AFCON2015 Trickery in CIV v Mali

[AlexF]

Last week when the Ivory Coast played Mali in the African Cup, there was a moment of trickery in the first half around the 39th minute. The referee correctly stopped play and awarded an indirect free kick from the point of the trickery (as opposed to where the GK handled), but neglected to give the mandatory caution to the player involved in the trickery.

Regardless, I think that this is the first time I've ever seen something like this happen, at any level.

 

[SM]

Interesting video

 

[Yacinho]

How players like Yaya and Kolo Touré fail to know this basic rule ?

 

[drahc]

Good decision by the referee.

This happened when I had my last 5-4 assessment (a few weeks ago). I did exactly the same as the referee. The assessor did not mention it in his post match and written report - so either missed it, or didn't know what I was doing but didn't want to question it!

I did not caution also - and I believe this is the correct course of action. HOWEVER, if this was done repeatedly, i.e. they were taken the pee - then there would be a caution.

 

[AlexF]

pg 123 of 14-15. Second last item. Mandatory caution by the book.

 

[drahc]

Can you please quote

 

[haywain]

lazy beggar, drahc

Cautions for unsporting behaviour - uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee, etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offence is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick

 

[AlexF]

And the bit at the top:

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:

Then it trickles down to the bottom for @haywain's blurb...

 

[drahc]

Thank you gents - I stand mistaken

 

[AlexF]

No worries -- the way I look at it... it's a bad week if I didn't learn something new about the LotG.

 

[Duncan Francis]

I gave one of these last season and cautioned the offender. They all looked at me blank faced !

 

[fatmikey]

I think a caution is harsh for what is an indirect free kick offence but rules are rules

 

[Duncan Francis]

No, The IDFK is not for the offence. You stop the game to caution the offender for the USB offence. The restart is then an IDFK from where the offence occurred !

 

[AlexF]

Spot on Duncan. The IFK is because of the caution, not a caution because of the IFK.

That's why it is irrelevant if the GK actually handles when this kind of a play happens. The offence is the trickery, not the handling. So strictly speaking, in the case shown above, the referee made an error by awarding the indirect free kick... but what did he award it for? When he doesn't caution, there is nothing wrong with the GK handling on the play...

 

[haywain]

Spot on Duncan. The IFK is because of the caution, not a caution because of the IFK.

That's why it is irrelevant if the GK actually handles when this kind of a play happens. The offence is the trickery, not the handling. So strictly speaking, in the case shown above, the referee made an error by awarding the indirect free kick... but what did he award it for? When he doesn't caution, there is nothing wrong with the GK handling on the play...

I beg to differ

As per interpretation of the lotg, the idfk restart is specified for circumventing the lotg. The fact that the player didn't receive a caution is simply an omission on the part of the referee

 

[AlexF]

@haywain -- page 123 of 14/15 seems to indicate otherwise.

As per your quote above, the offence is a mandatory caution, and thus the restart is an IFK, as you're stopping for a caution.

Either way, there should've been a caution, and the restart is an IFK, so grand scheme of things, we're nitpicking a bit now

 

[Duncan Francis]

I beg to differ

As per interpretation of the lotg, the idfk restart is specified for circumventing the lotg. The fact that the player didn't receive a caution is simply an omission on the part of the referee

Law 12, page 123 ! A caution is specified for circumventing the law. The IDFK is the correct way to restart the game after you have stopped it to caution a player, as you would if you stopped it to caution a player for entering without permission, for example !

 

[Brian Hamilton]

More trickery from the CIV goalkeeper during tonight's KFTPM to decide the winner of the Final. Twice went to ground at crucial times claiming he was injured. No effect first time; second item it appeared to affect the opposing player who missed his team's 11th kick.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It would be so much easier - and would make so much sense - if the 'passback' law included any legal part of the body.

 

[McTavish]

More trickery from the CIV goalkeeper during tonight's KFTPM to decide the winner of the Final. Twice went to ground at crucial times claiming he was injured. No effect first time; second item it appeared to affect the opposing player who missed his team's 11th kick.

I thought that the Ivory Coast (CIV) goalkeeper's "injury" was quite interesting from a LOTG point of view.

For those who didn't see it, the shootout had gone through all ten outfield players and Bouboucar Barry, the CIV goalie, having just saved the Ghana goalie's penalty kick went down claiming to be injured. If he had stayed down and insisted he could take no more part then as far as I can see from the laws, he could have been replaced but this would not be compulsory - the laws say "may be replaced" not "must be replaced". Therefore, if Barry had insisted that he was too injured to take the kick then one of the other players could do so; CIV could replace their worst penalty taker with their best for this crucial kick!

Is there anything that I have missed in law that would stop this happening?