Sorry, I was confused by your post. The initial question states that "While he/she is off the pitch the defender fouls him." So I was assuming that the attacker was off the FOP (stated) while the defender was on (assumed). If they are both off it's any easy drop ball answer, so I didn't think we were discussing that. I didn't see you mention IFK as a restart option in your reply, so that's why I posted what I did. Now that you spell it out, I agree.
Interesting that the seeming consensus is three different restarts for the same act solely from it occurring in different spots all within a few yards of each other. I would suggest the referee do what he can to sell a DFK restart in this scenario. Unless both players are clearly off the field, there is no sense in awarding a dropped ball. Further, there is no reason the referee cannot sell the DFK over an IFK if one player is on the field to begin with. Finally, by selling that the spot of the foul was actually on the field it allows the referee more breathing room regarding how to deal with the misconduct. I simply cannot see how awarding an IFK in this scenario will benefit anybody. Dropped ball + caution, or DFK + however you decide to deal with the misconduct. Off (DB) or on (DFK). No in between!
IN truth I agree, a DFK restart for this close to boundry incident is easily sold. It satisfies the playing dynamics better. Given the concept of misconduct implies conduct rather than the location of that conduct as the central issue. For conduct that occurs partially on the field and carries on to off the field we craft our responses to coincide with the fact a FOUL must ONLY occur on the field of play. In the original query the fouler was on the field but the foulie was off. While I too think an INDFK COULD satisfy the law as in a thrown object from on to off the FOP. At times I think we focus to much on what if ? In the heat of the moment knowing what to do is why we hash the possibilities on the board. I have found it easy to make decisions if we are at least comfortable with the reasoning. even if not totally convinced of its truisim.
I'm a little lost - what's this about where the foul 'initiated'? It occurs where it occures - at a stretch you can say it is initiated when he pulls his leg back, or makes the final lunge - but you're all talking about it initiating several yards away. drop ball is the only option - IFK is impossible under the laws.
Today Jim Allen addressed a similar situation and states: Foul outside the fop - drop ball, no DOGSO possible But if the attempt starts on the field of play, treat the attempt as a foul generating a DK (and DOGSO if applicable), which is a more fair result in his hypothetical case. I think Holdenman and several other posters nailed the issues. AN INTERESTING SITUATION Your question: Two players are involved - an attacker and a defender. The attacker has the ball at his feet, inside the penalty area. He is very close to the back line, but outside the six yard box. He nutmegs the defender and then attempts to run past him, to catch up with the ball, but chooses to pass the defender by leaving the field of play. The defender sticks out his foot and trips the attacker up, but the trip takes place off the playing area. There are no other defenders between this incident and the goal and the attacker would have regained control of the ball if he hadn't been tripped up. Has the defender committed a foul? Should a penalty be awarded? Should the defender be sent off? USSF answer (March 1, 2005): The attacking player is permitted to leave the field to avoid an obstacle while playing the ball. By sticking his foot out with the clear intent to trip the attacker, the defender has committed the foul of "attempting to trip," which is punishable by a direct free kick‹and, therefore, as it was committed by a defender inside his own penalty area, the restart must be a penalty kick. Although the eventual result of the attempt was an actual trip of the attacker, the attempt occurred inside the field. Because the successful result of the attempt occurred off the field, the restart would have to be a dropped ball (misconduct occurring off the field) and no red card could be given even if there were an obvious goal scoring situation because such a card cannot be given if the restart is not a free kick. Fairness and common sense would suggest that the player should be punished in the most severe way and that could be done only if the referee decided to stop play for the foul of "attempting to trip."
Yes, that is probably the best option - if the attempted trip actually DID occur on the field, or if you can sell it that way anyway. Shouldn't be a tough sell, since most folks' idea of fairness in this situation will be PK and sendoff. However, if the defender was also clearly off the field and there's really no way that any trip or attempted trip occurred on the field, then you are stuck. I hope people don't start ignoring the laws and issuing red cards for stuff like this. In reality, this sort of thing would almost never happen.
One of the lessons that I have learned over the years - on the field, at advanced clinics, and in conversations with other referees - expect the unexpected.
