Striking throw restart misconduct from where it occurs?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Grizzlierbear, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    After rereading the restarts on the USSF position paper on throwing restarts I was very surprised at this portion which identifies the USSF position on a player who off the field throws something at a player on the FOP.

    "Case 4 (Q&A 12.20): A player or substitute off the field strikes or
    throws an object at an opponent on the field while the ball is in play. The player
    or substitute must be ordered off for violent conduct and shown the red card.
    The restart is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when the blow or
    object was thrown. (The misconduct was not committed by a player on the field
    and so stopping for this misconduct requires a dropped ball). "

    If we allow a DFK on the throw in from an off the field restart I remain puzzled that a "PLAYER" (not a outside agent) in the course of play could leave the FOP while the ball is in play and commit such an act given that a throwing restart placement is based on where the opponent is?
    First of what about leaving the field without permission? Granted a player could be off injured with permission but why is the restart going by the concept of originating misconduct not the place of the strike?

    If a player is off the FOP through normal play ie a strong run to the goal line and he leaps over the keeper outside the goal line but then while out there grabs a waterbottle and smacks the keeper in the head in the goal area while the keeper is holding onto the ball? A dropball in the goal area or as law dictates on the outer 6 yard edge that while a team in fairness should not contest such a drop nothing in law prevents them from doing so.

    A DFK from where the keeper was is more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law change. The strike is on the FOP not off a poor ruling in my opinion. Misconduct originates as a tool is useful only when the restart can not take place on the field.

    It specifically states a substitute in the FIFA Q@A LAW 12 #20 is the addition of the "player" to the USSF position in keeping with other interpretations?I thought this the reason to change it in the first place?
     
  2. rcleopard

    rcleopard New Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    As for leaving vs. throwing an object in, we punish the most severe misconduct. In this case, it's a send off for throwing an object at someone (which would go down as Violent Conduct, as the player was off the field, ergo the foul was off the field).

    As for the restart, the restart must be a drop-ball because the foul was not , technically, on the field of play. By rule, a free kick must be taken at the spot of the foul, and since it is impossible to do that when the foul occurrs off the field, the only other recourse is a drop ball where the ball was at at the time of the offense.

    Jarrod
     
  3. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    The foul occurs at the point of contact even though the misconduct occured off the fop. I see no difference between a sub and a player taking a throw-in. Both are off the field of play. In both cases the misconduct occurs off the fop. Why then, in one instance the foul occurs at the point of contact, and in the other it doesn't? That is, how can you say in one instance, you're stopping play for a foul and the other for misconduct?
     
  4. rcleopard

    rcleopard New Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    How can I say that I'm stopping play for a misconduct?

    Easily. I'm the ref. They gave me a neat little badge for it. And , apparently, since it's in the advice , they sanction the action too.

    Jarrod
     
  5. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    The general conditions for a foul are something we can all recite in our sleep by now:
    1) On the field
    2) Ball in play
    3) By a player
    4) Against an opponent.

    The #1 condition is on the field. That means all conditions of the foul have to be on the field.

    The ball is on the field because it is in play.
    The opponent is on the field.
    The player is not on the field. Therefore the action cannot be a foul.

    Anything from off the field that interferes with that which is on the field while the ball is in play requires the game to be stopped and restarted with a dropped ball.

    The only missing piece of the puzzle is the sanction against the player. Throwing an object at somebody is interpreted as violent conduct, so the guilty player is subsequently sent off.

    Grizz: Notice the paper deals with "throwing" restarts, not the "throw-in" restart. It is talking about the restart of the game when something is thrown in general, not just throw-ins.
     
  6. jc508

    jc508 New Member

    Jan 3, 2000
    Columbus, Ohio area
    If a player takes a throw-in and strikes an opponent with the ball, it will merit a yellow or red card depending on the severity of the impact.

    The ball had entered the field legally with a proper throw, making the ball "in play." Since striking has been redefined as occuring at the place of impact, I would say that the restart would be a DFK at the point of impact.

