Questions on 2007 Advice to Referees

[Footballer]

Hello, I'm reviewing "Advice to Referees" - the 2007 edition. I want to clarify some things.

In section 12.25 - "Restarts for Misconduct"

"If play is stopped solely to deal with misconduct committed by a player on the field, the proper restart is an indirect free kick taken from the location of the misconduct."

Question: So the play is inside the center circle, all of a sudden I see a defender punches a striker inside the penalty area. I stopped the match, send off the defender, and give a IFK inside the penalty area?

"If play is stopped solely to deal with ... misconduct committed off the field of play, the restart is an indirect free kick taken from where the ball was when play was stopped."

Question: This is exactly the circumstance described in a USSF Memo that came out this Summer with a YouTube clip right? I remember it was a striker dribbling close to the goal line, was either already off the field (during the course of play) or shoved off the field by a defender. And the memo dealt with what the proper restart should be - depending on the referees' perspective. If he was off the field already, then IFK right by the goal line. If still on the field, then obviously PK.

In section 12.37 - Judging an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity

"Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body"

Question: I don't understand how hanging from the crossbar and you swing your body to propel the ball away is a DOGSO. I mean you can stand rooted by the goal post and the ball is coming right at you and your hand is still glued to the goal post and you swivel and kick the ball away. Can someone explain this?

[mkoenig_1]

Here's my take on it:

1-In this case you are stopping play for the FOUL of striking an opponent. While play is stopped you issue a send off for SFP or VC, based on your assessment of the situation. (Personally I would go with VC since the incident is taking place off the ball.) The correct restart is a PK. As an example, see the YouTube clip showing the foul at the end of the Sweden-Denmark ECQ match earlier this year which incited a Danish fan to run onto the pitch (and leading to a terminated match).

2-IIRC, while I think this is one point in the memo you cite, the other point had to do with the placement restart at the point where the infraction occurs when the referee DECIDES that an infringement occurred. In the case cited in the memo, the restart was a PK because the infringement began in the PA and the referee was practicing 'wait, wait, wait' to see if the attacker was disadvantaged.

3-Elsewhere in the ATR, I believe this example is addressed. It is considered USB, and because a stoppage in play to deal with USB is punishable by a free kick (IFK) can be upgraded to DOGSO. I think the mechanic is to caution for USB and then send off for DOGSO.

Hope this helps ...

[njref]

Agree with MK on the responses. As to WHY swinging from the crossbar is USB, it violates the traditions of the game, and arguably it could be dangerous and therefore is not desireable, makes you look like a monkey, or maybe it seems to be using equipment to gain an (unfair) advantage. But ultimately I think it just boils down to "it just isn't done by proper players."

[hefftheref]

Agree with MK on the responses. As to WHY swinging from the crossbar is USB, it violates the traditions of the game, and arguably it could be dangerous and therefore is not desireable, makes you look like a monkey, or maybe it seems to be using equipment to gain an (unfair) advantage. But ultimately I think it just boils down to "it just isn't done by proper players."



we wouldn't want that, would we?

:D :D

[DadOf6]

In section 12.25 - "Restarts for Misconduct"

"If play is stopped solely to deal with misconduct committed by a player on the field, the proper restart is an indirect free kick taken from the location of the misconduct."

Question: So the play is inside the center circle, all of a sudden I see a defender punches a striker inside the penalty area. I stopped the match, send off the defender, and give a IFK inside the penalty area?

No, you did not stop play solely for misconduct. You also stopped play for a foul. If the striking happened outside of the penalty area the restsart would be a DFK.

If the misconduct is a foul you usually (see below) award the restart based on the foul. Some misconduct is not a foul but to properly manage the game you cannot wait for a stoppage to stop play (e.g. inflammatory/racial taunting, dissent where the player is in your face so you can't see play or move with play). This would be an IFK.

If you can wait for a stoppage the restart is determined by the stoppage.

The tricky restarts for misconduct are when the misconduct is also a foul but you don't whistle the foul. For example, if a defender takes out an attacker with a nasty tackle from behind and the ball goes to another attacker who heads straight to goal on a breakaway. You give advantage but the GK stuffs the shot. You cannot go back and award the foul but you MUST (for game control) go back and send the player off. The restart is an IFK.

