Re-start after (no) advantage

[RefJef]

I'm after a bit of advice and some opinions on the incident below. If I've done wrong, I accept that, but I had to make a decision at the time - and I'll give my thought process at that time -now we have time to ponder, consider and educate. (I.e. Can we see this as a learning point and not a lynching point)

First few mins of OA game, red v whites. Red player collects ball on halfway line and drives forward into opposition half. About 10m(?) into attacking half, white attempts to tackle red, mistimes, clips red. Definite DFK, equally, definitely not a YC offence. Ball breaks nicely for red, I want to see how this develops, clear call of "advantage" and arm signal from me. However, the foul tackle just unsettled red enough to allow another white defender to run across and clear the ball off for a red throw, approx. in line with edge of penalty area. I blow for free kick as advantage hadn't accrued and, other than one inevitable complaint from a white that it wasn't a foul, everyone else is happy.

So far, so good, but it's now that my workload steps up a gear.

Reds have a DFK about 10m into opposition half, perhaps inline with left hand edge of penalty area. Wouldn't be able to score directly from here, but not a bad position to hoof it into the box.

However, red attacker who has gone to collect the ball says "Can I have the throw? I'd rather have the throw"

My thoughts: "Red have been fouled, surely they should shouldn't be penalised for the oppositions foul, if they want a throw, they can have a throw." I agree to them restarting with a throw, rather than a free kick, and verbalise the above, letting everyone know my thought process.

It then becomes apparent why he wanted a throw - he channels his inner Rory Delap and launches a looong throw straight into the box, meeting the head of one of the two big centre backs who has come up for the throw, one - nil. Cue complaints from whites about my decision.

So my questions are this:

Was I right in law to allow reds to choose to take a throw instead of the free kick?

If I was right to allow the throw, would you have done so, given the inevitable impact that reds scoring from the throw had on my match could control.

(As an aside, reds continued to use the long throw to devastating effect throughout the game, leading to a couple of almost comical (but good natured) occasions when the ball went off near the corner flag the attacking side was claiming a throw, and the defending side insistent that it was a corner!)

 

[Padfoot]

If you've stopped play to award the FK for the original foul, then that is what the restart is. Red do not get to choose what restart they want.
You were incorrect in Law to restart as you did.

As for the actual foul challenge......"breaking up a promising attack"? Without the challenge would red have had a good attacking opportunity? Quite often opponents will make foul challenges high up the pitch that can be cautioned because of the tactical reasons behind them.

 

[lincs22]

Was I right in law to allow reds to choose to take a throw instead of the free kick?

NO, once you ruled that the advantage had not accrued, you have to award the free-kick.

If I was right to allow the throw, would you have done so, given the inevitable impact that reds scoring from the throw had on my match could control.

Sorry, you were wrong in law. However, the Reds gained their advantage from the whites free-kick, so caution for dissent.

 

[RefJef]

Fair enough - thanks, every day's a school day.

I've obviously been watching too much of the Six Nations of late: the egg checkers always give the choice to the wronged team.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Fair enough - thanks, every day's a school day.

I've obviously been watching too much of the Six Nations of late: the egg checkers always give the choice to the wronged team.

That's because in RU, the choice is written into their laws

 

[DB]

If you haven't blown for a foul and the ball runs out for a throw, what is the most advantageous restart for the team? If their most advantageous restart is a throw, then they will obviously rather that. If you haven't blown for a free kick, then yeah, nothing in laws says you can't restart with a throw. However, if you have stopped play, the restart must be appropriate to the infringement.

 

[GraemeS]

You're in a tricky position, as you can't go around assuming every team has a long throw in their arsenal, so it's logical to normally assume a FK is a better opportunity than a throw.

However it sounds like the reds managed to advance quite significantly - going from 10m inside the opponents half to level with the PA could easily be 20m or more further down the pitch? I'd question if that might have been a good enough advantage that you should have just let play continue from there even if you didn't know about them having a dangerous long throw?

 

[JamesL]

Cat - pigeon moment.

Law 5 -
The referee may not change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the
advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has
signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the
field of play or terminated the match.

In law I dont think you have committed any misdemeanor. As always folks happy to be corrected.

Could it be argued that you realised you were incorrect in terms of the best advantage to the attacking team? If so then as long as play hasnt restarted YOU were in a position to change your decision.

As you'll notice I capitalised you. I dont think you should have allowed the players to influence your decision.

I might of handled this situation by saying something like I've awarded a free kick - I'll bear in mind you'd prefer throw ins as an advantage in future.

I agree with @GraemeS. From your description it seems like quite possibly the advantage had accrued. The team have advanced good 10-15 metres further down FOP and remain in a reasonably promising attacking situation, long throw specialist aside.

