New "DR" Caution

[Hattrix]

The laws now state that a player who "provokes a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play" shall be cautioned for Delaying a Restart.

First off, it's odd that this isn't Unsporting Behavior, since the infraction here seems to be the provocation, rather than the ensuing delay.

But my concern here is with the scenario where a team that is losing, let's say, by two goals, scores a late goal. A striker then tries to retrieve the ball to run back to midfield. A goalkeeper tries to box the player out, or tries to wrestle the ball from him, and a scuffle ensues. Who has committed the infraction?

It seems, from the wording for this infraction, that once a goal is scored, neither team has the right to retrive the ball if the other wishes to do so.

What are your thoughts here?

[DadOf6]

The laws now state that a player who "provokes a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play" shall be cautioned for Delaying a Restart.

First off, it's odd that this isn't Unsporting Behavior, since the infraction here seems to be the provocation, rather than the ensuing delay.

But my concern here is with the scenario where a team that is losing, let's say, by two goals, scores a late goal. A striker then tries to retrieve the ball to run back to midfield. A goalkeeper tries to box the player out, or tries to wrestle the ball from him, and a scuffle ensues. Who has committed the infraction?

It seems, from the wording for this infraction, that once a goal is scored, neither team has the right to retrive the ball if the other wishes to do so.

What are your thoughts here?

One of the factors to be considered is the likelihood of provoking a confrontation. A GK recovering the ball from his own net is the expected action and does not rise to that level.

[USSF REF]

The referee provides an allowance for time lost, two of the reasons for this are time wasting and "any other cause". So, you concern, while valid, can easily be trumped by the referee tacking on the appropriate amount of time to the match - if he feels that the team which had just given up a goal is trying to hold up play. He can also caution the opposing sidefor delaying the restart of play too.

[MassachusettsRef]

Let's address the specific question, which you posed in the context of the new directive...But my concern here is with the scenario where a team that is losing, let's say, by two goals, scores a late goal. A striker then tries to retrieve the ball to run back to midfield.Ok, so far, no one has provoked a confrontation by touching the ball, right? The attacker is retrieving the ball in order to get the game restarted as quickly as possible. In fact, he's bringing it to midfield faster than the opposing team otherwise would. In no way whatsoever is the attacker "delaying a restart."

A goalkeeper tries to box the player out, or tries to wrestle the ball from him, and a scuffle ensues. Who has committed the infraction? Well, who's the one attempting to delay a restart? Or provoke a confrontation? It's true that you can allow for lost time here, so if it's only an attempt at "boxing out" you can probably get involved and diffuse the situation without cards. But, if a "scuffle" is actually provoked, your first card (assuming multiple cards aren't necessary) is going to the goalkeeper.

It should be remembered that, when this experiment was initially done at one of the World Youth tournaments, the directive was that a card was mandatory for anyone that touched the ball when it wasn't their team's restart. That meant people retrieving the ball from the goal after their team scored got an automatic yellow card. It should tell us something that that is NOT how FIFA and the IFAB decided to codify the law. If the powers that be wanted attackers getting yellow cards for getting the ball after their team scored, they would have written the law as such (since they already had the directive that covered it). Instead, they abandoned that because--as many, including myself, said all along--it was a stupid idea. The purpose of this law change is to prevent defending teams that foul or teams that give away throw-ins from delaying the restart and deliberately causing confrontation. Yes, it's new and will take some getting used to; but over time, it will be very clear what the spirit of the law is intended to be.

[USSF REF]

Besides, if there is a fight over who should have the ball after a goal the winner of it should be clear...

The referee! Get down there and take it yourself.

[ref47]

in the ussf memo on this, the first example of what is intended is the scoring team going into the opponent's goal to get the ball. the restart belongs to the opponent. it's their ball to get, not the scoring team's.

i believe the team that owns the restart is not the focus of this violation. it is intended to let the restarting team do its thing without interference. if the non-restarting team gets involved, we need to back them out. if they persist, they consider the yc.

[MassachusettsRef]

in the ussf memo on this, the first example of what is intended is the scoring team going into the opponent's goal to get the ball. the restart belongs to the opponent. it's their ball to get, not the scoring team's.Can you post the memo? I didn't know one existed and I don't see it on the ussoccer-data.com site.