Seems to me there really should be a directive that says if a player is slightly off the field of play for a legitimate reason (avoiding defender, etc) while still playing the ball, he should be considered on the field of play with regard to fouls. Much like a defender who crosses the endline is still considered to be on the field of play with regard to the offside position. The restart position would be on the touch or endline at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred. From both a "fairness" and "practical" perspective this to me makes sense.
That would make sense. It would also prevent the mandatory caution for even a careless foul off the FOP.
did you all notice the nuance in mr allen's answer? we can get to the dfk and a card result for the "foul" and gdf, IF we make the decision to penalize the attempt to trip before the trip really happens. we would choose this if the situation/match needed this result at this point in the match. while i appreciate this option, i am not confortable with the concept. where fouls and cards can be given for attempts, as well as completing the action, i believe that we should not parse this as a two-step process (trip, attempting to trip; strike, attempting to strike...). i think we only penalize the attempt if the attempt has failed. we penalize the result if it was sucessful. i like whistleblowerusa's 3 result analysis. makes sence to me. sure, we are talking about the same action, but location does matter in this game. if it should be otherwise, the powers that be should change our instructions.
It is possible that there are multiple offences occuring here. If it were a trip off the FOP, that cannot be punished with a FK. But there is the possibility of attempting to trip and that proceeded the actual trip; this might well be on the FOP. There is also the misconduct by the culprit which was initiated on the FOP.
There isn't multiple offenses here. If there is a trip off the field of play yes it can not be punished by a free kick. It is either an attempt, which means it was not successful, or, the trip, which means the attempt was successful and is no longer an attempt because of this. This stuff about where it was initiated is just garbage. It is not how FIFA interprets it at all. It is also a stretch of the facts in order to place more weight on the misconduct so that you can punish it more severely than allowed by the Laws. Just use the facts, keep it simple and don't over justify to create a solution that you feel is better than what is in the Laws and allowed by FIFA.
Using Jim Allen's example of a red player temp. off the field with a GSO: 1) blue successfully trips the red player, restart is a drop ball, no PK or red card because offense is off the field. 2) blue misses the trip, now offense occurred on the field, restart is PK with a DOGSO red card. Under your theory, blue is better off if he successfully trips than if he misses? Jim Allen's theory is a bit twisted, but it allows the ref to reach a fair result that the rules SHOULD provide for. Not that this scenario is going to happen very often, I don't recall it ever happening in one of my games, but then maybe I was too dense to realize it.
His penalize the attemp might not be so far fetched, teh attemp is on the field and is a foul, DFK if so. The actual trip is off the field so can't be a foul. When two things happen you are suppose to penalize the more severe, so which is the more severe, the DFK foul or the drop ball miscounduct?
What you are arguing is against the facts of the Laws of The Game. The correct restart is a dropped ball. You can not decide on another way of restarting because you may have the opinion it is more fair than what is in the Laws. That is not awarding the correct restart and opening the match up to an easy protest because the decision you would be making is not one of judgment but one of facts of the Laws. Jim Allen may have a creative way to suggest but you can not ignore the fact that the trip happened off the field and not on. You will have to have a fast whistle and even faster legs to get out of there quickly. Jim Allen has corrected his original posting and pretty much said the same thing in another. Don't read more into what he has said and get yourselves into trouble with an incorrect restart. When the Laws are changed when will then be able to give a different restart. FIFA is clear on what we should do. That overrides anything JA has to say on the subject.
That may very well be true, but do you really think, in most cases, ANYONE associated with the wronged team would have any idea that the ref restarted contrary to the laws? We have some fairly knowledgeable refs on this thread who can't even agree on this one. The coach/owner/player/fan for most teams, and I include professional teams here, would not know the correct procedure in this case and probably wouldn't even know how to research it and come up with the correct answer-- unless perhaps the team owner placed a call to Alfred Kleinaitis or Paul Tamberino or something. I'm not advocating doing something outside the laws simply because you as the ref feel it is more fair; personally, I tend to stick to the laws even on the Sunday league games even though I know it will get me into more trouble. I'm just claiming that you probably would be able to get away with this law deviation in most cases.
