fouls outside field of play

[MassachusettsRef]

and, mass, as you have that one assessment per year, out of how many hundreds of gamesWow, I wish. Many, many more assessments and far fewer games is much closer to the mark for me.

the likelihood of this case coming up is a safe bet that we will never know if it is a make or break call your you.I really don't care if it is or not, I don't referee the game for an assessor, as they're just another set of eyes watching the game. Besides, I know of at least one National Assessor/Instructor who's on the same page as me (in fact, as I stated above, he's the one that convinced me of this opinion), and I'm sure you could find a couple that hold the opposing position, so it's not like there's uniformity on this issue at the top.

[MassachusettsRef]

The danger in being just vs correct is that your own bias of what is just comes into play. An attacker is one step offside when the ball is kicked. He hesitates, and now the defender is several feet closer to the ball than the attacker when he starts his chase. Do you flag him? He wasn't goal hanging, and he wasn't closer to the goal than the defender when he started his chase, which is what the law is meant to prevent. Just an example of where people's sense of justice may interfere with making the correct call. I'm sure there are other better examples, but I don't want to pull the discussion off topic.But this is a poor analogy, because the Laws explicity say what an offside position is and what the punishment is for a player being offside. This is just like my earlier examples of handballs v. deliberate handling, or trying to "downgrade" DFKs to IFKs--you can't do it because the Laws spell out exactly what to do.

In this scenario, however, there is certainly wiggle room as several different areas in the Law are being addressed at once. What, technically, is "leaving the field"? Did the referee "give permission"? Was it through the natural course of play? And how exactly is the "field of play" supposed to be defined?

I'll say it again so that, hopefully, people get where I'm coming from. There's a difference from doing some illegal, which means doing something explictly prohibited by Law, and doing something extra-legal, which means doing something that isn't governed or explictly sanctioned by the Laws. I'm advocating the latter, never the former (in fact, in the past I've been chastised once in awhile for stringently sticking to the letter of the Law when it is explicit--I can think of the case of a goalkeeper accidentally leaving the penalty area with the ball in his hand as an example).


We want to be fair and we want to do what we think is the right thing. The Laws are there to guide us, and we can bend them in the gray areas. Sometimes we outright break them in the name of justice, but that does not make us right. If the play was close to the field, I will call the PK. Am I right? NO. Will I sleep OK at night with that call, hoping that the laws will eventually catch up to what I think is fair? Yes.[/QUOTE]

[Kfrank]

In this scenario, however, there is certainly wiggle room as several different areas in the Law are being addressed at once. What, technically, is "leaving the field"? Did the referee "give permission"? Was it through the natural course of play? And how exactly is the "field of play" supposed to be defined?


You keep trying to do a head-feint on the off the field issue. The reason you can't call a penalty is because the foul/misconduct didn't occur in the penalty area in the case as stated.

If the play had carried the players a yard outside the PA to either side of it, and still on the field of play, and the foul occurs would you award a penalty kick? If they left the penalty area going over the 18 by a yard when the foul occurred would you award a penalty? Then why do it when they're a yard over the goal line?

There is no wiggle room, there is no grey area, PK's are awarded when a foul takes place in the PA which is clearly marked for all to see. This is as precisely defined and specified as the off-sides rule. It's not just, and its not fair to expand the PA whenever you see fit in order to administer your own brand of "justice".

[brhsoccer14]

You would think if he called the foult for something right off the field, it would be at the closest point to where the foul occurred.

I know I am wrong, but I think that even though they are off the FOP that they are still playing! I don't care if it only says that the momentum bringing a player off the field is not a yellow card.

In my game, no matter what you guys say, if this occurred, I will call it a foul and put it at the line nearest where they went out or a PK if it was in the Penalty Area. Sorry if I may cause you to get upset on my opinion and on the way I will do it if it occurs.

(Now watch, when I try to get a national badge in a couple of years, this will happen) :)

EDIT: Oh, and btw: to whomever said it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity, it is not since the direction they would be going in this case would not be toward goal, so the misconduct would depend on how serious the foul was IF you called a foul.
Joey

[Kfrank]

In my game, no matter what you guys say, if this occurred, I will call it a foul and put it at the line nearest where they went out or a PK if it was in the Penalty Area.

