The Ref Stop

Throw-in

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
YC for Blue (not respecting the distance)) and RC for White (Violent Conduct)

Restart definitely a Free Kick (as ball was in play) but unsure whether we go for a 'first offence' here or punish the more serious of two simultaneous offences :confused:
 
EDIT: Law 15 asks for IFK to thrower if opponent moves closer than 2m and TI has been taken. This is what I'd go for but it is inconstant with the restart for NRD for standard free kick which is a retake.

The more important point for me is that all this could have been avoided with proactive refereeing. Quick double/triple peep from the referee to stop the TI and ask the blue player to move away.
 
Last edited:
Russell Jones said:
YC for Blue (not respecting the distance)) and RC for White (Violent Conduct)

Restart definitely a Free Kick (as ball was in play) but unsure whether we go for a 'first offence' here or punish the more serious of two simultaneous offences :confused:
Click to expand...
They aren’t quite simultaneous imo, although I see the argument that they are. The defender has failed to respect the distance the very millisecond the ball is ‘in play’ but the vc hasn’t technically occurred until the ball hits the defender (I know it sort of happens when he throws it, but let’s be honest, if it misses, nobody is sending him off)

I think the expectation would be IDFK restart.
Think we’re all probably agreed on a caution for the defender and a red for the thrower.
 
Throw in to white as the restart. 😏

Ball hadn’t gone behind his head at any stage on that video, so it’s a deliberate act of violent conduct when the ball is out of play.

But that’s being obtuse - direct free kick, nobody really complains as they’re still in WTF mode
 
Tealeaf said:
Ball hadn’t gone behind his head at any stage
Click to expand...
Doesnt that mean TI to opponents?

He certainly meant to hit the oppononent as part of his TI action, making the TI action an excuse the hit the blue player.
 
one said:
Doesnt that mean TI to opponents?

He certainly meant to hit the oppononent as part of his TI action, making the TI action an excuse the hit the blue player.
Click to expand...
That’s also a fair outcome I did consider if we think it’s taken incorrectly.

I went down the route of not an attempt to throw the ball in at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The failure to respect the required distance is the first offence, and as the throw-in wasn't taken correctly (ball doesn't go behind head) then the restart would be Whites to retake the throw.
 
The red card is the easy part.

The video starts too late for full analysis—is that really where the thrower started, or did the “victim” start 2 yards away and the thrower op moved to him?

It’s not entirely clear to me that the victim really deserves a card here—but I think game management demands it anyway when the thrower is getting sent off and the victim was the instigator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top