't say anything about your need to pigeonhole it in one particular category. When in Rome, you probably write it up in Italian...

    In particular, the LOTG allow you to cite a player who enters or re-enters the field without your permissions as unsporting behavior. But they also allow you to cite it as entering or re-entering the field without your permission.:)

    Citing for VC has the unfortunate implication that if the sub simply grabbed the attacker's jersey, you would only caution... The act is a deliberate, cynical, totally selfish intrusion into the game which cannot be repaired. It might have been a small goal scoring opportunity, but it was a crystal clear one.
  15. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    Interestingly enough the LotG calls them offences, not fouls. Not really sure there is a need for the concept of "fouls" any more when the IFAB have chosen to use the word "offence" in so many situations already.


    It might very well be an implied requirement but the LotG doesn't actually state the "against an opponent or the opposing team" as a part of the definitions of a foul.


    Not really. The LotG allows players to be cautioned for "entering or re-entering the field of play..." and it allows substitute/ed players to be cautioned for USB if they enter the FoP but there is no cross matching of those offences. Two very similar acts that results in the same punishment but that actually are two very different offences.
  16. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Iforgotwhat8wasfor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Ouch! you got me...

    Not sure how a player can enter the FOP without the referee's permission. Late for kick-off perhaps?
  17. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Err... LOTG, page 34:

    And from the I&G



    I suppose, though, that "a rose by any other name . . ."

    (And I would presume that the drafters of the ATR would agree that the "against an opponent or the opposing team" is implied by the fouls listed in the LOTG.)
  18. wguynes

    wguynes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    Altoona, IA
    After treatment for an injury.
  19. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    Oh there's a few reasons. Being off the FoP to receive medical treatment or to change illegal/faulty equipment being the most common ones might fall more under the "re-enters" heading but things like being late to the match/half certainly is "entering".
  20. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    As a general heading then yes "fouls" are mentioned. But if you read the text for each specific situation you'll see the use of offences for all punishments but the four outfield player IDFKs.



    I still don't see why such a requirement is needed though.
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    "Need? Reason not the need!"
    -King Lear

    Probably not really "needed," as each foul :)p) is defined. But from an instructional, categorizing perspective, I think it's helpful.
  22. Another NH Ref

    Another NH Ref BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Southern NH
    Yep. Happened to Adebayor (I think it was) and one other Arsenal player a couple of years ago in an EPL match. They were being pissy and came back late after half-time. They just came on the field. Got cautioned for it.
  23. GoDawgsGo

    GoDawgsGo Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Country:
    United States
    Indeed. It happens more often than we might think.

    A few years ago at U-20 Women's WC in Russia Kelley O'Hara subbed in at half. Coaches never gave 4O the sub pass. She got cautioned about 10 minutes in to the 2nd half. She later received a caution for UB and then red for 2CT. Talk about a mess, and unfortunate for her that she had to sit the next match at a World Cup.
  24. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    You seem to be the only person confused by this. What I wrote is almost word for word from Advice. The concept of a "foul" has been around a long, long time and is different from an "offense". Any discretion against the Laws is an offense. Fouls may only be committed by players,on the field, against opponents, while the ball is in play. USSF has said deliberately handling the ball is a foul against the opposing team.

    Your understanding of Serious Foul Play is likewise flawed. First, may only be committed by a player against an opponent, which is the start of the definition of a "foul". Second it must be done with excessive force while challenging for the ball. Now where excessive force discussed in Advice? Under "fouls".

    "If the foul
    involved the use of excessive force, totally beyond the bounds of normal play, then the referee must
    send off the player for serious foul play or violent conduct, show the red card, and award the direct free
    kick to the opposing team."

    Violent Conduct is included because there are instances when the player makes no attempt at playing the ball but still commits a foul using excessive force.

    12.33 SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
    It is serious foul play when a player uses violence (excessive force; formerly defined as
    "disproportionate and unnecessary strength") when challenging for the ball on the field against an
    opponent. There can be no serious foul play against a teammate, the referee, an assistant referee, a
    spectator, etc. The use of violence or excessive force against an opponent under any other conditions
    must be punished as violent conduct.
    It is also serious foul play if a player commits any tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent. In
    this case, the tackle may be from behind, from the side, or from the front.
    This does not include serious misconduct by substitutes, who should be punished for violent conduct if
    they commit an act as described in the first paragraph of this section. (See Advice 12.34.)

    Where here is Serious Foul Play considered where there is no foul? If there's no foul, it's Violent Conduct.

    Nothing in my previous post is self-contradictory or, for that matter, incorrect. Unless, of course, you find what USSF states as being incorrect.

    Specifically to your "frustration"
    1. Deliberate handling is against the opposing team.
    2. Of course PIADM is against an opponent. If it's not, it's not a foul, or an offense.
    3. It's not impeding the progress. It's impeding the progress of an opponent.
    4. How is charging an opponent off the ball not a foul against an opponent?

    There are 10 DFK fouls. Nothing can be clearer. If any are committed by a player inside their own penalty area, a penalty kick is awarded to the opponents.
  25. nsa

    nsa Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 1999
    Location:
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    An off jack?

    or ...

Share This Page