By definition, if it occurred outside the FOP it therefore occurred outside the PA and thus cannot result in a PK.

[Sagy]

Very interesting discussion. The fair call is a PK, but is it the correct call? My starting position was that the PK was the correct call, but now I’m not so sure.

Consider the following case:

Green player is pushed hard to the ground outside the FOP (let’s say 6 yards from the goal and 3 yards behind the end line) preventing him from scoring a “sure goal” – we call a PK
A minute latter White attacker is fouled outside the FOP (identical spot on the other side), but this time the ball is on the other side of the field and Green is in possession of the ball. Do we call a PK?

Clearly if both incidents are in the box both will earn a PK. But in this case both incidents occurred off the FOP, how do we justify giving a PK for one and not the other?

If the answer is to call PK in both cases, what do we do if only the second incident occurred? Clearly in this case a YC and a DB is the correct call. Otherwise, what is a difference between a foul on and off the FOP?

So the only consistent answer is YC & DB. What’s more important consistency or fairness? :confused:

[dna77054]

Hi,

I am the thread starter, I appreciate reading this very intesting discussion. Some have said that perhaps FIFA should clarify, or change (depending on your POV) the laws of the game to cover this. I wonder if it has ever been brought to their attention. Maybe on of the refs could send this admittedly exptemely rare situation up the ladder. The thought my question could affect the laws of the game makes me positively giddy, though I am sure that nothing will come of this and others have thought of it before.

Thanks for the info. I am starting another thread about persistent infringment. It will probably be more cut and dry than this one and less interesting, but there is still something I wonder about.

[brhsoccer14]

I still think it would be fairest to give a PK. As in Valezuela's case, he bent the laws a bit in order to do what was fair. I think I am done with this discussion as there is nothing else to point out for my position.

[GKbenji]

I still think it would be fairest to give a PK.

Fair, perhaps. But what do you (and Statesman and Alberto) say in the protest committee room when the protest is upheld due to your misapplication of the Laws on the restart?

[Statesman]

I would utilize my many years of experience, understanding of the game, and keen eye for all details regarding the play to sell that the foul did indeed initiate on the field of play. The players just happened to wind up outside the field. Because of my brilliant salesmanship all spectators, coaches, and players would have no problem accepting my decision. As a result, there would be no protest.

Remember, we are not talking about a blatantly obvious "foul" that everyone can see is off the field. For those there is no other choice but to perform a dropped ball with a possible caution/send-off for misconduct. However, if the play is "close enough" to the field that for the majority of those involved it is too difficult to distinguish the location of the foul, you sell it as occuring on the field of play. This holds true for all occurances where you may be without a doubt convinced the contact was off the field, but the opportunity exists to sell the call as occuring on the field.

The fouled team deserves their free kick, not a dropped ball, and that is what you should always strive to award them whenever possible.

[GKbenji]

Remember, we are not talking about a blatantly obvious "foul" that everyone can see is off the field.

:confused: I thought that was exactly the scenario we were talking about. From the original post:

Here is a scenario. Ball remains in penalty box, forward and defender both over run ball taking them off the field, just behind the penalty box. While both are still off the field, defender tackles forward, preventing him from retuning to field and shooting.

Sounds pretty clear to me... both were already off the field before the action was initiated. I'm with you when it comes to something that was initiated very close to the field, let's try to sell it for the PK. But part of the reason we're all talking at cross-purposes is that you're considering a different scenario than the OP.

[Statesman]

From a personal standpoint the description "just behind the penalty box" is what led to my series of posts. When somebody is "just off the field" is a good opportunity to sell the call as being on the field. When they are "decidedly off the field" then your hands are tied.

Regardless of what the initial post stated, personally it was fairly clear what the type of situation was that MassRef, Alberto, and I were in response to. A few feet is neglible, a few yards is unsellable.

[MassachusettsRef]

Regardless of what the initial post stated, personally it was fairly clear what the type of situation was that MassRef, Alberto, and I were in response to. A few feet is neglible, a few yards is unsellable.Just want to confirm that this is my position, as well. Sagy, in his hypothetical, demonstrates one of the reasons why I feel this way.

[ignatz]

I have a question regarding an incident that occurred in the final minutes of Saturday's DC United -- KC Wizard match.