If this is the way USSF has interpreted the shift, it's borderline moronic, in my view. FIFA tried an experiment that did just this already and rejected it, going for this more tailored law change, instead.

i believe the team that owns the restart is not the focus of this violation. it is intended to let the restarting team do its thing without interference. if the non-restarting team gets involved, we need to back them out. if they persist, they consider the yc.I know I'm editorializing now, because I haven't seen the memo--but this just ignores the realities of the sport. Yes, before anyone uses it as an excuse, we all know that the referee can add time in situations like this. But it still doesn't stop teams that are scored upon in situations like this from trying to waste time in the first place. "Doing their thing" doesn't mean quickly restarting. And the scoring team is simply grabbing the ball and running it back to midfield in order to have play restart (in real-time) as quickly as possible. An attacker that does this is not doing anything wrong. If he gets there first, doesn't initiate physical contact or take the ball away from a defender, and goes back upfield with the ball--what's the problem?

Can attackers "provoke confrontation" in a situation like this? Sure. And if they do, we give a yellow card as we normally would. But a steadfast rule that a yellow card is necessary whenever this happens is foolish because the vast majority of time, the attacker is simply trying to get play restarted as quickly as possible and it is the defending team that is trying to "delay the restart," which, as is noted in the first post, is what the card is for. In 99.9% of cases, it defies logic to book an attacker for "delaying the restart" in an instance like this. I'm very disappointed if that's what the USSF is advocating.

[ref47]

it's part of the 2006 law change memo.
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/2006_MEMORANDUM.pdf

[MassachusettsRef]

it's part of the 2006 law change memo.
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/2006_MEMORANDUM.pdf
Thanks.

I'm glad to see that the language used in the memo emphasizes: "in a manner which, in the opinion of the referee, would provoke the opposing team."

At least there's leeway, which did not exist when the experiment was carried out. I'm personally of the opinion that it is very rare where such a move by an attacker would actually "provoke" the opposing team. Goalkeepers and defenders in these circumstances like to feign being "provoked." I think in any controversial case like this it's just important for the referee to be in there quickly and diffuse anything that might arise.

And in the example that started this thread, I stand by my initial assessment: the attacker is doing nothing wrong and not provoking anyone. The keeper, if he's the one that initiates physical contact in an attempt to prevent the ball from going back upfield (and thereby implicitly delaying the restart) is the one that should be cautioned.

[intechpc]

Mass you read it the same way I do. The way I've seen this (and enforced it thus far) is that this directive is meant to address items that would provoke a confrontation. It's not meant to directly address time wasting or keeping the defending team out of the restart.

I agree with your assessment on the original scenario as well. The attacker has done nothing "wrong" by retrieving the ball and trying to hasten the restart. Hell he's done you as a referee a favor as we're supposed to encourage timely restarts. The keeper is however attempting to delay a restart and doing so in ways (both boxing out and wrestling the ball away) that are likely to cause a confrontation. One does need to apply common sense to enforce this but I don't think it's as grey as some might first think.

BTW: How did this come up? Seems it was brought up as if this was something new, but it was in the laws already last year, wasn't it?

[NHRef]

This exact situation after a goal was brought up when this was discussed here locally. We where told to do this:

- It's the team who was scored ons ball.
- If the goal scoring team goes to grab the ball with no confrontation no problem.
- If the defending team moves to get the ball this signals a potential confrontation and we are refs need to get in there FAST.
- If the defending team is going for the ball or is "enticed" into action by an attacker going for the ball, then this is where the ruling is suppose to come into play.

I think this was one that was meant to deal with a problem on FK restarts and overflowed into the world of post goal restarts and has to be shoe horned in as it makes sense. Hence the language about "in the opinion of the referee"

[ref47]

as i see the restart after a goal situation -
if the scoring team goes for the ball and the opponent doesn't care - do nothing.
if the scoring team goes for the ball and the opponent trys to also get the ball - try to defuse it, but the scoring team needs to easily relinguish the ball.
if the scoring team goes for the ball and opponent objects and scoring team will not listen to reason from you, pull the card out.
and the current score does not matter.
and, except in tournaments, the time is under control.

[DadOf6]

This exact situation after a goal was brought up when this was discussed here locally. We where told to do this:

- It's the team who was scored ons ball.
- If the goal scoring team goes to grab the ball with no confrontation no problem.
- If the defending team moves to get the ball this signals a potential confrontation and we are refs need to get in there FAST.
- If the defending team is going for the ball or is "enticed" into action by an attacker going for the ball, then this is where the ruling is suppose to come into play.

I think this was one that was meant to deal with a problem on FK restarts and overflowed into the world of post goal restarts and has to be shoe horned in as it makes sense. Hence the language about "in the opinion of the referee"

That's pretty much as I was taught. But they also mentioned that an attacker going into the 'keeper's "house" to retrieve the ball can provoke a confrontation if the 'keeper thinks he is being taunted. The temperature of the game, time remaining, and the score are factors to be considered.

