A&H

Verbal Unsporting Behaviour?

one said:
  • Assertion: "holding and other physical offends are DFK outside the penalty area" still means other physical offences should specifically be defined as DFK offences somewhere in law.

  • Assertion: "dissent and other verbal offences are IFK" still means other verbal offences should specifically be defined as IFK offences somewhere in law.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring the point, maybe not fully understanding it! It appears you're saying DFK and IDFK offences are defined in two places in the LOTG? Is that the point you're making? The way I see it and unless I'm missing a massive section in my handbook, DFK and IDFK are only defined in one place. What is defined in another place is the disciplinary punishment for offences.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
one said:
The are no verbal offences in the laws of the game that don't require a caution or a send off.
Click to expand...

Whilst you say that, I see this has been raised on Twitter by refereeing societies, so it seems that @TSHudson isn't alone in querying what the 'other verbal offences' are.

Personally, I think the addition of 'other verbal offences' needs to be dropped as it is misleading. I'm of the opinion if you stop play for the IDFK it has to be either a caution or a dismissal. (Also, if someone would be kind enough to e-mail about it and post an answer here, I'll distribute it on twitter myself. :) )
 
RobOda said:
Personally, I think the addition of 'other verbal offences' needs to be dropped as it is misleading. I'm of the opinion if you stop play for the IDFK it has to be either a caution or a dismissal.
Click to expand...
Exactly! If you need all the history of how a law has developed and additional material / support groups etc to correctly interpret what a law "really" means, then it's poorly written. But that is all assumption right? You're all assuming / having the opinion that's what is means, rather than a clear direction from IFAB? Or has clear direction been given on this point?

If not, what choice do we have to interpret the law as it is written?
 
I think it is interesting (and frustrating) to explore the point about whether a verbal offence can sanctioned with no card...

The other point that has come up in this thread is about what constitutes offensive/abusive, what tools you have and how to keep match control.
 
TSHudson said:
Exactly! If you need all the history of how a law has developed and additional material / support groups etc to correctly interpret what a law "really" means, then it's poorly written. But that is all assumption right? You're all assuming / having the opinion that's what is means, rather than a clear direction from IFAB? Or has clear direction been given on this point?

If not, what choice do we have to interpret the law as it is written?
Click to expand...

Well, I've never heard anyone suggest the Laws are clearly written . . . and they have a history of their efforts to fix poor clarity doing more harm than good.

But even if you just read what is there, the statement that verbal offenses result in indirect free kicks doesn't suggest that there are unwritten verbal offenses that referees can come up with on their own. The offenses are set out in the Laws. The ones that are verbal include dissent, OFFINABUS, and some species of USB--all of which are misconduct and subject to a caution. There are no other verbal offenses in the Laws.
 
The absence of a comma after gestures is key for me. If it wanted other verbal offences to be read in isolation that comma would be there, it isn't so that to me makes it clear that it is talking about other verbal offences in the guise of dissent.

In any case the Law 12 cautions section clearly trumps this as it says that a player MUST be cautioned if they: "verbally distracts an opponent". If you stop play for a player making a comment to an opponent that you consider serious enough to merit stopping play then I don't see you can say that it doesn't constitute one of verbally distracting, unsporting behaviour or shows a lack of respect for the game. Certainly if I'm observing and a referee stops play for verbals and doesn't caution my red pen is going to be coming out.
 
A player verbally distracting an oppenent (shouting BANG when shooting) is
santa sangria said:
I don't think you are correct in law to give IDFK for a verbal offence without a card. If you are not going to card, then you wait and warn on the run or at the next stoppage. With someone shouting "wah" loudly but innocently to put someone off in a grassroots game, or shouting "eff off" in someone's general direction... depending on the context you warn on the run or at the next stoppage. If you stop the game for these offences my understanding there is not a get out of jail no card here.
Click to expand...

A player verbally distracting an oppenent (shouting BANG when shooting) is getting a caution every time.
There is no "managing" this IMO. It's cheating!
 
RobOda said:
Whilst you say that, I see this has been raised on Twitter by refereeing societies, so it seems that @TSHudson isn't alone in querying what the 'other verbal offences' are.

Personally, I think the addition of 'other verbal offences' needs to be dropped as it is misleading. I'm of the opinion if you stop play for the IDFK it has to be either a caution or a dismissal. (Also, if someone would be kind enough to e-mail about it and post an answer here, I'll distribute it on twitter myself. :) )
Click to expand...
The problem is with some referees looking at the wording of some laws without context and when it can be interpreted different ways, not looking into what it was put there. It is also that some referees put too much trust in IFAB's technical writing ability.

In this case, although i think the wording is not too bad and it should not be interpreted differently, @socal lurker pointed out why the law and the wording was put there and it should be clear why it should not be interpreted the way @TSHudson or some other referees in Twitter societies do so.

I do vaguely remember a similar debate here when that change was made.
 
Let's turn this on its head. Let's have some examples of "other verbal offences" for which the game would be stopped solely to award an indirect free kick. I'm fairly certain these can be classified as falling into one of the recognised categories which warrant the issue of a caution.

So @TSHudson tell us some examples, other than those which you have already alluded to, each of which could be showing a lack of respect for the game.

I apologise if I'm slow in replying but today is the first day of a new referees course, then this evening I'm supporting the RDO at the County's Assistant Referee Workshop. It's late in the season, but there's been a few factors contributing to the delay (no government ministers were harmed in the typing of this post - that's a Brexshit joke in case anyone doesn't get it).
 
Good creative challenge.

How about: a large bird, Canada goose, has landed on the field just behind the red #10 as she prepares to shoot from outside the box... the bird is between blue #6 and the chance to block the shot, so blue #6 screams at the bird with a deafening shriek. The bird flaps off at pace, with the giant avian’s ellipticals crowding red #10 who scuffs the shot.

Your decision, referee?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top