    If a substitute waiting on the bench throws a stone at an opponent running by on the FOP, then the incident would be seen as an outside interference, and the restart would be a dropped ball.
     
  7. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    I would argue the player taking the throw-in was not attempting to put the ball in play by striking an opponent with it. Therefore the throw-in was never taken, the player is red carded, and the game gets on with it as it otherwise would in a natural way.
     
  8. rcleopard

    rcleopard New Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    If the ball is used as a weapon in that manner of a throw in:

    The ball is dead. It was a restart waiting to occur. The player is sent off, and another player comes from his team to take the throw in. The drop ball restart only occurs when play is STOPPED for the misconduct. In the case of a player throwing the ball at someone on a throw in, play is already stopped. Play cannot be restarted any other way except a throw in. You might argue that the throw was "illegal" and reverse the throw-in's direction, but otherwise, the restart is a throw in.

    Jarrod
     
  9. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Nope. The ball was inplay when the foul occured at the throw-in. The reason, I believe, why the restart is a DFK on a throw-in and a dropped ball when a player in the normal course of play runs off the field and throws something at an opponent is that the taker of the throw-in is considered to be ON the fop when the foul occurs because the ball had crossed the touch-line(ie in play) and the thrower has consequently out himself on the fop.

    keith
     
  10. rcleopard

    rcleopard New Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    Hmm.. so the question is, in the situation of an object thrown on the field, is it a foul at the point of impact or the origin of the throw? The advice seems to suggest that the foul occurred off the field of play if someone threw an object in play. Here's the odd part..

    The ball is in play because of the throw in. It also is the object thrown. Seemingly, if this is to be read correctly and applied, is Fifa suggesting that the play should restart as a drop ball, as the object thrown was the ball entering the FOP? My bet is no.. that they are referring to anything but the ball as the object thrown.

    If that's the case, ignoring the original example, the result of the play is a red card (for SFP) and a DFK to the opposing team.

    Jarrod
     
  11. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    I get what you're saying Jarrod but I think it comes down to how do you define where the taker of a throw-in is once the ball has become on the field of play. I believe IFAB and USSF consider the throer to be on the fop. If you like at the striking chart in the USSF Memorandum, the only time you have a DFK for a restart is when it's against an opponent on the field by a player on the field. Hence, the taker of the throw must be by definition on the field of play.
    keith
     
  12. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    outside and inside?

    That is a good point we all know that a throw in could originate 1 meter outside the field of play and the ball is in play once it touches the plane of the touchline so the ball suddenly becomes a DFK misconduct missle from that point?
    If it is misconduct from where it begins would not a retake but a cardable offence to the original thrower fit the bill? In my original setup with the keeper getting the water bottle in the head we do not punish the attacking player for leaving the FOP as it was momentum, in effect we are playing him on the goalline so why not the same when the water bottle comes zinging in?

    There are times we consider an off the field player as on the field like a defender on offside, a player through momentum and a player who steps outside the FOP to avoid a collision or get around an opposing player.

    Unless the player is legally off the FOP per referees permission for an injury ot equipment repair I could see the infringement as a yellow card for leaving without permission with the additional miscoduct of VC for the thrown object. The restart could be an INDFK in favour of the opponents at least not a dropball for such an anal manuver. The misconduct began at the point when the player left the fOP without permission. The fact that he reached down to pick something up and toss it back at a player we should consider the restart as a DFK as it happens on the FOP. Imagine if a defender off the FOP tosses the object at the ball and prevented a goal? NO pK NO send off at best a YC and then a dropball?
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: outside and inside?

    I think this is exactly the point that the position paper is based on.

