The Ref Stop

I would have got this wrong …

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Kes said:
I'm not sure about the actual act itself justifying an IFK.
I tend to look at it more simply as per the LOTG ie. the act itself demands that the game be stopped and a caution issued.
The IFK is simply the correct restart.
Click to expand...

This is the "per LOTG". The act itself justifies an IFK. See dot point 5. It's a recent addition.

1000036760.jpg
 
The Ref Stop
socal lurker said:
Not sure what you mean by “IFAB came onto the scene.” I mean, the 1800s were quite a while back. But yes, IFAB really needs a good copy editor who also understands the game. Too often they accidentally create ambiguity or have significant unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
😀 - I meant David Ellery!
 
Kes said:
Semantics. ;)

Apply the above (5th point) without first stopping play and issuing a caution and you're incorrect in law. The same can be said of point 3.
Click to expand...
Sure, semantics, as the outcome is always the same. But understanding the reason is important. I maintain the IFK is part of the 'punishment' for the act and not merely a restart after stopping for caution.
(With the exception of playing advantage and caution later.)

I use a DFK analogy for say a challenge. A 'poor' challenge is punished with a DFK (or a pen) as a listed dot point in law 12.1. Now if it is reckless it is also punished by a yellow card. The DFK (or penalty) is not just a restart after stopping play for a caution.
 
Hmm… I don’t think football expects IDFK and all the drama here. (Even) In a bigger game I’m happy with play on - and when the referee says to the assessor “I saw it like a seal dribble, an unnecessary bit of showboating” I’d swallow that.
 
santa sangria said:
Hmm… I don’t think football expects IDFK and all the drama here. (Even) In a bigger game I’m happy with play on - and when the referee says to the assessor “I saw it like a seal dribble, an unnecessary bit of showboating” I’d swallow that.
Click to expand...
I think the only people in football who wouldn't expect this to be penalised are those who make no effort to learn/understand the laws. I'd say the majority of players and even the majority of spectators would be aware that this isn't allowed.
 
Last edited:
Question... in the clip the player chips it up for himself to head back.

If it was the other defender who chipped it up for the same player to head back, who would then be the one responsible for initiating the trick?
 
RefereeX said:
Question... in the clip the player chips it up for himself to head back.

If it was the other defender who chipped it up for the same player to head back, who would then be the one responsible for initiating the trick?
Click to expand...
Only a guess but the "initiator" is clearly the defender (GK) who chips it up(?)
 
Kes said:
Only a guess but the "initiator" is clearly the defender (GK) who chips it up(?)
Click to expand...
but then how do we know this was the intention of that other defender when chipping it up? He may have been anticipating the other defender hoofing it up field

I'm just playing devils advocate of course.
 
RefereeX said:
but then how do we know this was the intention of that other defender when chipping it up? He may have been anticipating the other defender hoofing it up field
Click to expand...
He may have, but then he may have also not intended to foul his opponent for those last two free kicks you awarded against him either etc ... ;)
 
santa sangria said:
Hmm… I don’t think football expects IDFK and all the drama here. (Even) In a bigger game I’m happy with play on - and when the referee says to the assessor “I saw it like a seal dribble, an unnecessary bit of showboating” I’d swallow that.
Click to expand...

Not sure many assessors would buy that. But the laws should remove the caution and just make it an IFK. No reason to pour salt on the wound. The USB came because it wasn’t originally part of the IFK offense. If it’s the offense, wht’s the point of the caution?
 
Kes said:
He may have, but then he may have also not intended to foul his opponent for those last two free kicks you awarded against him either etc ... ;)
Click to expand...
I take your point, and to a point I agree, but fouls don't have to be deliberate, where as law states this is a 'deliberate trick to circumvent the law'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
socal lurker said:
Not sure many assessors would buy that. But the laws should remove the caution and just make it an IFK. No reason to pour salt on the wound. The USB came because it wasn’t originally part of the IFK offense. If it’s the offense, wht’s the point of the caution?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be opposed to the mandatory caution being removed, but I do feel we should be able to caution situationally. If the game is 5-0 either way and it's a player having a laugh... IDFK. If it's a player genuinely trying to get away with it to slow the clock down with his team 1 ahead, I'd want to caution.
 
RefereeX said:
I take your point, and to a point I agree, but fouls don't have to be deliberate, where as law states this is a 'deliberate trick to circumvent the law'.
Click to expand...
Fair point, well presented, but you ain't never gonna know man. Just make the assumption and dish the heat. :)👍
 
socal lurker said:
Not sure many assessors would buy that. But the laws should remove the caution and just make it an IFK. No reason to pour salt on the wound. The USB came because it wasn’t originally part of the IFK offense. If it’s the offense, wht’s the point of the caution?
Click to expand...
I think a deliberate ruse to circumvent the laws is very clearly unsporting and a caution is justifiable. Like something a player does to decieve the referee. Caution is not just a punishmnet but also a deterrent.
But I do get an IFK say right in front of goal is a big punishment/deterrent enough to justify no caution. However the location of the FK could end up being well outside the PA near the goal line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top