[blech]

***.

The tricky restarts for misconduct are when the misconduct is also a foul but you don't whistle the foul. For example, if a defender takes out an attacker with a nasty tackle from behind and the ball goes to another attacker who heads straight to goal on a breakaway. You give advantage but the GK stuffs the shot. You cannot go back and award the foul but you MUST (for game control) go back and send the player off. The restart is an IFK.

This isn't a good example. If you've played the advantage as described in your scenario, you can (and should if you believe it's appropriate) still go back and show a card, but you are going to do it at the next regular stoppage, such as ball out of play, next foul, etc. This is not a situation where you can stop for misconduct and then award an IFK. (It also highlights one of the serious risks that you always take when you play advantage in a case where you would otherwise be issuing a sendoff -- if the ball stays in play, who knows what happens, and it's always a big mess if the player who is going to be sent off scores a goal or commits another serious foul before the next stoppage -- so limit those to truly exceptional advantage situations, but as described in this scenario you're always going to risk that a keeper stops a breakaway or that the ball hits the post and rebounds out for a quick counterattack the other way, and just cross your fingers about how it works out).


As for the original question, and as indicated in other responses, the key is whether the stoppage is SOLELY for misconduct, i.e., was there no foul. In making that determination, go back to Law XII, and ask whether the ball is in play, did the event occur on the field, was the offense committed by a player, and was it committed against an opponent (except for deliberate handling). If the ball isn't in play, the question doesn't arise because you're not going to change the restart from whatever it already is, but if the ball is in play, ask those other questions. If you're calling a foul, then that determines the restart. But if it's solely misconduct - perhaps a player punching his own teammate, a player engaged in dissent at the ref, a player tackling an opponent who is not on the field, etc. - then you're going to be restarting with the IFK as directed.

[DadOf6]

This isn't a good example. If you've played the advantage as described in your scenario, you can (and should if you believe it's appropriate) still go back and show a card, but you are going to do it at the next regular stoppage, such as ball out of play, next foul, etc. This is not a situation where you can stop for misconduct and then award an IFK.

I disagree. If the advantage was clear enough and the foul was nasty enough I will award advantage and then stop play to show the card.

My decision to allow advantage in no way obligates me to then give a benefit to the other team, especially if the player will be sent off. That is not justice.

[falcon.7]

I disagree. If the advantage was clear enough and the foul was nasty enough I will award advantage and then stop play to show the card.

My decision to allow advantage in no way obligates me to then give a benefit to the other team, especially if the player will be sent off. That is not justice.

Be careful when playing advantage on misconduct. While there are some situations when the advantage is just too good not to play on, allowing play to continue opens the door for retaliation and more misconduct. Unless you make it perfectly clear you've got the situation covered, players may get the impression you're not going to call it, and that makes them very upset.

And let's be honest - if you end up having to stop play while the ball's still in play to deal with the misconduct (i.e. a fight's about to break out over it), give a restart that everyone's okay with. Pull something out of your ass if you have to, but don't give an IFK or some crap in the goal area. Say you thought there was an injury or something and drop it to the keeper. I saw a game where the referee had to stop for misconduct after giving advantage and restarted with an attacking IFK in the penalty area about 8 yards from goal. You know what happened? More misconduct on the melee that ensued.

[blech]

I disagree. If the advantage was clear enough and the foul was nasty enough I will award advantage and then stop play to show the card.

My decision to allow advantage in no way obligates me to then give a benefit to the other team, especially if the player will be sent off. That is not justice.

So, a mea culpa from me. I did a google search and found the following:

http://asktheref.com/you-call-it-detail.asp?id=4

It doesn't make complete sense to me in terms of the restart (as it seems that the stoppage in the example is not due to the earlier misconduct but to preemptively prevent a subsequent altercation) - and I'd still warn against using this discretion to stop play to issue the card after the advantage except in truly extraordinary situations where you need to do so to prevent a specific altercation from blowing up - but it does appear that the ref has the discretion to do so.

Carry on