    In any of the above instances, if a player committed a foul (be it by throwing an object he held or by reaching back onto the field to hold, trip, push, etc.), as referees we would consider him on the field of play, whistle a foul, and would restart with a free kick. The player never requested permission to leave the field, he never received it, and he didn't need it. Thus, we still consider him 'on the field of play'. The same goes for a throw-in. Players don't ask us permission to retrieve the ball before they throw it back in. As such, they are on the field of play, just like a player whose momentum takes him off the field temporarily. So, the striking resulting from a throw-in is dealt with as a foul.

    The position paper, however, is referring to players who are both actually and technically off the field off play. Such players include those who have left the field due to injury, blood, or equipment adjustments. If such a player (ie, one who has received permission from the referee to leave the field), throws an object onto the field and strikes a player, there can be no foul--only misconduct. Thus, you have a drop ball scenario.

    That's how (and why) throw-ins are being distinguished from acts involving thrown objects from players off the field of play.

    I disagree. We are instructed to punish the more serious offence when two are committed simultaneously. In my mind, that means we have to pick between the violent conduct and the leaving of the field. Clearly, the violent conduct is more serious. In my mind, that means we (unfortunately) lose the IFK, because I don't think you can pull a red card for VC, yet award an IFK for leaving the field of play, since you are not cautioning for the leaving of the field.

    Thinking about this particular scenario, I have an alternative that referees could use. I believe I would decide that, since the player never had my permission to leave the field, he was never technically off the field. Therefore, it was a foul, and worthy of a DFK. A little creative? Perhaps, but to me it seems consistent with the spirit of the game.
     
  14. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    Re: Re: outside and inside?

    I agree with this logic and appreciate my INDFK LTFOP was only becuase my PERSONAL sense of fairness is irritated not because it is correct in LAW.. Mass though in your opinion what was the point then in making the restart switch from where it occurs to where it ends?

    In the UK for example spitting is still from where it originates. I belive in the USSF spitting is still in line with the throwing restart where the opponent is? Maybe we should just be allowing the restart where it is most advantagous. ;o)
     
  15. jc508

    jc508 New Member

    Jan 3, 2000
    Columbus, Ohio area
    Perhaps we need to ask ourselves if the throw-in was taken correctly. Did the thrower do everything that he/she should have done to do the throw-in (both hands, over the head, etc.)?

    If the throw-in was taken correctly and the ball entered the field of play, the ball must be "in play."

    Maybe I missed it, but I did not see where there was a consideration in Law 15 for considering any evil in the heart of the thrower. The throw-in has to be consideredon its merits.

    The thrown object can be seen as a Striking foul, and it is to be judged by where the stiking did or would have occurred. This is why Law 12, IBD 1 was removed from the LOTG.

    After dealing with the misconduct issue, the restart has to be for striking - i.e. a DFK.
     
  16. Gary V

    Gary V Member+

    Feb 4, 2003
    SE Mich.
    Re: Re: outside and inside?

    The problem with this construction is that it doesn't fit with the standard that if both players are off the field, in the normal course of play, and one "fouls" the other, it is not a foul; rather it is misconduct (or nothing).
     
  17. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    Re: Re: Re: outside and inside?

    I tried to point out that on a throw in which an individual can be legally a meter outside the touchline is penalised with a DFK if the legal throw was aimed at an opponent as a weapon. The FIFA Q&A states it clearly and even gives the saying as per the law change which switched restart from where it begins to where it impacts. It was this that has me wondering why a player leaving the field of play could pick up an object and hurl it an opposing player inside the field of play and get a drop ball restart.

    In the two players outside the fOP engaging in any kind of action a dropball makes sense as there can be NO foul only misconduct and no where to restart except where the ball was in play.

    In my senario a PLAYER outside the FOP throwing at an opponent inside the FOP I believe the restart location can be at the point of contact as it is in EVERY other situation. DFK

    From the THROW IN DFK
    On the FOP between player versus opponent DFK
    The referee can be struck as a NON opponent and still the restart location is where he is if on the FOP.
    ONLY it is INDFK.

    THE USSF maintains the start of the misconduct is what gives the location and type of the restarts on incidents which end or begin outside the FOP.

