What's the restart?

[Rufusabc]

On the corsham site, I was reading a question that I think I should absolutely nail the answer to, but I keep waffling on it.

Here's the play:

DFK at top of arc going inbound. Wall is set, and when the whistle is blown, a defender charges out before the kick is made. However, said kick hits the defender in his raised hands while he is still in the area. It appears deliberate.

Is it:

a) PK/yc
b) re-kick yc frd

Is this the case of punishing the more serious of the fouls, or is it a case of the ball never being properly put back into play?

I went A.

R

[andymoss]

I wanted to keep it concise and just type "a" but it wouldn't let me!

Ooh, ooh, ooh!!!! I just thought of something.

If said defender has been a pain. Caution for FRD then caution for UB, then toss him with a big smile like the now infamous Youtube video clip.

Ooooh, Andy, you are so bad.

[Kempa]

Law 5

The referee ...
punishes the more serious offence when a player commits more than one
offence at the same time.

Now the question:

Is the encroachment by itself an offense or is it trifling until the handling occurs? If it doesn't hit the defender, it is usually trifling. If it hits the defender, it is not trifling anymore. If the defender handles it, are the infractions simultaneous or did one happen before the other?

[o5iiawah]

I would hope we would all hang onto the whistle enough to allow play to develop. What if the ball caromed off the FRD defender and went into the goal?

The Defender is guilty of FRD before the ball is kicked. If you want to caution him for that you should probably do so before the kick. Once the kick is in the air, you could still issue a retake but this time, let things pan out first. In this instance, the attacking team gets a further advantage (PK) and you can go with that instead

[Rufusabc]

That's why I kept waffling....

[glutenfreebaker]

Is this the case of punishing the more serious of the fouls, or is it a case of the ball never being properly put back into play?


The ball was definately put back into play properly. All it takes for the ball to be in play is to be kicked and moved, and it was.

For the other part of it I take the stance that they did not happen at the same time. Not respecting the required distance happened first. This is a question you can get a little too technical with if you think about when play is stopped. Play is stopped when the referee decides to stop play, not when he blows the whistle. So if the referee decided to stop play for the defender not respecting the required distance, then he could certainly caution the player and retake the kick.

I personally wait and see. If the shot goes in the goal then the defender being to close is undeniably trifling. Since I would be waiting and seeing, and not deciding to stop play, then play has not stopped. Then I would decide to stop play for the handling and award a penalty kick.

I would also only give one caution for Unsporting Behavior, even though I think I could justify another for Failing to Respect the Required Distance. A caution can be given even if play is not stopped for the offense; I just wouldn't do it in this case.

[CDM76]

I'm so conflicted.

The by-the-rules part of me wants to say retake the kick and YC for FRD.

The what-would-I-feel-at-the-moment part says this is a nasty bit of work and he needs to never, ever try that kind of stuff again and award the PK plus a YC for UB.

If he was a real pain, I like Andy's solution but I think I'd feel I hadn't managed him properly up to that point if I was willing to be quite that vicious.

[IASocFan]

I'm not at all conflicted.

The by-the-rules part of me says the FRD was trifling. Handball in the PA is not. YC for UB and PK.

[Kempa]

What-if scenario:

Same DFK.

Player does not encroach and commits DGH. Obvious send-off and PK.
Player encroaches and commits DGH. And you are going to caution and repeat the DFK? The only difference is that he committed an additional infraction, and he gets two advantages just because one was a split second before the other?

[Ref Flunkie]

Why can't we punish both since they happened at the same time and one is a misconduct while the other is a DFK? I say YC for FTRD and PK for the handling (I wouldn't double up the YCs here).

[CDM76]

I'm not at all conflicted.

The by-the-rules part of me says the FRD was trifling. Handball in the PA is not. YC for UB and PK.What if the defender encroaches, no handling, kick flies straight to the far upper 90 for a goal? Clearly trifling for me.

What if the defender encroaches, no handling, kick flies straight to the far upper 90 and the keeper makes a spectacular save? Was the encroachment trifling? Probably. But there would be a quiet word to the defender not to try that again.

What if the defender encroaches, no handling, kick flies 5 yards over the crossbar? Was the encroachment still trifling? Likely, I would award a rekick.

What if the defender encroaches, no handling, ball deflects off the defender out of play? Award the rekick and caution for FRD.

I understand discretion in making calls but if my thought process was, "Stepping in early, if something good doesn't happen for the kicking team we're retaking this" and then the player sticks out the arm aren't I choosing to ignore the first infraction.

Sounds like you're making the encroachment trifling because of the handling. Would you award a DFK for a careless trip after the ball is out of play instead of the throw-in?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your post. Just trying to follow your logic in determining the encroachment as trifling. Certainly not all encroachment is trifling, is it?

BTW, I would still say in the moment my gut is PK and YC for UB but I'm not sure that's the right answer on the test.:D