Delaying, distance or diving, you decide!

So, last game of the season between two tasty, quick sides, Plenty of lip and athleticism on show. Astro, rain, assessor, good ARs, though one did not cloak himself in glory by showing up late, texting through the pre match, being late out for the second half and missing a great chance for a wait and see in injury time... I digress.

It was tight. I had a good advantage YC. A couple of warnings, laughed off a bit of banter. Waved away a bit of theatrics. The greens younger, more organized, better trained. The whites, international, some flair, very quick but switch off in transitions.

The weird moment... with the problem player, white right back who thinks he's Veron...
Veron concedes a throw, stands still, as green goes to take the throw, Veron moves within a yard, green takes, Veron blocks, this is 5 yards from AR2, then Veron goes down clutching his face, not unlike Rivaldo....
For a split second I wonder if the green has committed a reckless throw to the face. But I race to AR2. He says straight away YC for Veron, handball.

I encourage Veron to get up, give the YC and order a DFK.

At full time, we discuss the incident again. AR2 says the ball didn't enter the pitch, the handball prevented the ball entering.

So, I am wondering, did I make a correct decision, would that decision have changed based on knowing the whole story, and what could I have given:

- YC DFK for handball (USB) - at the time this was OK, but after finding out the ball wasn't in play, this was wrong
- YC retake throw for delaying the restart - knowing the ball was out of play, this would have worked
- YC IDFK for distracting the thrower (USB) - in the LotG it says "if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded." It doesn't specify if the ball should have entered the FoP but I think that should be inferred, so, maybe, but no
- YC retake throw for distracting the thrower (USB) - if the ball didn't enter the FoP (?)
- YC retake for not respecting the required distance - could this be justified if the ball has not entered the FoP?
- YC for deceiving the referee (USB) - AR2 said he would have been happy with this too!
- YCx2 anyone!?

Can't commit a DFK offence when the ball is out of play.
YC retake. And yes, failing to respect the required distance can certainly apply. Can apply if the throw hasn't been taken. Which raises the question - why did you let him stand so close to the thrower?

But if I was certain that he had taken a dive, I would derive extreme pleasure from the 3 card trick.

CapnBloodbeard said:

Which raises the question - why did you let him stand so close to the thrower?

Click to expand...

It happened quick, close to AR2, at about the quarter mark... I was moving close to halfway to be side on to a throw up the line...

CapnBloodbeard said:

But if I was certain that he had taken a dive, I would derive extreme pleasure from the 3 card trick.

Click to expand...

It was definitely justifiable. If AR2 had given me that advice I might have taken it. Though he did explain clearly what happened.
The three card trick would have been unexpected certainly, and not on the radar of the assessor. It would have also meant absolute pandemonium knowing the white team. That's not to say I couldn't have!

santa sangria said:

YC retake for not respecting the required distance - could this be justified if the ball has not entered the FoP?

Click to expand...

Yes, especially since the only reason the ball did not come into play was precisely because the player was not respecting the required distance (2 metres or yards) and was distracting and impeding the thrower to boot.

The law is quite clear on this:

An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour

Click to expand...

Winner = YC retake for not respecting the required distance and retake since the ball did not enter the FOP

He has to give 2 yards to the thrower.

From the LOTG
An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded

I have realised a great post-justification for my decision: punishing the most serious offence

DFK YC for the handball (on the field in my ahem judgement)

DFK offence should be chosen above IDFK offence, yes?

By the sounds of it, if punishing the handball offence, it shouldn’t have been a yellow unless it broke up a promising attack?The AR did you no favours there at all.

OP indicated the AR stated afterward that the ball did not enter FOP so the ball was never in play for a handball to be committed. Based upon the OP, it is a re-throw following the YC.

Now if the ball in fact did enter the FOP and the player failed to respect the required distance (interfering with the throw) committed a handball then he has committed misconduct (FRD) which is addressed at the next stoppage which is the stoppage for a handball offense. DFK restart after YC for FRD is administered.

Now if you blew your whistle before the handball, and the ball had entered the FOP then it is an IDFK as you are stopping the game for the misconduct prior to the handball.

But based on the belief that the ball was in play he had a few options; handball, not giving required distance and unsporting behaviour for simulating injury (sounds like he was trying to get the other player cautioned of sent off).

If the AR had told me that it was handball I personally would have given the handball and caution for USB for trying to deceive referee.

santa sangria said:

At full time, we discuss the incident again. AR2 says the ball didn't enter the pitch, the handball prevented the ball entering.

Click to expand...

For a throw-in to the valid, it only has to break the plane of the touchline "The ball is in play when it enters the field of play ", it does not have to clear the touchline completely. So, if the White player was a yard back, that is some reach he should take up basketball....
I suspect that the AR meant that it had not wholly crossed the touchline. If this as correct, handball was the correct decision as the ball was in the definitions of the FOP.

Here is one to throw into the mix - RC of OFFINSABS - insulting behaviour by attempting to cheat! Any takers?