Specific situations mentioned were: a late game-tying goal, a late go-ahead goal, or if the scoring team is ahead by several goals.

[Caesar]

Our state federation is coming down extremely hard on this. For the first few matches of this season I've just been telling the captains this and saying to make sure that, as soon as that whistle goes, the players just don't touch that ball at all unless they're on the team that's taking the restart. It's miles easier for them if they just stay the hell away from it completely.

Stupid law change, IMO. This circumstance was already well-covered.

[NHRef]

Stupid law change, IMO. This circumstance was already well-covered.

I agree it was covered in the LOTG already, however it was flagged as something that needed to be squished. Rather than just send out word to watch for this and please stop it, they made if VERY specific.

LOTG cover most anything, just needs consistent treatment especially when some behaviour is becoming more and more common.

[Wreave]

Gotta believe common sense prevails on this one. The ball belongs to the team taking the restart.

A scoring team running into the net to retrieve the ball does not reduce the time it takes for both teams to reset. In fact, the attacker has to be back over midfield before the restart, and he's going the wrong way in retrieving the ball. There can only be unsporting implications in the attacking team retrieving the ball.

If the defending/kicking team is slow to retrieve the ball, add time. I don't see any positive outcome in the attacking/scoring team retrieving the ball from the goal. They'll get their full time regardless.

It follows that an attacking/scoring team should not be retrieving the ball. In the situation described in the OP, I'd suggest getting on the whistle as soon as the keeper comes for the ball and the attacker refuses to relinquish it, and caution the attacker.

[Player X]

This 'new' caution occured in our NVSL game last night. Our team was down 4-2, and scored late in the game. The attacking player picked up the ball and went to place it at center pitch. The ball was smacked from his hands by the defender and the game was delayed. The attacking player was cautioned, his second for the game and sent off.

A few questions and comments with respect to Weave's comments. The attacking player that picked up the ball, while it was not his to retrieve didn't have to move far. As it was, he was standing right in front of the goal and the ball snapped off the back netting into his hands. So there was no wasting time. On his part.

The problem is that they are now only down one goal, and the winning team with the restart had been warned numerous times by the referee to not delay restart. In fact, two players had already been cautioned for slow throw-ins in the last five minutes.

On top of that, there was no confrontation until the defender smacked the ball away.

Finally, Law 18 would dictate that the card was not necessary. The whistle works quite well. Many players are not aware of the severity of the "new" rule, rather the "new USSF interpretation of the ruling" and thus a second caution for such a questionable offense was rather triffling, in and of itself.

The referee in question issued 15 bookings for the evening. Tells you a little about his understanding of Law 18.

[PVancouver]

FIFA is asking referees to caution players who DELAY THE RESTART OF PLAY, and simply added a common reason restarts are delayed (the team who does not have the restart "touching" the ball, by knocking it into the goal, or kicking it away from the location of the restart, etc.).

But if the team who does not have the restart is actually trying to SPEED UP PLAY, I don't see why any referee would issue a caution for this. If the team with possession the restart gets all confrontational, in order to DELAY THE RESTART OF PLAY, it is they who should be cautioned, not the player trying to speed up play.

Show some COMMON SENSE, people.

You don't caution a player for taking a free kick from the wrong position if the player did it so that he could quicken the restart or take the kick from a more advantageous position.

You don't caution a player for appearing to take a throw-in but then suddenly leaving it for one of his teammates if it is likely that the team did this for tactical reasons rather than delay reasons.

If the actions a player takes are done to SPEED UP A RESTART, then the player should not be cautioned for DELAYING A RESTART.

[mkoenig_1]

I think the laws and advice are very specific here in that if there is no provocation, then there is no need for a caution. But if the action does lead to confrontation, the laws are telling us to penalize the action that provoked it, not the actions of the confrontation itself.

Also, the laws are taking the approach that a restart is a restart is a restart. Why should a kickoff be treated any differently from a throw-in or free kick? Once the direction and team of the restart is established, there is no reason for the opponents to be touching the ball. If one looks at it from that perspective, it becomes quite simple to me.

[PVancouver]

According to the ATR, the "specific situations which are of concern are those in which a player is seeking to gain control of a ball when one or more opponents, who have the restart, are also attempting to possess the ball--thus "provoking a confrontation" which is the focus of the offense. Merely touching the ball after a stoppage is not an offense."

By all means, if the team that has the restart wants possession of the ball, the opponent should give it to them.