A&H

50/50

J

Jono333

New Member
Level 9 Referee
All

What do you do in 50/50 situations?

I.e defender and attacker have their hands all over each other and both are committing what would deem to be a foul during a corner, you can't give it either way because they're both fouling each other do you just play on? I seem to get quite a few calls for fouls in these types of situations so just wondering how to proceed!

Thanks
 
The Referee Store
HarryD said:
Just keep play going, say something along the lines of 'both doing it, get on with it' - that works for me
Click to expand...

Yeah I've done that before as well. I would also being proactive in such situations, as soon as you notice that you can let the players involved and certainly everyone else by saying something along the lines of "easy not gents, keep it tidy, keep those hands to yourselves". So they know that you are aware of what's happening and once you see the scales tipping towards either you can then call a foul and explain that you've warned them both and that player decided to ignore your warning and have only themselves to blame.
 
Practically speaking, the other alternative is to go with the "safe" decision, a FK to the defending team. Generally speaking I'll try and play on in this kind of situation, but sometime the situation demands a decision (like if the two players jump up and square up to each other), in which case it's sensible to just let the GK boot it clear and play on from there.
 
A high level referee friend of mine told me that a good practice was to assume that there was a much higher threshold for what was considered "careless" by a defender vs "careless" by an attacker.

His view (and what he's been instructed) is that it's better (as @GraemeS notes above) to give that FK to the defensive team, because it's VERY rare to score on the opponents from within 20 yards of your OWN goal, whereas it's fairly common to see that FK lead to a goal or a good chance when taken within 20 yards of your opponent's goal.
 
If there are fouls happening then you have to commit to a decision. Treating fouls as simultaneous/equal is not a good idea - as it is highly unlikely based on the laws of physics! You have to commit. Decide that one foul happened first, or that one was slightly more severe.

But for minor jockeying - be proactive first. During a corner stop the corner before it is taken and warn the players properly. Then position yourself at the start of the corner to make those players feel like you are all over them! Don't forget to move during the corner.

TBH I can understand it, but I would avoid thinking about favouring the defence... I think that's a slippery slope...
 
Jono333 said:
All

What do you do in 50/50 situations?

I.e defender and attacker have their hands all over each other and both are committing what would deem to be a foul during a corner, you can't give it either way because they're both fouling each other do you just play on? I seem to get quite a few calls for fouls in these types of situations so just wondering how to proceed!

Thanks
Click to expand...

If it's at a corner and starting before the ball is kicked, hold up the kick and talk to them.

The scenarios you're talking about can be difficult. There are a few options - and at first, I'm talking about 'middle of the park'.
1) Often if both players are getting handsy at the same level and it hasn't escalated into anything that you absolutely, absolutely have to call then you can let it go. Might mean your threshold in this instance is a bit higher than if just 1 was doing it, but hey, if they're both happy to do it...
2) If you feel like you have to call it, then you can:-
- penalise the player who started it (but if the other player escalated it quickly, then you may not be able to penalise the first player)
-or penalise the player who escalated it (bear in mind this player may have suffered the borderline foul first, so you may risk being seen to 'punish the victim'

With experience you'll have a feel for which way it should go - but agreeing with others, in the PA you're going to lean towards penalising the attacker unless the defender seriously escalates in, like grabbing the attacker and throwing him to the ground.
 
Jono333 said:
All

What do you do in 50/50 situations?

I.e defender and attacker have their hands all over each other and both are committing what would deem to be a foul during a corner, you can't give it either way because they're both fouling each other do you just play on? I seem to get quite a few calls for fouls in these types of situations so just wondering how to proceed!

Thanks
Click to expand...

Proactiveness helps here as mentioned. I will say something like "save the cuddles for the shower afterwards" or " I thought Strictly was on tonight?!"
 
I like most recommendations here will go with the "safest" option. The one with least controversy and most match control outcome. The could mean just allowing play to continue with some voice warnings or awarding a free kick one way.

I am going to get a little technical here: Whatever you decide you must be able to justify it with lotg. If you allow play to continue it MUST mean you saw the actions from both player below the threshold of careless for that incident.

If both careless fouls happens inside the PA and you give a free kick to the defender then you MUST have seen the attacker's offence first because if it was simultaneous (extremely unlikely) then a penalty kick is the correct decision as it trumps a DFK.