In summary I'm not 100% convinced you've done anything wrong in law BUT I think you, as you've said, compromised your match control and in the situation as described allowed players to influence your thought processes which I wouldnt allow in future and always stick with your decisions or act on the advice of tusted team memebers i.e. NARs.

 

[RustyRef]

Cat - pigeon moment.

Law 5 -
The referee may not change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the
advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has
signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the
field of play or terminated the match.

In law I dont think you have committed any misdemeanor. As always folks happy to be corrected.

Could it be argued that you realised you were incorrect in terms of the best advantage to the attacking team? If so then as long as play hasnt restarted YOU were in a position to change your decision.

As you'll notice I capitalised you. I dont think you should have allowed the players to influence your decision.

I might of handled this situation by saying something like I've awarded a free kick - I'll bear in mind you'd prefer throw ins as an advantage in future.

I agree with @GraemeS. From your description it seems like quite possibly the advantage had accrued. The team have advanced good 10-15 metres further down FOP and remain in a reasonably promising attacking situation, long throw specialist aside.

In summary I'm not 100% convinced you've done anything wrong in law BUT I think you, as you've said, compromised your match control and in the situation as described allowed players to influence your thought processes which I wouldnt allow in future and always stick with your decisions or act on the advice of tusted team memebers i.e. NARs.

That depends whether the ball crosses the line for a throw-in before of after the whistle has been blown. If before then absolutely fine in law, although personally I wouldn't be changing from the free kick. If after then you have a problem as play was stopped whilst the ball was still in play, and therefore the only allowable restarts in law are the free kick or a dropped ball.

 

[JamesL]

That depends whether the ball crosses the line for a throw-in before of after the whistle has been blown. If before then absolutely fine in law, although personally I wouldn't be changing from the free kick. If after then you have a problem as play was stopped whilst the ball was still in play, and therefore the only allowable restarts in law are the free kick or a dropped ball.

Yeh I agree. As I said just a cat amongst pigeons kind of post. Reading the OP I assumed the ball had left FOP.

 

[RefJef]

Just to clarify, ball was played into touch before I could whistle, so play stopped because the ball left the Fop, not my whistle.

I'm absolutely clear that had I blown the whistle for the free kick that's how we would have restarted

Also, any later in the game I would have seen the threat from blues long through and recognised that they had gained an advantage by getting the throw. But I do think that most teams would prefer the free kick from where it was.

In future, I think I'd restart with the Fk as that was my initial decision.

 

[JamesL]

A

Just to clarify, ball was played into touch before I could whistle, so play stopped because the ball left the Fop, not my whistle.

I'm absolutely clear that had I blown the whistle for the free kick that's how we would have restarted

Also, any later in the game I would have seen the threat from blues long through and recognised that they had gained an advantage by getting the throw. But I do think that most teams would prefer the free kick from where it was.

In future, I think I'd restart with the Fk as that was my initial decision.

As far as I can see it then there is nothing wrong in law.

But again I'd refrain from allowing any1 other than yourself or NARs to influence your thought processes and decision making and stick to your guns. Quite right 99.999% of teaams would want FK. And you can adopt a different approach once you've sussed they have rory delap mk2.

 

[Padfoot]

Just to clarify, ball was played into touch before I could whistle, so play stopped because the ball left the Fop, not my whistle.

I'm absolutely clear that had I blown the whistle for the free kick that's how we would have restarted

Also, any later in the game I would have seen the threat from blues long through and recognised that they had gained an advantage by getting the throw. But I do think that most teams would prefer the free kick from where it was.

In future, I think I'd restart with the Fk as that was my initial decision.

I blow for free kick as advantage hadn't accrued and, other than one inevitable complaint from a white that it wasn't a foul, everyone else is happy.

Well....according to your original post you did blow the whistle for the FK........

Changing the story so that it fits in with "oh you did nothing wrong brigade...." ?

 

[JamesL]

Well....according to your original post you did blow the whistle for the FK........

Changing the story so that it fits in with "oh you did nothing wrong brigade...." ?

The sentence immediately preceding that it says... "runacross and clear the ball off for a red throw, approx. in line with edge of penalty area... " - it's easy to take 1 sentence out of context.

So if you read it in order of play. Ball cleared out of play for a throw in. Then the whistle is blown to indicate that he would like to bring play back to the foul. There has been no change in circumstance just reader interpretation.

For the avoidance of doubt I dont think anybody is in the "oh you did nothing wrong brigade". I think we've all agreed, OP included, this scenario could have been handled better.

The question, was he wrong in law to change his mind or allow the player to choose? The answer, I believe, is not.

Was he wrong to do it? Yes. But the OP has already recognised that.

 

[Padfoot]

The sentence immediately preceding that it says... "runacross and clear the ball off for a red throw, approx. in line with edge of penalty area... " - it's easy to take 1 sentence out of context.