Yes I do think that they would know. You'd be surprised what they know. (and as for fairly knowledgeable refs on this thread, most know my level and games that I work) Don't fool yourself into believe that you can play around with the Laws and get away with it anytime you think you have a better way. Ahh. But you are! And, I don't think that you would "get away" with this. When FIFA makes a change then we can do something different. Until that time the Laws dictate the restart.
I didn't see any change to Jim Allen's analysis for 3/1/05 and I just checked. I certainly agree that we should not make up rules as a referee, and I do not. But I don't think that Jim Allen's analysis is against the laws of the game at all, it is a creative way to reach what most people would agree is the best result in the unusual hypothetical posed to him. Hopefully I won't run into this issue (I haven't seen it come up so far and it seems pretty unlikely to me), but if I do I would have no problem depending on what I view as the authoritative comments from the USSF website. There is a big difference between making up rules and following USSF authority. There are a lot of interpretations of and glosses on the FIFA laws that are not in the laws themselves or even against a literal reading of the laws. For example I don't think that "trifling" is in the laws, but that concept is well accepted. Just because I ignore a GK holding the ball on a punt and going outside the PA by six inches doesn't mean I am making up my own rules. As far as game control goes, I will take JA's solution over a drop ball for an obvious trip/DOGSO any day.
Sorry, but I still don't believe that the players and coaches are, generally speaking, very knowledgeable about the laws - regardless of the level of play. Please remind me exactly which level of games you do. I will relate a story that a former National Referee in my state told from a few years back. He worked in the MLS and was running a line one day when a well-known player from the USMNT ended up asking him, based on the banter occurring between players regarding being offside on a goal kick, 'can you be offside on a goal kick?' That is just a single example from 1 player regarding 1 law at 1 point in time, but I stand by my feelings about the level of law knowledge among most players and coaches being fairly low.
Hey, no need to be a smart#%@ here. I was speaking in general terms. Many folks here are advocating creative ways to seemingly sidestep the law while still remaining within its bounds, and some folks are advocating out-and-out unlawful decisions based on a sense of justice and all parties feeling better about the just decision even though it may not be lawful. I am not advocating either of these approaches. I stick with the letter of the law wherever possible. And yes, I was at camp this year and I was listening when Alfred said to 'follow the spirit over the letter every time - except when our hands are tied.' I agree with that, and I'm sure most referees, players, and coaches do, too. It seems that the 'when our hands are tied' part is where viewpoints aren't always in sync. In which situations are our hands tied and in which situations are they not? That seems to be the question.
I will be glad to tell you who I am if you do the same. This isn't about you and me. It's about what is correct and not correct. Why not award a goal for a close shot that just misses? After all, the shot was initiated on the field of play. If the foul happens off the field of play that is where it happens. We're not talking inches here. We're talking feet (as a measurement). By doing what Jim suggests and what your are endorsing we would be bending the Laws to fit what we feel personally fits the penalty for such an infringement. Personal feelings like this do not belong in forming a decision on the field. And I'm not speaking of whether I feel someone is interfering with an opponent or was that a foul or not a foul. Stretching the truth to fit a personal thought is just wrong and shows a lack of integrity. You can do what you want and name drop all you want but it's still saying the same to me.
I think the main key here is what the teams perceived to have occurred, and how the referee can use that to sell the call. If point of contact of the foul is so close to the touchline that teams could easily perceive it as being on the field, then the referee should sell it as occurring on the field. Otherwise the only recourse you can do is a dropped ball with punishment for misconduct. Try to sell what you can within the laws of the game, but don't break them!
You took this discussion in the wrong direction. I know it's not about you and me. I don't even care any more about the content of this thread; in my last reply, I tried to explain that my comments were *general* in nature and I was not commenting on my specific opinions on the topic. Maybe I didn't explain that very well. I stated my opinion in this thread's question quite a while back. If it was incorrect, I have no problem with that. I do not advocate bending laws to fit what I personally feel should be the penalty. No referee should be doing that. If, when I feel like going back and rereading this entire thread again, I determine my opinion was incorrect, then I will not be implementing that opinion in any games that I officiate. I wasn't name dropping, just merely pointing out that I am a national referee - something I believe you have mentioned here about yourself in the past - and not some sort of clown. I'm done.