Language - procedure question

[Sport Billy]

I have a procedure question on offensive language.

This has come up twice this year and was handled differently each time.

Scenario: Keeper and Striker collide going for the ball - fair contact, no foul - keeper gains possession and quickly distributes. He then procedes to curse the striker.

Game 1 - IFK awarded in PA and keeper carded for USB.
Game 2 - Play continues and keeper carded for USB at next stoppage.

Which is the "correct" procedure?

Thanks.

[ref47]

procedural answer not considering level or temperature of match or judgment of the language.

stop play, issue card, restart per misconduct stoppage - UNLESS, you play advantage.

[MassachusettsRef]

Well, if you want to be "correct," by the book, it's whistle immediately, give the IFK and issue a red card. To start, you don't allow play to continue because there's no advantage to doing so. Secondly, if the keeper is cursing at an attacker and it's worthy of misconduct, then it probably meets the standard of "insulting, offensive or abusive."

Now, the question of whether or not such a play actually warrants intervention and such a punishment could cause this thread to go on for pages and involves numerous variables...

[o5iiawah]

I have a procedure question on offensive language.

This has come up twice this year and was handled differently each time.

Scenario: Keeper and Striker collide going for the ball - fair contact, no foul - keeper gains possession and quickly distributes. He then procedes to curse the striker.

Game 1 - IFK awarded in PA and keeper carded for USB.
Game 2 - Play continues and keeper carded for USB at next stoppage.

Which is the "correct" procedure?

Thanks.

since the USB is directed at an opponent, during live play, I would stop, IFK to the attacker's team and card the keeper. If it was simple dissent against me, i would allow play to continue. letting play continue when the players are jawwing with one another is asking for trouble.

[Sport Billy]

Now, the question of whether or not such a play actually warrants intervention and such a punishment could cause this thread to go on for pages and involves numerous variables...

Not looking for that, just interested in the proper procedure. :D

[o5iiawah]

procedural answer not considering level or temperature of match or judgment of the language.

stop play, issue card, restart per misconduct stoppage - UNLESS, you play advantage.

Right, advantage comes into play, but chances are in this case, the keeper has collected, and punted the ball way upfield. Even if the striker's team regains the ball, im sure they would rather have an IFK where the striker was if he and the keeper were exchanging words, probably back near the top of the PA

[ref47]

mass - we don't know there is no advantage. kept option open.

example. keeper distributes ball which goes directly to an opponent, unmarked, who has only the keeper to beat to goal. not likely, but possible at any level of play.

[MassachusettsRef]

mass - we don't know there is no advantage. kept option open.

example. keeper distributes ball which goes directly to an opponent, unmarked, who has only the keeper to beat to goal. not likely, but possible at any level of play.Fair enough. I'll amend my remarks to say advantage is unlikely, so you give the IFK. If it is present, you apply it.

[OldAndNew]

stop play, issue card, restart per misconduct stoppage - UNLESS, you play advantage.


OP said there was no foul, so there is no basis to invoke the 'advantage clause'.

You either permit play to continue, invoking you opinion to ignore or assess the misconduct to be trifling or unworthy of punishment, or you stop play then, restart with an IFK to attackers and issue either a YC (for USB) or a RC (OffInAbus) to the GK - again, depending on how YOUR judgement of the content / nature / tone of the comment.

If you wait to issue the GK his card, you risk escalation of the situation. Deal with it right away - if at all.

[boylanj64]

Which is the "correct" procedure?


Stop play, Red for Insulting/Offensive/Abusive or Yellow for USB, IFK at the point where the keeper was.*

*If the offense occurs in the goal area, move the restart out to the nearest point on the edge of the goal area ;)

[Sport Billy]

Stop play, Red for Insulting/Offensive/Abusive or Yellow for USB, IFK at the point where the keeper was.*

*If the offense occurs in the goal area, move the restart out to the nearest point on the edge of the goal area ;)


Thanks, let me ask one more thing. I know the procedure would stay the same, but le'ts say the keeper dropped the F-Bomb because he made a poor kick rather than words directed at another player.