Personally dont understand how the ball hasnt come into play... was the offender off the pitch. How close to the line was the thrower. My understanding of in play is if a milimetre of the ball is inside the boundary line i.e. 99.9% of ball is outside then the ball is in play, providing all the other criterion of a correctly taken throw in has been met.

lincs22 said:

Here is one to throw into the mix - RC of OFFINSABS - insulting behaviour by attempting to cheat! Any takers?

Click to expand...

Que?

Not sure how they can be guilty of using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures in this scenario.

Cheating, or as the laws would call it, simulation, is punishable by YC.

But shouldn't cheating be treated the same as being called a cheat?????

lincs22 said:

But shouldn't cheating be treated the same as being called a cheat?????

Click to expand...

Maybe so. But not in the current laws as both scenarios are clearly defined with outcomes.
Whether they are the right outcome is one for the law makers.

I am with @lincs22 but from a different angle. An AR who thinks the ball never entered the pitch but asks for a handball offense doesn't seem well versed in the LOTG. I'd be questioning what he means by the ball never entered the pitch.

If the ball was never in play then the correct decision is yellow for not respecting the distance and retake as explained above.

There was certainly an element of deceiving the referee after (not at the same time). Would I go for a three card trick? YHTBT. The degree of play acting, temperature of the game, match control, how generous I feel towards the said player are some factors I would consider.

lincs22 said:

But shouldn't cheating be treated the same as being called a cheat?????

Click to expand...

Everytime a player tried to deceive the referee it's cheating. The law is clear and specific about it being yellow. If they wanted to be considerd for red (as OFINABUS or otherwise) I am sure they would have said it.

Here's a good hypothetical one for discussion. Thrower doing the normal (feet right on or very near the line. For this lets say on the touchline). Defender standing about 1 foot away (let's assume deliberately not giving distance). Thrower attempts throw. Ball STILL IN HANDS in a normal overhead "lunge" type throwing motion but has broken the plane of the line of the FOP. Ball in hands strikes the defender who was reaching hands above head to interfere. I would guess a throw legally performed could reach 2 feet into the FOP before ball leaves the hands

So... the ball has entered the FOP.... BUT has not left the hands of the thrower. In play? or not? Defender has committed a deliberate handball if it is.

My thought is based upon the wording in law 15 - "At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must: " I would say that the ball has not been "delivered" until it has left the thrower's hands and therefore not in play although it has crossed the boundary of the FOP.

Thoughts? (oh... and this guy is certainly getting a YC. Take your pick - FRD, UB, DRP. All could fit. Might consider as One would put it "the 3 card trick").

Hoosier Ref said:

Here's a good hypothetical one for discussion. Thrower doing the normal (feet right on or very near the line. For this lets say on the touchline). Defender standing about 1 foot away (let's assume deliberately not giving distance). Thrower attempts throw. Ball STILL IN HANDS in a normal overhead "lunge" type throwing motion but has broken the plane of the line of the FOP. Ball in hands strikes the defender who was reaching hands above head to interfere. I would guess a throw legally performed could reach 2 feet into the FOP before ball leaves the hands

So... the ball has entered the FOP.... BUT has not left the hands of the thrower. In play? or not? Defender has committed a deliberate handball if it is.

My thought is based upon the wording in law 15 - "At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must: " I would say that the ball has not been "delivered" until it has left the thrower's hands and therefore not in play although it has crossed the boundary of the FOP.

Thoughts? (oh... and this guy is certainly getting a YC. Take your pick - FRD, UB, DRP. All could fit. Might consider as One would put it "the 3 card trick").

Click to expand...

I started a similar thread here back when I joined. The agreement at the time was, it is implied that the ball is not in play until it leaves the hands of the thrower otherwise the first offence would be a handball by the thrower

Hoosier Ref said:

OP indicated the AR stated afterward that the ball did not enter FOP so the ball was never in play for a handball to be committed. Based upon the OP, it is a re-throw following the YC.

Now if the ball in fact did enter the FOP and the player failed to respect the required distance (interfering with the throw) committed a handball then he has committed misconduct (FRD) which is addressed at the next stoppage which is the stoppage for a handball offense. DFK restart after YC for FRD is administered.

Click to expand...

Excellent answer I think.
Especially as I gave DFK and processed as FRD (failure to respect the required distance) !

(In the case that the ball has entered the FoP) punish the handball with DFK but punish the standing in front of the thrower to put them off with the YC for FRD. I like that.

In this case, the thrower was looking to throw up the line, and the attacker was very close... if that helps explain to others

santa sangria said:

Excellent answer I think.
Especially as I gave DFK and processed as FRD (failure to respect the required distance) !

(In the case that the ball has entered the FoP) punish the handball with DFK but punish the standing in front of the thrower to put them off with the YC for FRD. I like that.

In this case, the thrower was looking to throw up the line, and the attacker was very close... if that helps explain to others

Click to expand...

If the defending player hadn’t touched the ball at all, would you have still cautioned him for being too close?