1517389725650.png

If you really think they were both happened at the same time and its outside the PA then you should look at which one was more physical, then the tactical impact to figure out which way the DFK goes.
 
one said:
If both careless fouls happens inside the PA and you give a free kick to the defender then you MUST have seen the attacker's offence first because if it was simultaneous (extremely unlikely) then a penalty kick is the correct decision as it trumps a DFK.

View attachment 1676
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree on this point.
A PK is simply a DFK that is required to be taken from a different place.
Under the LOTG, severity is careless, reckless, excessive force. Those are the 3 grades of severity. And DFK trumps IFK.
PK doesn't trump DFK because a PK is simply a different restart for a DFK offence. It isn't any more serious, even if it is a more significant event.

There's also, I would argue, the scope that if 2 players are acting carelessly you can penalise the one acting 'worse', but PK vs DFK doesn't come into it.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
A PK is simply a DFK that is required to be taken from a different place.
Click to expand...
"A PK is simply a DFK that is required to be taken from 12 yards away from the opponent's goal with only the goalkeeper allowed to defend it who must stand on his own goal line and all other players outside the PA"
There. I fixed it for you :p

Equating a PK to a DFK as you have is the same as equating IFK and DFK saying they are simply both free kicks. When "restart" is used for deciding who is punished, I believe it is for handing out the bigger punishment. I think we can all agree that a PK is a bigger punishment than a DFK.

CapnBloodbeard said:
Under the LOTG, severity is careless, reckless, excessive force. Those are the 3 grades of severity. And DFK trumps IFK.
Click to expand...
In which case mentioning it in the set of criteria I posted would have been completely redundant because they each have a different sanction and therefore are already covered under "in terms of sanction". In any case may I ask where you found that lotg definition of physical severity?
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I strongly disagree on this point.
A PK is simply a DFK that is required to be taken from a different place.
Under the LOTG, severity is careless, reckless, excessive force. Those are the 3 grades of severity. And DFK trumps IFK.
PK doesn't trump DFK because a PK is simply a different restart for a DFK offence. It isn't any more serious, even if it is a more significant event.

There's also, I would argue, the scope that if 2 players are acting carelessly you can penalise the one acting 'worse', but PK vs DFK doesn't come into it.
Click to expand...
Not heard this interpretation of the law.
"punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time"
I have always understood this to mean that for the exact same same offences, committed at the same time, in the box, the defender will be "punished" as the restart is more severe.
And you are suggesting this would be dropped ball because the type of restart doesn't count?... why is restart there written in the law then?
 
Easy way to brighten up a dreary game in not following the advice of the bloke above in always going defensive... A nice juicy FK on the edge of the box or even a pen gets them noticing that you aint afraid to upset someone!!! Turn a crap game into a good one LOL!!!
 
I guess we can easily put this one to bed :)

From: [one]
Sent: 31 January 2018 11:52:59
To: David Elleray (IFAB)
Subject: Offences at the same time

Dear David,

I would like clarity on below please:
"punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time"

Would a penalty kick trump a DFK in terms of restart for two careless offences occurring at the same time in the PA by a defender and an attacker?

Your help is appreciated.

Regards,
[one]

From: David Elleray (IFAB)
Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 5:33 AM
To: [[one]
Subject: Re: Offences at the same time

Dear [one]

In principle, we instruct referees that it is very rare that 2 offences occur at exactly the same time so they should be able to decide which offence occurred first; if not then a penalty kick would be more serious than a direct free kick.

Best wishes

David

David Elleray

Technical Director of The IFAB

​
 
santa sangria said:
Not heard this interpretation of the law.
"punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time"
I have always understood this to mean that for the exact same same offences, committed at the same time, in the box, the defender will be "punished" as the restart is more severe.
And you are suggesting this would be dropped ball because the type of restart doesn't count?... why is restart there written in the law then?
Click to expand...
I saw this before your most recent response but didn't get to reply (and who wants to admit defeat? lol!). I forgot about the 'tactical impact'. Seeing that one made me realise I had lost this one!

I would still suggest that practical advice suggests pick another reason to penalise one of them, but it's always important to know what the 'by the book' approach is before we decide what to bend :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top