Law Question

[RefereeX]

Hi All

A few questions...

1. Outside the view of the referee, a player commits an act of violent conduct with the ball in play. At the next stoppage, a different player receives a physio assessment and leaves the field of play for treatment. Just as the referee is due to restart play, their AR calls them over and informs them about the act of violent conduct. Can the referee still issue the red card?

2. Outside the view of the referee, a player commits an act of violent conduct with the ball in play. At the next stoppage, the player who committed the act of violent conduct receives a physio assessment and leaves the field of play for treatment. Just as the referee is due to restart play, their AR calls them over and informs them about the act of violent conduct. Can the referee still issue the red card?

3. Outside the view of the referee, a player commits an act of violent conduct with the ball in play. At the next stoppage, the player who committed the act of violent conduct receives a physio assessment and leaves the field of play for treatment. Just as the player is about to leave the field, the AR uses comms to inform the referee about the act of violent conduct, and as the referee goes to dismiss the player, they make it over the boundary line to leave the field. Can the referee still issue the red card?

Bonus question... more for my own clarification even though I'm 99.9999% sure I know the answer:
If a player is injured in general play, then for a totally unrelated incident a penalty kick is awarded. The unrelated player receives treatment. Can they stay on if they are the player to take the penalty even though the injury had nothing to do with the award of the penalty? Can't see any law reason why not, so 99.999999% sure they can, but feels almost like this rule should be for when the injury comes in the act of winning the penalty.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

IMHO, red cards can be issued in all 3 cases.
The injured player can stay on the f.o.p. to take the penalty.

 

[RefereeX]

IMHO, red cards can be issued in all 3 cases.
The injured player can stay on the f.o.p. to take the penalty.

It was a bit of a leading question. I'll await a few more responses before explaining where I was going with it

 

[Archer]

Can’t wait to see where this is going and then, ultimately, probably feel quite stupid afterwards

 

[RefereeX]

Can’t wait to see where this is going and then, ultimately, probably feel quite stupid afterwards

You won't be feeling stupid, fair chance I will and ultimately, despite what the law book says, I'd fully advocate still dismissing in any situation.

 

[one]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

The last one, Yes. Law 5 specifically covers it.

 

[RefereeX]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

The last one, Yes. Law 5 specifically covers it.

Agree, it just specifies he can stay on to take the penalty with no mention of how the injury came about, it just feels to me that it should be for cases where the injury was a result of the challenge resulting in the penalty, but it isn't.

Anyone at all see where I may or may not be going with the top 3?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Agree, it just specifies he can stay on to take the penalty with no mention of how the injury came about, it just feels to me that it should be for cases where the injury was a result of the challenge resulting in the penalty, but it isn't.

Anyone at all see where I may or may not be going with the top 3?

Into a dark rabbit hole?

 

[one]

Anyone at all see where I may or may not be going with the top 3?

Law 5
"•  if the referee has decided to caution or send off a player who is injured and has to leave the field of play for treatment, the card must be shown before the player leaves "

 

[RefereeX]

Law 5
"•  if the referee has decided to caution or send off a player who is injured and has to leave the field of play for treatment, the card must be shown before the player leaves "

Ding ding.
So obviously number 1 is fine. Number 2, by that wording is debatable, as you could say the referee only decided to send off once the player had left the field of play, so you could say fine, but by the literal wording of that there's a small argument that number 3 is not ok.

Again, I'd advocate still dismissing.... but I just found it a touch interesting. (and yes, I have very little else to be interested by if I'm finding that interesting)

 

[one]

Clearly, the laws were not worded to intend voiding of the issuing of the red card in 3. It is just not the best wording and the laws are full of them.
The one point I had already pointed out on this forum is that once a team commits their first offence, any goal they score after that is not 'lawful'.

 

[ladbroke8745]

May explain why you see a lot of referees issuing cards to players whilst on stretchers etc.

One thing id add outwith all of this..

It was mentioned as "their" AR rather than the AR on some of them.
If this was local leagues, with CARs, id be very wary of taking advice from them in disciplinary action. If you've not seen it, dont discipline. Its not to say you can't go have a chat with the accused and say watch your step. Next time, if its happened, and I see it, outcome could be much different.

 

[RefereeX]

May explain why you see a lot of referees issuing cards to players whilst on stretchers etc.

One thing id add outwith all of this..

It was mentioned as "their" AR rather than the AR on some of them.
If this was local leagues, with CARs, id be very wary of taking advice from them in disciplinary action. If you've not seen it, dont discipline. Its not to say you can't go have a chat with the accused and say watch your step. Next time, if its happened, and I see it, outcome could be much different.

That wasn't intentional, all 3 were intended in scenarios with neutral ARs, just my wording!

Agree with your point though...

 

[socal lurker]

Huh. First time I’ve seen awkward wording in the LOTG ….

I don’t think the language here is intended to say that the R loses the power to show the card if it isn’t issued before the player steps off or is carried off the field. I think this is more of an instruction that the proper way to show the card is while the player is there to see it so that it is clear who was cautioned/sent off. I think this is upported by the guidance that an R can change a decision until play is restarted. (Plus the special provision related to VC.) I’m confident IFAB does not see it as a get out of jail free card if the player makes it off the field before the R shows the card.

 

[one]

Just a note that the showing of the red card is the visible/public communication of a sending off. Even if the red card is not shown ( e.g. player goes into change rooms before referee has a chance to show the card) the player can still be sent off.

 

[Archer]

Regarding the quoted passage of Law 5, the Referee *hasn’t* decided to send off at the time the injured player leaves FOP. It’s information made available to him afterwards.

In all cases, off you pop Cheerio!

 

[RefereeX]

Regarding the quoted passage of Law 5, the Referee *hasn’t* decided to send off at the time the injured player leaves FOP. It’s information made available to him afterwards.

In all cases, off you pop Cheerio!

The idea was that on the 3rd one he decided to just before the player left, but had no opportunity to show the card until after But yes, just trying nitpick the laws and have some *fun* on a boring day

 

[JamesL]

"Except as outlined in Law 12.3 and the VAR protocol, a disciplinary sanction
may only be issued after play has restarted if another match official had
identified and attempted to communicate the offence to the referee before play
restarted; the restart associated with the sanction does not apply."

I think although slightly different this section of law could apply in terms of spirit and intent of the laws to suggest red card is the right outcome in all 3 scenarios.

Note that it's now 12.4 they forgot to update this bit when they inserted 12.3.

Bonus question: can stay on if penalty taker.

 

[one]

"Except as outlined in Law 12.3 and the VAR protocol, a disciplinary sanction
may only be issued after play has restarted if another match official had
identified and attempted to communicate the offence to the referee before play
restarted; the restart associated with the sanction does not apply."

I think although slightly different this section of law could apply in terms of spirit and intent of the laws to suggest red card is the right outcome in all 3 scenarios.

Note that it's now 12.4 they forgot to update this bit when they inserted 12.3.

Bonus question: can stay on if penalty taker.

For me, the dot point I quoted from law 5 above (about sending off injured player on the field) is about showing of red card and not about issuing of disciplinary sanctions. They are not necessarily the same and I think it is important we distinguish that in the context of this discussion as it could mean different outcomes.

Similarly the referee can take disciplinary action long before he can (should) show yellow or red cards in a match.