The ball was played into the DC box and was pursued by Josh Gros and Preki, with Gros sheilding Preki from the ball. The ball went over the line and the players did too, smacking up agains the signage behind the touch line.

Preki was behind Gros and crashed into him. There seemed nothing wrong with that; it was purely momentum. However, as Gros turned, Preki hit him in the face. Gros put his hand on Preki's shoulder or chest and pushed him back. Gros's moves seemed purely defensive. In seconds they were surrounded by teammates & officials, and it was broken up.

Both were given yellow cards, and since it was the second of the night for Gros, he was sent off.

My question is, what can a player do when he is attacked by another player without getting a card? Can he hit back, or is he just supposed to take it or run away?

[Ref Flunkie]

My question is, what can a player do when he is attacked by another player without getting a card? Can he hit back, or is he just supposed to take it or run away?

If you don't want a card, don't do something that calls for a caution.

[HoldenMan]

The only thing I can further add here is that the laws, unfortunately, are not always fair - but we are here to administer those laws.

I can think of a number of other situations where the laws are not fair and do not empower us to take the deserved action - and I bet none or few of you would advocate 'bending' the laws in those cases.



I find it amusing that there is such strong argument for giving the crowd and players what they expect, refereeing to the 'spirit of the game' and bending the laws here, when I bet none of you would say that in favour of keeping a player on the park after a careless DOGSO in a well-mannered match, or a high-scoring match. Nor do I think any of you would advocate 'bending' (actually, enough of the euphemism - if it occurs off the FOP you can't possibly say it's bending the laws, it's outright breaking - if nothing else then own up to that) the laws if a player removes his shirt.


So why can we break the law here and not in other cases?

[chrisrun]

So why can we break the law here and not in other cases?

I think most people feel that the law is wrong in this case and thus can justify to themselves that what they are doing is right. I think most feel that 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.

But like you said, until there is a directive like that, you are disregarding the current law and enforcing your own judgement and beliefs.

[MassachusettsRef]

Gros's moves seemed purely defensive. If you get a chance to watch the replay again, focus on where Gros's right hand was from the moment the two players crossed the goal line until Preki falls to the ground: he's grabbing and pulling hard at Preki's shorts, in an area that's not usually considered too acceptable to grab. Though Preki committed the foul, Gros's actions were not solely defensive in the least.

With that said, I think you could have made an argument to just show them both red cards, but that's purely left to the referee's opinion: did they bring the game into disrepute, or did they commit violent conduct? It was borderline, but knowing that Preki was the aggressor and I was going to be sending off Gros regardless, I think I would have opted to just show them both straight red cards.

[MassachusettsRef]

I find it amusing that there is such strong argument for giving the crowd and players what they expect, refereeing to the 'spirit of the game' and bending the laws here, when I bet none of you would say that in favour of keeping a player on the park after a careless DOGSO in a well-mannered match, or a high-scoring match. Nor do I think any of you would advocate 'bending' (actually, enough of the euphemism - if it occurs off the FOP you can't possibly say it's bending the laws, it's outright breaking - if nothing else then own up to that) the laws if a player removes his shirt.I thought I made this clear in my previous posts, but I see a big difference between bending and breaking the law, or as I called it before, doing something "extra legal" as opposed to "illegal".

You don't ignore a DOGSO because the law clearly states that, if a DOGSO occurs, a red card is mandated. The same goes for a yellow card for shirt removal. I see this instance as different, because there's certainly wiggle room as to what constitutes "leaving the field of play" during dynamic play; if there wasn't, the two players in this hypothetical would both be cautioned before we even began to dealt with any other misconduct.

Frankly, this call is so rare (I've heard of it happening once--didn't even see it myself), that I don't think it's worth continuously arguing over. We all know--or at least think we know--how we'd handle it; only if it ever happens will we truly know how we'll react.

[Kfrank]

Regardless of what the initial post stated, personally it was fairly clear what the type of situation was that MassRef, Alberto, and I were in response to. A few feet is neglible, a few yards is unsellable.

I don't think it matters how far it is behind the goal line. What matters is what you know the facts to be. Even if it is just 2 feet, but you know the misconduct did not take place on the field of play, even if you think you could "sell" a PK, why undermine the Laws?

Do you live your life by principles? What principles do you bring to the pitch? Is trying to fool people into believing X when you know Y was the case consistent with your principles?