How do you arrive at any other restart if, ITOOTR, one is not more serious than the other? I don't disagree with that from what it says. I just don't think that is what they really meant. I could be wrong. It will be interesting to see what, if any, instruction comes out, No, I think it is referring to the tactical impact of the offense, not the restart. I still think you are making it absurd, not that it is absurd. This is pretty clearly meant to address the situation when there is a serious and a minor offense. Indeed, I think referees have sometimes reached that result in the past by deciding that, in light of the more serious offense, the lessor offense was trifling. And it only matters a whit if, ITOOTR, the offenses were in fact at the same time -- which is exceptionally rare. But it will be useful at times. A and B are running side by side and at the same time A pushes and B throws an elbow in A's face. We can now very clearly send off and give a kick against B despite the simultaneous fouls. C1 pushes D1 upset that he thought D1 had foulded him at the same time D2 grabs C2 to prevent an attack. We can caution both for USB and restart with the DFK for where C2 had a growing attack. E1, E2, and F1 are going for a ball, F1's dangerous play scares off E1 at the same time E2 kicks F1 in the head. We can punish the DFK/misconduct and overlook the PIADM. Did we really need it as a tool? Probably not becuase it so rarely matters. (And I kinda suspect in my examples we would've ended up in the same place without this provision.) But it is a tool we now have in those very rare situations. And given there are various criteria, several being subective, it has some flexibility built in for the referee.