So if you read it in order of play. Ball cleared out of play for a throw in. Then the whistle is blown to indicate that he would like to bring play back to the foul. There has been no change in circumstance just reader interpretation.

For the avoidance of doubt I dont think anybody is in the "oh you did nothing wrong brigade". I think we've all agreed, OP included, this scenario could have been handled better.

The question, was he wrong in law to change his mind or allow the player to choose? The answer, I believe, is not.

Was he wrong to do it? Yes. But the OP has already recognised that.

I'm absolutely clear that had I blown the whistle for the free kick that's how we would have restarted

Nothing taken out of context at all........

In post OP states he blew the whistle for the FK.....and in another he's clear that had he blown the whistle for the FK........so which is it? Did he blow the whistle or not?

Bottom line....once you've indicated you are pulling it back for the FK then to restart with anything else is incorrect in law. If you don't indicate that and simply restart with the throw, then you are deciding that advantage has accrued therefore you cannot be incorrect in law.
But....once whistle blown and FK indicated.....only one restart allowable under law.

 

[bester]

He obviously means if he'd blown the whistle to stop play for the free kick, he'd have restarted with a free kick.

As the ball was out of play when he whistled he didn't blow to stop play for the free kick.

 

[RefJef]

Well....according to your original post you did blow the whistle for the FK........

Changing the story so that it fits in with "oh you did nothing wrong brigade...." ?

I despair.

First of all an apology to everyone else who has posted in this thread - thank you for your thoughts, comments and advice, they are genuinely welcome and very useful. I am afraid a small rant is about to follow.

To Mr Padfoot, I simply do not understand your motives. I apologise if my OP was not as clear as it could have been, but if you read it carefully it does state that the ball went out for a throw before I blew my whistle, although I acknowledge I could have been more explicit with this, hence my clarification later on. But you didn't need to read my post carefully - it's in the first paragraph - to see that I thought I might well be in error, and my reason for posting was to try and learn what the right thing was to do should I encounter the same scenario next time.

But you appear to be devoid of all empathy and any desire to actually help other, less experienced, referees improve and learn.

I use this forum as it is amongst the best (if not, the best) resource that I have to help me develop as a referee. The incident I described happened some days ago, but it's been nagging away at me (hopefully that is some indication that I want to learn and improve - I could have just forgotten about it and moved on) - this forum is the only source I have found to give me some good advice and feedback, yet comments like yours really do make me wonder if it is worth the bother (of using the forum.)

Just take a moment before posting to ponder whether your contribution will serve to improve the standard of refereeing up and down the country.

 

[JamesL]

Nothing taken out of context at all........

In post OP states he blew the whistle for the FK.....and in another he's clear that had he blown the whistle for the FK........so which is it? Did he blow the whistle or not?

Bottom line....once you've indicated you are pulling it back for the FK then to restart with anything else is incorrect in law. If you don't indicate that and simply restart with the throw, then you are deciding that advantage has accrued therefore you cannot be incorrect in law.
But....once whistle blown and FK indicated.....only one restart allowable under law.

Im not sure I agree that it is incorrect in law. The law allows for a referee to change their mind if he realises he made an error (ref law 5) so long as play hasnt restarted. For all intents and purposes it doesnt matter how he comes to that realisation. Whether he has a change of mind, realises he is wrong in law or NAR provides advice that a mistake has been made.
As the ball had left the field of play for a throw in before whistle blwn to stop play I believe the restart would be by that method following the change of mind.

As I said I am happy to be corrected, as always I will accept I am wrong having looked at the appropriate law in which I have made the mistake.

 

[DB]

Im not sure I agree that it is incorrect in law. The law allows for a referee to change their mind if he realises he made an error (ref law 5) so long as play hasnt restarted. For all intents and purposes it doesnt matter how he comes to that realisation. Whether he has a change of mind, realises he is wrong in law or NAR provides advice that a mistake has been made.
As the ball had left the field of play for a throw in before whistle blwn to stop play I believe the restart would be by that method following the change of mind.

As I said I am happy to be corrected, as always I will accept I am wrong having looked at the appropriate law in which I have made the mistake.

Correct. It's just Padders being pedantic.

 

[RustyRef]

Im not sure I agree that it is incorrect in law. The law allows for a referee to change their mind if he realises he made an error (ref law 5) so long as play hasnt restarted. For all intents and purposes it doesnt matter how he comes to that realisation. Whether he has a change of mind, realises he is wrong in law or NAR provides advice that a mistake has been made.
As the ball had left the field of play for a throw in before whistle blwn to stop play I believe the restart would be by that method following the change of mind.

As I said I am happy to be corrected, as always I will accept I am wrong having looked at the appropriate law in which I have made the mistake.

No, you are correct and Padfoot is just (as usual) being confrontational and antagonistic.

He would be right if the whistle had been blown before the ball went out of play, but RefJef has confirmed that this wasn't the case.