Question

[DarthSarachan]

I was at a match yesterday and saw something the following:

Player A is coming down the field, player B is defending player A. Player A shoves player B, foul is called. Player B set the ball down for a quick restart, Player A starts walking back towards his half of the field with his back to the ball. Player B mishits the restart and it bounces off the back of Player A, who is 5-6 yards from the restart. The ref blows the play dead and cautions Player A for encroachment.

I realise this is the correct thing to do by the letter of the law, but since Player A had his back to the ball and was making no obvious attempt to encroach on the restart, was the stoppage and caution neccesary?

[Chas (Psyatika)]

Probably not. The caution was more likely for schizophrenic behaviour ;)
Player A shoves player A, foul is called.

[DarthSarachan]

Probably not. The caution was more likely for schizophrenic behaviour ;)

Player A shoves player A


Good catch reedited the orignal post.

[USSF REF]

I realise this is the correct thing to do by the letter of the law, but since Player A had his back to the ball and was making no obvious attempt to encroach on the restart, was the stoppage and caution neccesary?

Actually, this isn't the correct thing to do, assuming the facts you have presented are true. If a player is retreating from the ball with his back turned to it, and the player taking the free kick chooses to put the ball into play quickly, and then the ball hits the defender who has not actively attempted to move to the ball or block the kick from this position, then no law has been violated.

The kicking player basically waives his right to the 10 yards if he takes the quick free kick (there are some exceptions to this, but this is not one of them). The referee was probably (yhtbt) over-reaching in this case. Don't take quick free kicks if you are going to waste possesion in this way, the kicker deserved to lose the ball, not have the ref bail him out.

[bluedevils]

Not only was the caution and stoppage UNNECESSARY, but the caution and stoppage were INCORRECT. The referee should not have whistled the player for any infringement.

[indybar]

Not only was the caution and stoppage UNNECESSARY, but the caution and stoppage were INCORRECT. The referee should not have whistled the player for any infringement.

Indeed. Plain and simple.

Which level of game was that?

[Wreave]

See last month's discussion of this topic for more detail: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325224]click

However, the consensus you have so far should continue - this was a bad call and a worse card.

[whistleblowerusa]

Not only was the caution and stoppage UNNECESSARY, but the caution and stoppage were INCORRECT. The referee should not have whistled the player for any infringement.
How can you say it was a bad call from the way it is described? The call could be correct. The card was not necessary at all.

[IASocFan]

Not only was the caution and stoppage UNNECESSARY, but the caution and stoppage were INCORRECT. The referee should not have whistled the player for any infringement.

How can you say it was a bad call from the way it is described? The call could be correct. The card was not necessary at all.

If 1 the referee saw the incident as described by Darth, the first stoppage was proper (for the push). On the second stoppage, if 2 player A had not questioned the call and 3 had immediately turned his back and 4 walked away from the ball, then the second stoppage was UNNECESSARY.

Notice the four assumptions in the previous two statements. :cool:

[bluedevils]

How can you say it was a bad call from the way it is described? The call could be correct. The card was not necessary at all.

The stoppage that I felt was unnecessary and incorrect, was the one to order the re-take of the kick because the player impeded the restart. The post had plenty of info for me to determine that a re-take was wrong. I think I replied AFTER the OP modified his post but I'm not sure how much he changed it.

The stoppage for the original pushing foul is a 'you had to be there.' I don't know if it was a foul or not.

[vabeacher]

Maybe the kicker should be penalized for intentionally striking an opponent (with the ball). Obviously not the situation from the way it is described, but I've seen it happen, all while making it look accidental.

[whistleblowerusa]

If the referee saw the incident as described by Darth, the first stoppage was proper (for the push). On the second stoppage, if player A had not questioned the call and had immediately turned his back and walked away from the ball, then the second stoppage was UNNECESSARY.

Notice the four assumptions in the previous two statements. :cool:
4?:eek:

[bluedevils]

Maybe the kicker should be penalized for intentionally striking an opponent (with the ball). Obviously not the situation from the way it is described, but I've seen it happen, all while making it look accidental.

Do you recall Brazil vs. Turkey (?) in 2002 WC when Rivaldo gets drilled standing at the corner flag, waiting to take the corner, while waiting for the Turkish player to send the ball to him? The officiating team made a few errors with that one but ended up sending off the player which was the fair bottom-line result.

That's the most vivid example I've seen of a player pretending to give the ball back to the opponent. Not quite the same as in the OP's example, but similar.

[ref47]

if ref saw...
if player A ... did not complain
turned
walked away

[IASocFan]

4?:eek: I editted to add 1,2,3,4 :)

(or review ref47's post)

[Statesman]

Suffice to say if all the player did was walk away but the ball went to him then no stoppage or card is necessary.

If there were any other intangible factors you could only determine by being present then the decision might be different. To make unqualified blanket statements about any scenario tends to be inaccurate.

[DarthSarachan]

I think I replied AFTER the OP modified his post but I'm not sure how much he changed it.

The only change I made was to correct a typo which originally read Player A shoves player A

Which level of game was that?
Over 30 coed rec league

If 1 the referee saw the incident as described by Darth, the first stoppage was proper (for the push). On the second stoppage, if 2 player A had not questioned the call and 3 had immediately turned his back and 4 walked away from the ball, then the second stoppage was UNNECESSARY.

1 I was not attempting to bring the push into question here

2, 3, and 4 I did not see player A question the call, he immediately turned and started walking back to his own half

[IASocFan]

1 I was not attempting to bring the push into question here

2, 3, and 4 I did not see player A question the call, he immediately turned and started walking back to his own half

I wasn't questioning the push, that does not appear to be an issue. My basic premise was the referee may not have seen it the same way or may have been wrong. :)

[jacathcart]

If 1 the referee saw the incident as described by Darth, the first stoppage was proper (for the push). On the second stoppage, if 2 player A had not questioned the call and 3 had immediately turned his back and 4 walked away from the ball, then the second stoppage was UNNECESSARY.

Unless: (1) Player A had been right on the edge all match of FRD; (2) was "sauntering" instead of moving quickly to establish the proper distance; (3) was within the arc into which the ball would reasonably be played (even if the ball was mishit ) (4) and had otherwise been challenging the referee's authority and needed to be pulled up short

I don't agree with the unequivocal statement that the attacker waives the right to 10 yards by taking a quick restart. He certainly MAY, but the defenders may not force him into that choice by taking their own sweet time (OST). Just because they are heading in the general direction of twn yards does not mean they are respecting the distance. A trot, a jog, a quick backpedal - fine. A cakewalk, a stroll, a meander that causes the attacker to pause, recalculate, or rethink his restart - probably not unless the player is behind the attacker or otherwise not within any reasonable position where he would interfere with the restart.

All to say that YHTBT to be able to understand the entire dynamic and context in which the call was made. No one can draw a word picture sufficient to truly place us in the ref's shoes.

Besides, I will cut a ref a LOT of slack in stricly enforcing FRD given the impact on the flow and speed of the game. Remember the attackers in that instance are supposed to have an advantage and it is not just the restart - it is also the opportunity to use quick thinking and reactions to restart while the defense is still figuring out what is going on.

jim