Celebration mistake

Discussion in 'Referee' started by indybar, May 3, 2007.

  1. indybar

    indybar New Member

    Dec 3, 2005
    Just wondering... if a player celebrates by taking his jersey off, but the goal is disallowed for offside, will he be booked?
     
  2. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I actually say "no." Or at least "not necessarily."

    The Laws say that a player celebrating a goal who removes his jersey must be cautioned. If a goal has been scored, we know the caution is mandatory. But if there's no goal, then the letter of the Law allows the referee to not give the yellow card. It becomes unnecessary (to me, personally) or, at minimum, discretionary (to all referees).

    And let's face facts, most everyone thinks that the shirt removal card is a "cheap" yellow card; but it's given because the Laws require it. If there's an "out" for us written right into the Laws in regards to this, I think we should take it--especially because it seems kind of foolish for match control purposes to antagonize a player and further punish a team that will be upset already because they just had a goal disallowed.
     
  3. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI
    Well shoot, you are correct on the fact that it says "celebration of a goal". Still, if the point of the law it to prevent people from showing a shirt or something that is underneath, then I don't see how the fact that if a goal is scored or not matters. Perhaps it is written as such if a player takes his shirt off for other reasons. Still, in this case, the act is being committed knowingly by the goal "scorer", so I still think a caution should be issued.

    And personally, I don't feel this is a cheap card...the players know this rule and it isn't my fault if they are too stupid to follow it. Seriously, how much must we coddle these guys...how about you score a goal, give each other a hug, do a little fist pump, and move on??
     
  4. gosellit

    gosellit BigSoccer Supporter

    May 10, 2005
    You do have a USSF publication to back you up. This is from the CAUTIONS AND CAUTIONABLE OFFENSES 2006 posted last July. This is listed as a specific example of a cautionable offence.


    "A player gives an excessive demonstration of jubilation—e. g., by removing the jersey or covering the head with the shirt, jumping over the boundary fence, gesticulating at the opponents or spectators, ridiculing them by pointing at his or her shirt, or similar provocative action (Q&A; AI 2006)"


    http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Cautions_2006.pdf
     
  5. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI

    Ah ok, didn't see that part (they really need one giant book with all this stuff in it!). I actually thought I pulled up that document and thought it said "goal scored", but if that is in fact the quote, then yes, even misplaced "excessive jubilation" could be cautioned.
     
  6. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Right, but if the goal isn't scored, the caution becomes discretionary. Of course you can caution for anything listed from that section of the Q&A. But you must caution for the removal of a jersey after a goal.
     
  7. whyref

    whyref Member

    May 26, 2006
    "A player gives an excessive demonstration of jubilation—e. g., by removing the jersey or covering the head with the shirt, jumping over the boundary fence, gesticulating at the opponents or spectators, ridiculing them by pointing at his or her shirt, or similar provocative action". (Q&A; AI 2006)

    **********

    Considering that there is no text that indicates this jubilation has to be due to one having scored a goal, then I would have to agree with RefFlunkie.
     
  8. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    See my above post (actually, see all my posts).

    Of course you can caution for a shirt removal after a non-goal. It could be a form of unsporting behavior. But it's discretionary; the referee can choose not to caution.

    A shirt removal after a goal is written into the Laws as a "shall caution." The referee must give the card when that happens.

    The original question was if a player takes a shirt off after a disallowed goal "will he be booked"? My answer was, personally, probably not. And, in general, "not necessarily." Bottom line is he can be booked, but he doesn't have to be. If the goal counts, he has to be.
     
  9. macheath

    macheath New Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    DC
    So now we're to card excessively jubilant players who remove their shirts? :) I'm an economist in my day job--is this like "irrational exuberance?" :rolleyes:
     
  10. chrisrun

    chrisrun Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Orlando, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you are digging yourself a hole if you don't caution a player who removes his shirt unnecessarily.
     
  11. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I (obviously) disagree.

    Maybe if you've already given one caution to the other team in the match for a shirt removal, you'd be in a bit of a hole; I'll concede that point. Otherwise, I think this is very easy to explain to the opposing team as to why you're not giving it and they'll accept it.

    Plus, if the goal has been controversially disallowed (and it probably has been, if the player was already in celebration mode), I would wager that, most of the time, you'll be digging yourself into a hole by adding insult to injury and giving the card than by trying to explain to the other team why you're not giving it.

    And as I said, this is up to a referee's discretion. I've made my personal opinion part of this, but my overarching point--which I feel is correct--is that if the goal doesn't count, the caution is no longer mandatory.
     
  12. Ref Flunkie

    Ref Flunkie Member

    Oct 3, 2003
    New Hudson, MI
    Wow, if I was a player, I would not understand that in the least. Obviously this is open to interpretation, but I just saw you not caution a player for removing his shirt and then I remove mine and get a caution, but the only difference is that it is after a goal....I would be a little upset I thinkist! To each his own though.
     
  13. chrisrun

    chrisrun Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Orlando, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There's lots of leeway with these "mandatory" cautions. I just don't see why you wouldn't caution. The player knows he did something that will earn a caution. He is celebrating a goal, he just doesn't know it wasn't a goal. You're basically telling him "Next time when it IS a goal you can do this again, since I won't caution you now."

    Also, will you allow the defense to have a quick free kick while the player has his jersey off, or will you now hold up the game while you wait for him to put it back on?

    For me, if a player takes his jersey off, he is basically asking for a caution, and he knows it. I'm happy to help him out.
     