Would you still card or just have a talking to at the next break?

[MassachusettsRef]

OP said there was no foul, so there is no basis to invoke the 'advantage clause'.I'm pretty sure this is flat-out wrong.

I know there is a debate as to whether or not USSF is right when it limits the advantage clause to Law XII, but I've never seen anyone argue that it applies only to fouls and not to misconduct.

Law V states: ...allows play to continue when the team against which an offence
has been committed will benefit from such an advantage...Language directed at an opponent seems to qualify as an offence committed against the opposing team. Trying to argue it doesn't (by claiming it's an offence against the game, or something similar) seems to be an attempt at splitting hairs very, very thin.

[MassachusettsRef]

Thanks, let me ask one more thing. I know the procedure would stay the same, but le'ts say the keeper dropped the F-Bomb because he made a poor kick rather than words directed at another player.

Would you still card or just have a talking to at the next break?I'm not even sure I card in the initial scenario. Everything with language falls into "you had to be there." Given the range of ages and competition level out there, there are just way too many variables. There are amateur men's leagues where such an incident would barely cause anyone on the field to think twice.

[boylanj64]

Thanks, let me ask one more thing. I know the procedure would stay the same, but le'ts say the keeper dropped the F-Bomb because he made a poor kick rather than words directed at another player.

Would you still card or just have a talking to at the next break?

Honestly, if they're older than 14 I'm probably not even going to talk to them. It's not my job to worry about their mouths. When evaluating player language, there are generally three reasons I will act:

1) Probably the most common - it is directed at me. This is probably going to be a yellow.
2) If I don't interfere, things are going to get out of hand, and someone will retaliate either now or later. In this case, it depends on what's said, but it's most likely I'll stop play, tell them to cut it out and shake hands. However, if this seems like it'll fail, both yellow and red are certainly options here, depending on what's said. Basically, I'd differentiate as:
-If the player said it in anger and you feel you need to card, yellow.
-If the player said it hoping his opponent would lost his temper and go Zidane on him, that's red, and you're lucky you caught it in time.
3) Least common - if a player swears loudly enough that everyone in the stands heard it, and there is no way you can pretend it was not offensive or directed at someone, you're going to have to give a yellow, unless his outbust was due to a broken leg or such.

[Sport Billy]

Honestly, if they're older than 14 I'm probably not even going to talk to them. It's not my job to worry about their mouths. When evaluating player language, there are generally three reasons I will act:

1) Probably the most common - it is directed at me. This is probably going to be a yellow.
2) If I don't interfere, things are going to get out of hand, and someone will retaliate either now or later. In this case, it depends on what's said, but it's most likely I'll stop play, tell them to cut it out and shake hands. However, if this seems like it'll fail, both yellow and red are certainly options here, depending on what's said. Basically, I'd differentiate as:
-If the player said it in anger and you feel you need to card, yellow.
-If the player said it hoping his opponent would lost his temper and go Zidane on him, that's red, and you're lucky you caught it in time.
3) Least common - if a player swears loudly enough that everyone in the stands heard it, and there is no way you can pretend it was not offensive or directed at someone, you're going to have to give a yellow, unless his outbust was due to a broken leg or such.

Thanks, this is what I'm was talking about.

I find number three the hardest.
I usually do not let language bother me, but when the entire place hears it, I always feel my hands are tied. And I hate that.

[boylanj64]

Thanks, this is what I'm was talking about.

I find number three the hardest.
I usually do not let language bother me, but when the entire place hears it, I always feel my hands are tied. And I hate that.

That actually feels easiest for me. One official I know was doing a game between two D1 college teams, and a striker for one team missed a shot and yelled F*** so loud the whole place heard; feeling as you do, he didn't caution the kid. The opposing coach wrote to the NCAA and NISOA complaining, saying little kids come to our game, it's bad for the university's image, etc... They replied with a formal letter telling the official he had erred. Following year, a player on the complaining coaches team does the same thing; bamm, here comes the yellow. No complaints. Sometimes, it is easiest to have our hands tied. Even if we don't like it.

