Location of free kick - off the ball (SFP)

[JD1]

Scenario

Two players (Blue and Red) are squaring up to one another in Blues defensive side of the field, lets say near the corner flag

The ball is still in play and Blue has possession of the ball near the opposing corner flag towards the Red teams goal area.

Red player that is still in the defensive half punches the Blue player in the face (ball is still in play)

RC for Red player (SFP)
Free Kick

Location of the foul?

Would the ball be moved back to the spot of the foul, some 90 yards back from Blues previous attacking position?

Happened to me, not to this extreme but the attacking team were annoyed that they had lost the initial advantage so to speak

 

[JamesL]

Law 13.2: "All free kicks are taken from the place where the offence occurred,"

There are some exception such as idfk to the attacking team in goal area and penalty kicks and such but the general principle is clear.

I'd suggest, at grassroots, when you dont have those spare eyes of an AR that you stop play when players are squaring up to each other. You could have easily missed a punch in the defending team half whilst concentrating on the ensuing attack or missed a KMI looking at the players squaring up.

 

[JD1]

Law 13.2: "All free kicks are taken from the place where the offence occurred,"

There are some exception such as idfk to the attacking team in goal area and penalty kicks and such but the general principle is clear.

I'd suggest, at grassroots, when you dont have those spare eyes of an AR that you stop play when players are squaring up to each other. You could have easily missed a punch in the defending team half whilst concentrating on the ensuing attack or missed a KMI looking at the players squaring up.

Oh I have done previously, with an ''assessor" watching the game

Two players squaring up 25 yards from centre, ball in centre circle progressing ahead of them, I stopped play and sorted them out, then restarted with a drop ball to the team last in possession.

I was told it was a serious error, that I should 'let them scrap' and then sort it out.

 

[betterlatethannever]

Always wanted to know what the restart was when two players square up but with no real ‘offence.” What would it be if ball is in play?

 

[Cgvii]

Law 13.2: "All free kicks are taken from the place where the offence occurred,"

There are some exception such as idfk to the attacking team in goal area and penalty kicks and such but the general principle is clear.

I'd suggest, at grassroots, when you dont have those spare eyes of an AR that you stop play when players are squaring up to each other. You could have easily missed a punch in the defending team half whilst concentrating on the ensuing attack or missed a KMI looking at the players squaring up.

what do you suggest would be the restart here?

 

[RefereeX]

Theoretically you could play advantage to benefit the non offending team in the event of an OGSO, but unless someone’s about to put the ball in the net, it’s probably very ill-advised after a punch

 

[socal lurker]

Always wanted to know what the restart was when two players square up but with no real ‘offence.” What would it be if ball is in play?

Two possibilities.

Caution both players for USB, and use the formula for which team gets the IFK.

Do nothing, and the only possible restart is. DB. (Essentially, you’re calling it an inadvertent whistle, as you didn’t have a true reason in LOTG to stop play.)

 

[santa sangria]

If you don’t know who started it then guess the defending team gets the DFK - safe.

 

[betterlatethannever]

Two possibilities.

Caution both players for USB, and use the formula for which team gets the IFK.

Do nothing, and the only possible restart is. DB. (Essentially, you’re calling it an inadvertent whistle, as you didn’t have a true reason in LOTG to stop play.)

I’ve gone dropped ball before and no one said anything but it didn’t feel right to me as I was dropping it.

Suppose if there is a push involved I could punish the first push with a direct free kick?

And if you could send the formula with full workings out please!!

 

[socal lurker]

And if you could send the formula with full workings out please!!

Law 5

“punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same timeL

 

[one]

when more than one offence occurs at the same time

Which never does unless the same act from the same player warrant two cautions.

 

[one]

Caution both players for USB, and use the formula for which team gets the IFK.

Doesn't cautioning both players mean you are not using the "offences at the same time" by definition?

 

[socal lurker]

Doesn't cautioning both players mean you are not using the "offences at the same time" by definition?

?
No. You would be saying that the both committed an act of USB at the same time. They would both be cautioned, and the more serious would be the one also sanctioned with an IFK.

 

[JamesL]

Doesn't cautioning both players mean you are not using the "offences at the same time" by definition?

Sanction is only one element.

 

[one]

?
No. You would be saying that the both committed an act of USB at the same time. They would both be cautioned, and the more serious would be the one also sanctioned with an IFK.

The law says "punishes the more serious offence" and not "punishes both offences and restarts for the more serious offence".
If you punish both offences (both cautioned) then you are not using that law.

Having said that I am talking strict application of the law here. How you manage the situation and sell a decision in unusual circumstances is not always strict application of the law.

 

[one]

Sanction is only one element.

Correct. If both offences are punishable by caution you go down the order until you get to a differentiator. Once you find the offence that is more serious then you punish that offence only. Including the sanction and the restart. That's why I mentioned this almost always applies to one act that does more than one offences, e.g., reckless challenge that is also DOGSO-red, verbal offinabus that also distracts an opponent.

If the offences are two different acts by different players, you can always choose to punish both for sanction and choose the restart for the one that occured first, even by miliseconds. In reality you choose the one that helps you more for game management but justify it by it being the first offence.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

The law says "punishes the more serious offence" and not "punishes both offences and restarts for the more serious offence".
If you punish both offences (both cautioned) then you are not using that law.

This is just another example of unclear text in the laws. The award of the free kick is the 'punishment'. The cautions are 'disciplinary action'.

 

[one]

This is just another example of unclear text in the laws. The award of the free kick is the 'punishment'. The cautions are 'disciplinary action'.

I beg to differ. If anything, the 'disciplinary action' is more of a punishment than the FK.
Not too long back in a different thread someone mentioned the card is the punishment, the FK is just a restart.
For me they are both punishments as they both have negative impact on the player/team.
For me I don't think this law need clarification but I can see your point.

 

[socal lurker]

Once you find the offence that is more serious then you punish that offence only.

This is clearly not what Law 5 intends when it comes to cards.

If it were, were two players to spit at one another in the face in the PA, you would send off the defender and award a PK (because that is the restart with more tactical impact) and do nothing to the attacker. That is obviously not what is intended.

But I agree with you that we are more likely to find that one occurred first and that truly simultaneous infractions by opposing teams is more a hypothetical than a likely true event. (More often, I suppose, we don't see the start so we don't know what was really first and have to guess.) And I think most of us, in the hypo above, would likely "see" that the attacker started to spit first, so the restart would be a DFK coming out rather than a PK, which would seem an entirely unbalanced result.

 

[one]

This is clearly not what Law 5 intends when it comes to cards.

If it were, were two players to spit at one another in the face in the PA, you would send off the defender and award a PK (because that is the restart with more tactical impact) and do nothing to the attacker. That is obviously not what is intended

I think you are looking at this law in the wrong context. Of course you have to send both players off in the double spitting. My point is this law was not intended for this sort of incident in the first place. Sending only one player off by using this law is just an application of the icorrect law for the situation, which is different to misapplication of the law (incorrect application of the correct law) which you are insinuating.

My understaning of the intent of this law is if the same act can have two levels of punishment, we apply the bigger one. A good example is a second touch by the same player after a restart which is IFK. But if the second touch is using hand then we apply the greater handball DFK/pen offence when applicable.

I do actually see many referees looking into this law for the wrong incident, most common is when two players going for the same ball and neither in a fair manner. Perhaps as @CaptainsPlease says, this law does need clarification. Similar to the clarification made for two offences in close proximity.