  14. socref79

    socref79 Member

    Apr 10, 2007
    Okay, let's compare this with another situation:

    The ball goes out of bounds for a split second and the AR raises his flag. The center referee does not see the flag. A defender commits a reckless foul. The center referee cautions the defender and looks at the AR with his flag raised. The center referee confers with the AR, who states that the ball went out of bounds.

    Clearly, we do not revoke the caution issued to the defender merely because the ball went out of bounds.
     
  15. Chiller15J

    Chiller15J New Member

    Apr 9, 2007
    Chicago Area

    Good example:D
     
  16. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Let's use some common sense here. You can disagree with my position, but that comparison is ludicrous for two reasons.

    First, in the case of a reckless foul occurring after the ball has already gone out of bounds, you have an offense committed against an opposing player. That player--and his team--have been wronged and they want justice/punishment. Depending on how serious of a foul (actually, misconduct), you may need the yellow card to control the rest of the match. With a shirt removal, the opposing team has not been harmed. It's a technical infringement.

    Second, as I've pointed out over and over again, my point is merely that the shirt removal when a goal isn't scored isn't a "shall caution" situation. In your example, the decision to give the card is discretionary either way (ball in bounds or out of bounds, the referee must determine what 'reckless' is). With the shirt removal, it's an automatic card if it happens after a goal. My point is that the disallowance of the goal means the referee's hands are no longer tied. If you want to give the card still, for unsporting behavior, you can--but you don't have to.

    And actually, another thought just entered my mind to help prove my point...

    We're taught that we have to punish misconduct and show the appropriate card when it occurs on the field after the full-time whistle, right? (Graham Poll and the dissent in the WC as the prime example) So why don't we show cautions to everyone who takes off their shirt at the full-time whistle? On a hot day, we'd be showing 10+ cautions in every amateur men's match we do. And players at the international level would be seeing yellow cards for their jersey exchanges. We don't show cards simply for a jersey removal. The removal has to be in celebration of a goal. If you think you should or need to give a card because of the celebration of a perceived goal that's your prerogative. But the letter of the Law clearly allows you to NOT give the card.
     
  17. Chiller15J

    Chiller15J New Member

    Apr 9, 2007
    Chicago Area
    Oh, that makes sense.

    What about taking off your shirt during the match, not after? Does it have to be just for celebrating a goal? Celebrating the awarding of a penalty kick?
     
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A shirt removal during dynamic play could be dissent. It could be unsporting behavior. It could be delaying the restart.

    My point is that it's only an automatic caution, according the Laws, when it's in celebration of a goal. At all other points, it's up to the referee's discretion.
     
  19. socref79

    socref79 Member

    Apr 10, 2007
    I see your point MassachusettsRef, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. I don't agree with it completely, but that's just my opinion. Thanks for your input.
     
  20. USSF REF

    USSF REF Member

    Red Bull NY
    United States
    Nov 6, 2005
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I have to side with Mass Ref on this one...

    The caution becomes discretionary if there is no goal scored. You could still treat it as mandatory in the games you ref, but I don't think FIFA requires the card unless the goal is scored.
     
  21. USSF REF

    USSF REF Member

    Red Bull NY
    United States
    Nov 6, 2005
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think MassRef has toungue lashed this one nicely. This is not the same thing we're discussing, and frankly I don't see how you can even think this relates...

    The point in contention here is not if you SHOULD show a card to a player who takes off his shirt when a goal has not been scored. The point in contention is whether or not you are required by the laws of the game to issue a caution to player who takes off his shirt when he has NOT scored a goal. The laws do not specify that this is a mandatory caution. It becomes discretionary, and that is why Mass Ref is correct!

    I now offer that in most cases I will probably caution a player who does this, but where does the law tie your hands into a mandatory caution for not scoring a goal? It doesn't.

    Whether you should and whether you MUST give a caution for this action are two different issues and you can't tie them together.
     
  22. chrisrun

    chrisrun Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Orlando, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, by the letter of the law, you don't HAVE to give a caution. But it sure seems like by the spirit of the law you should.

    FIFA has determined that removing your jersey to celebrate a goal is unsporting, and is to be punished by issuing a caution. Just because the player doesn't know the goal didn't count doesn't make his actions any less unsporting. He may feel stupid for celebrating a goal that doesn't count, but he knew he was committing an unsporting act when he removed his jersey.

    To me it sounds like you don't agree with FIFA's ruling here, and you are looking for every loophole possible not to uphold it.
     
  23. USSF REF

    USSF REF Member

    Red Bull NY
    United States
    Nov 6, 2005
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Are you reading the same posts I am? I never thought he said anything to suggest what you just wrote.

    He just made a point, which you now agree with, he didn't specify whether or not he felt it would be a good card to give or not. He did say there are some cases where you might not want to, and I think that goes to why things are better left discretionary whenever possible.
     
  24. socref79

    socref79 Member

    Apr 10, 2007
    I attempted to relate misconduct occurring with the players thinking that the play is legitimate, when in reality, it is not (offside in his case, out of bounds in mine). I agree with chrisrun when he says that the spirit of the law has been broken.

    I agree that misconduct involving contact with an opponent (my case) is different than misconduct not involving contact with an opponent (original case) and that misconduct with contact is much more likely to have an effect on the game than misconduct without.

    I can see the points MassRef and USSF Ref are making, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that I would be inclined to issue the card based on the spirit of the law.
     

Share This Page