[OldAndNew]

Thanks, let me ask one more thing. I know the procedure would stay the same, but le'ts say the keeper dropped the F-Bomb because he made a poor kick rather than words directed at another player.

Would you still card or just have a talking to at the next break?

For me, it would depend on who heard it.

If not directed at another person I would NOT treat it as 'OffInAbus' - if I was the only one hearing it. If it could be clearly heard by spectators or others and I sensed / noticed a reaction from them, I'd give the RC. To NOT do so, would invite (valid) criticism and dig a hole for yourself when the next 'language' issue arises in that game. If they had no reaction, I'd publicly treat it as if they (and I) had NOT heard it. [Hey! Most of the time they claim we're blind, so why not deaf too? ;)]

However, in each case where I issued a card - it would be RED * - and in each case where I did NOT issue a card, I have a quiet (private) word at the next opportunity to remind him 'NO MAS'!


* Assuming it's a USSF game. If an NFHS game - I could use their 'Rules' to sell it as a 'Rule 12.8.1.d' YC - 'incidental use of vulgar or profane language'.

I'm frankly very surprised that NFHS tolerates such (they are SO 'nannyish' on so many other things) language indiscretions. FIFA does not give us that latitude.

[boylanj64]

I'm frankly very surprised that NFHS tolerates such (they are SO 'nannyish' on so many other things) language indiscretions. FIFA does not give us that latitude.

FIFA certainly gives us that latitude. It is clearly written when you apply Law 12 - USB - and Law 18.

[OldAndNew]

FIFA certainly gives us that latitude. It is clearly written when you apply Law 12 - USB - and Law 18.

To be pedantic - FIFA's LOTG do not mention Law 18, so there is nothing written on which is to be applied - 12 or 18! :p

Anyway, you miss my point.

I had addressed application of Law 18 in my earlier response where I discussed 'who heard it'? - just me or others.

Here, I'm contrasting where NFHS has two precisely stated 'rules' (in Law 12) for 'unacceptable language' that everybody in the next county heard and you HAVE to deal with it.

NFHS permits you to STILL cite 12.8.1.d is a YC when the utterance is considered only to be 'incidental'. Though frankly, I'd invoke 12.8.3.g (RC) even if it was 'only incidental' but I felt it was offensive to the unwitting 'hearers'!

FIFA has just the one - Law12 - (S6). You may argue that Law 12 (C1) covers the eventuality of NHFS's 12.8.1.d, but even ATR 12.28.1 doesn't cite 'language' as a USB item. It leaves it in the only other realm - S6.

[OldAndNew]

I'm pretty sure this is flat-out wrong.

I know there is a debate as to whether or not USSF is right when it limits the advantage clause to Law XII, but I've never seen anyone argue that it applies only to fouls and not to misconduct.

Law V states: Language directed at an opponent seems to qualify as an offence committed against the opposing team. Trying to argue it doesn't (by claiming it's an offence against the game, or something similar) seems to be an attempt at splitting hairs very, very thin.

I stated that there was no foul (against the GK to which an advantage could be applied). That remains indisputable.

I did NOT state that the ONLY offenses to which 'Advantage' may be applied are 'fouls' (to the exclusion of 'misconduct').

Yes - we may often (rightly) permit play to continue (apply advantage) when simply only a misconduct offense occurs - and issue the YC at the next stoppage.

However, the 'Advantage clause' (as stated in Law 5, and discussed in ATR 5.6) is to be applied when the advantage may ensue to the team against whom the the foul or misconduct was committed - NOT when the advantage may be in favor of the team that committed the offense!!!

In the OP, the GK's team had possession of the ball - further presumably even further up-field when he committed the offense - there WAS NO ADVANTAGE to the attacking team!! :rolleyes: