https://streamable.com/5mt9o You can see in the second half of the above clip that the fourth official is telling the coach the player needs to re-enter from either side of the pitch. As soon as the player comes back on, the fourth tells the referee he has illegally entered the field of play.
Exactly. We are supposed to book players who run from a distance to dissent. If we establish a firm visual line and they cross it to dissent, that makes it easy. That said, I would caution that if this practice gets overused, it will lose its effectiveness.
In many ways a better version of the step-of-the-field-after-calling-a-PK stratagem. This one makes sense as it doesn't look like running away, but looks clear that it is to create a private conversation.
So 2 questions to this previous replies. 1) if he is already under caution what are you going to do? 2) Dissent Public disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision; punishable by a caution (yellow card).... is this a disagreement??
Tell him that was a pretty stupid way to get a second caution? (I often think referees worry too much about not giving a second caution. The line in the sand, er, grass, is pretty darn clear. Why else would he be following the referee who has made it patently clear that the player is supposed to stay behind the line -- in a way every person in the stadium knows that is the expectation? Hard to be a more public act than that.
I'm with @socal lurker here. I'm usually a huge proponent of the "don't tie your hands into giving a really stupid second caution" argument. But, to me, this would fall into the separate and distinct category of "wow, that player really was stupid to earn that second yellow." As for the technical issue about dissent, I think you're looking for an argument that is not really there. Yes, if a player stepped over the line by a half foot and didn't dissent at all, you wouldn't take action because he hasn't truly committed misconduct. But that's not what would happen. Any player stepping over such a clearly drawn line in a deliberate and substantive way would also be arguing the call. The visual line just makes the dissent card much more easier to sell and, more importantly, is a preventative tool to allay mass crowding.
I was curious about the "lose its effectiveness" part of your statement. If referees made it standard practice to do this every time they needed a moment to discuss with an AR etc, would it really be any less effective? As you say, it's a pretty clear indicator to give the referees the space they need, and anybody that tries to approach them should know that if they do so a yellow card would follow. Frankly, I'd love to see this used more because it could cut down on the sorts of mass confrontations that arise in these situations. (caveat: I'm not a ref, and probably don't know what I'm talking about.)
I guess I meant it would lose its effectiveness if its usage got expanded past the very particular scenario where a referee has to consult his AR. We've seen it twice now and it works very well in that situation. But, because it works so well as a preventative measure, my fear would be that referees or relevant instructors/managers might advocate more widespread use. Would they draw a line after PK decisions? Or after a mass-con while the referee team consults on-field? There are additional situations where one might be able to argue that the visual barrier of spray could help curb dissent. I would just caution that it works so well here because the AR is usually already isolated and the referee can establish a buffer before he gets there; it won't work as well in most other scenarios and, once it stops working, you're either booking multiple people for dissent or you're diminishing its potential effective in the CR-AR consultation scenario.
That clip shows the restart back on the end-line. Is that correct? Or should it be up where the ball was when play was stopped?
I believe the 2016-17 LOTG says where the ball was when play was stopped. 2017-18 draws a distinction and says IFK where ball was stopped if there was no interference, but DFK at point of interference where it occurs.
So frustrating when the Play of the Week from Pro doesn't even address an obvious error in the law's application at the top level in the very play they selected as their play of the week!