    In the FIFA Q&A 19 reguarding a player on the FOP thowing or striking an opposing player OFF the FOP the restart is an INDFK from where he threw the object. Why Is #19 not is keeping with the restart of where it impacts as the critical incident thus a dropball? Simply (the IDFK in #19 results from play having been stopped to administer the disciplinary proceedings against the guilty party). Should it not be where the ball was though?

    In the FIFA Q&A 20 reguarding a SUBSTITUTE (why was the word PLAYER not included here if it is the same restart???) OFF the FOP throwing at an opponent player ON the FOP generates the drop ball restart.

    In the FIFA Q&A 21 regarding two opposing players both off the FOP the same question generates a drop ball restart.

    In the FIFA Q&A 22 reguarding a player on the FOP throwing or striking a REFEREE it is an INDFK from where the offence occured in otherwards where the referee was, not where the object was thrown.
    LOOK at the location of the MISCONDUCT RESTART!!!

    If this was the case why is the restart for a thrown object at a referee on the FOP where the referee is and not where the object was thrown from? as one might thinking #19. Since he is not an opponent there is no foul ONLY misconduct. Yet if misconduct occurs from where the throw originates how can the restart be where the referee was? Simply it has ben made abundantly clear the infringement OCCURS at the point of contact.

    For a throw in, the law must either consider the player as on the FOP as the law states it is an offence to strike or attempt to strike an opponent, therefore, it could be argued that it this instance you would be punishing the striking of an opponent which can ONLY OCCUR at the point of contact between the two, the misconduct as not occuring until it actually strikes the OPPOSING PLAYER ,ON the FOP, BY a PLAYER, DURING PLAY.!



    The majority of instances that where the Q&A give a dropball answer relate to point where contact has been made, or the incident occurred completely off the FOP. DFK for me and the misconduct outside the FOP as the starting point is not what the law is telling us. The theme in the answers from the FIFA Q&A is that the offence in relation to these matters occurs at the point at which contact is or would have been made, and on that basis a DFK could be warranted.
     
  18. jc508

    jc508 New Member

    Jan 3, 2000
    Columbus, Ohio area
    Grizzlierbear querries:

    "In the FIFA Q&A 19 reguarding a player on the FOP thowing or striking an opposing player OFF the FOP the restart is an INDFK from where he threw the object. Why Is #19 not is keeping with the restart of where it impacts as the critical incident thus a dropball? Simply (the IDFK in #19 results from play having been stopped to administer the disciplinary proceedings against the guilty party). Should it not be where the ball was though?"
    YOU COULD NOT HAVE A DFK OFF THE FOP. THIS IS A MISCONDUCT ON THE FOP AND THIS IS THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE TO RESTART PLAY.

    "In the FIFA Q&A 20 reguarding a SUBSTITUTE (why was the word PLAYER not included here if it is the same restart???) OFF the FOP throwing at an opponent player ON the FOP generates the drop ball restart."
    THIS IS AN OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE. THE SUBSTITUTE IS NOT A PLAYER OF RECORD AND A SUB CAN NOT COMMIT A FOUL. THE SUBSTITUTE CAN, THOUGH, COMMIT MISCONDUCT.

    "In the FIFA Q&A 21 regarding two opposing players both off the FOP the same question generates a drop ball restart."
    AGAIN, THE SPOT OF THE FOUL IS OFF THE FOP. ALL FOULS CAN ONLY BE CALLED IF ON THE FOP, BETWEEN OPPONENTS WHILE THE BALL IS IN PLAY.
    THE REF HAS TO STOP PLAY TO ADDRESS THE CONDUCT OF THE TWO PLAYERS, AND THE REF ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO RESTART IS BY A DROP BALL.

    Please pardon the capital letters, as I used them only to differentiate my comments from those posted by Grizzlierbear. I totally agree with his final comments and say that the restart for the thrown ball striking a player during a throw-in is a DFK.
     

Share This Page