CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Except with that pesky clause about common sense, you most certainly ARE following the LOTG.
There's zero justification for carding a player here. None whatsoever.
Bloody Players
- Thread starter WilliamD
- Start date
- Status
There's zero justification for carding a player here. None whatsoever.
Really. It depends whether the observer is in "gotcha" mode or "development" mode. I'd considering this either orange or closed book personally.
Holy Spirit?
Got to love this. The good book says so.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I'd say it depends if the observer is incompetent or not.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
There's nothing in the LotG that defines when "permission" has to be given.
Not cautioning a player for treating his/her nose bleed off the FoP is not an error in law as far as my reading of the LotG goes. Permission can be given by implication, or after the act.
Why don't need to invoke the "spirit of the game" here IMHO.
Of course, we could reach out to IFAB but I've already hassled them once in recent history
Not cautioning a player for treating his/her nose bleed off the FoP is not an error in law as far as my reading of the LotG goes. Permission can be given by implication, or after the act.
Why don't need to invoke the "spirit of the game" here IMHO.
Of course, we could reach out to IFAB but I've already hassled them once in recent history
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
There's nothing in the LotG that defines when "permission" has to be given.
Not cautioning a player for treating his/her nose bleed off the FoP is not an error in law as far as my reading of the LotG goes. Permission can be given by implication, or after the act.
Why don't need to invoke the "spirit of the game" here IMHO.
Of course, we could reach out to IFAB but I've already hassled them once in recent history
Maybe you should bother them....then they might rewrite the LOTG to suit the erroneous interpretation that the fluffy (and "not bothering with the LOTG") crowd on here seem to be using to justify missing a mandatory caution.
I think I kind of said that already on page 1 in post #12 of this threadThere's nothing in the LotG that defines when "permission" has to be given.
Not cautioning a player for treating his/her nose bleed off the FoP is not an error in law as far as my reading of the LotG goes. Permission can be given by implication, or after the act.
Why don't need to invoke the "spirit of the game" here IMHO.
Of course, we could reach out to IFAB but I've already hassled them once in recent history
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I said it in post #10!
But I thought it was worth restating that the LotG might already be "on our side" here!
I said it before, but there are lots of ways to read this law. If a player runs off the pitch to retrieve the ball that has been hoofed into next week, has he asked for permission to do so? No, of course he hasn't. Is that really any different to a player walking off the pitch to sort out a blood injury? I don't think so, and you could even argue he should be praised. The whole reason for getting a player with blood showing off the FOP is to prevent risk of contagion, so shouldn't the player be praised for taking the sensible approach and therefore protecting others?
Cautioning would just make you look like a total jobsworth fool in my opinion.
Cautioning would just make you look like a total jobsworth fool in my opinion.
I actually slightly agree with Padfoot, in that I think invoking "spirit of the game" to allow you to do what you like is lazy logic. Where Spirit of the Game does legitimately come in is that it allows you to consider not just what the laws say, but why they say it.
As Rusty says in the previous post, you're supposed to get bleeding players off the pitch to reduce the risk of infection. By carding a player who leaves for this reason, you're discouraging players from doing the sensible and safe thing. In addition, the reason we can show a caution for leaving the field without permission is to discourage players from gaining an unfair advantage by doing so, or for a number of other edge case reasons. It's certainly not designed to punish players for taking a sensible approach to a medical situation that if anything, disadvantages their team in a sporting sense. Essentially, the law doesn't exist just to allow you to be a ****er.
As Rusty says in the previous post, you're supposed to get bleeding players off the pitch to reduce the risk of infection. By carding a player who leaves for this reason, you're discouraging players from doing the sensible and safe thing. In addition, the reason we can show a caution for leaving the field without permission is to discourage players from gaining an unfair advantage by doing so, or for a number of other edge case reasons. It's certainly not designed to punish players for taking a sensible approach to a medical situation that if anything, disadvantages their team in a sporting sense. Essentially, the law doesn't exist just to allow you to be a ****er.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
LOTG refers to “what would football want/expect?” to be applied for where there is no direct provision in the Laws. But it also refers to fairness as a 'vital feature' and 'crucial foundation' of the game.
Anyone cautioning a player for leaving the FOP as in the OP because its 'mandatory' in the LOTG either chooses to ignore the reference to 'fairness' in LOTG or has a misunderstanding of what it means and is missing the bigger picture.
Anyone cautioning a player for leaving the FOP as in the OP because its 'mandatory' in the LOTG either chooses to ignore the reference to 'fairness' in LOTG or has a misunderstanding of what it means and is missing the bigger picture.
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
Folks, interesting arguments from both sides and plain to see that we all would handle the situation differently, I agree with Padfoot, because the LOTG state it is a mandatory caution. I also agree with the application of common sense and implied permission also having never actually had to make this decision I am not sure what I would do in the circumstances? 
It might be something I add to my pre-match chat, stating anyone suffering asthma attack or bleeding has full permission to leave without asking. This should circumvent any incident.
I have to say anytime it has happened usually the player or coach has shouted so never had to worry about cautioning, in regard to this type of injury. However, a player left recently mentioned in another thread without permission to adjust his equipment he was cautioned.
On a serious note question player suffers from asthma mid match shouts to sideline for puffer and then throws it back, would anyone suggest that he has received treatment and ask him to leave the FOP?
It might be something I add to my pre-match chat, stating anyone suffering asthma attack or bleeding has full permission to leave without asking. This should circumvent any incident.
I have to say anytime it has happened usually the player or coach has shouted so never had to worry about cautioning, in regard to this type of injury. However, a player left recently mentioned in another thread without permission to adjust his equipment he was cautioned.
On a serious note question player suffers from asthma mid match shouts to sideline for puffer and then throws it back, would anyone suggest that he has received treatment and ask him to leave the FOP?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
So, you apply lazy logic and don't caution the player who has a minor nose bleed but then caution the player who goes off because the sole of his boot has become detached......or he needs more tape.....or his boots are pinching him.....
Good luck selling those cautions......
Good luck selling those cautions......
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
@Padfoot At least have the decency and common sense to take the time to read my post...not just rant!
Then when you have actually taken time to contemplate my statements and have it clear what is said then you may offer an informed opinion rather than just attack, attack, attack! Otherwise you are just a troll 
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
On a serious note question player suffers from asthma mid match shouts to sideline for puffer and then throws it back, would anyone suggest that he has received treatment and ask him to leave the FOP?
Or what to do when a player is down receiving treatment on the field and 18 players convene at the sideline, in front of the benches, to drink water. Some step over the boundary to get bottles, some are thrown bottles, some coaching staff step on the field to retrieve bottles, some step over the boundary to put bottles down...?
Common sense here says the referee has given implied permission for players to drink... and common sense says that some to-ing and fro-ing at the sideline is acceptable when monitored by the AR... but how do you handle this (my first time with this in an elite U20 game the other day so eager to hear)?
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
@santa sangria we will have to wait to hear what the Lord God of all things refereeing has to say, although I suspect they will involve a 
After all if you throw an object in the direction of another player or coach is that a OFFINABUS gesture?
After all if you throw an object in the direction of another player or coach is that a OFFINABUS gesture?
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
At least our games are going to be a lot shorter...after potentially 18 throw-ins, corners, bye balls, balls leaving the fop we will have to abandon for there not being enough players on the pitch. I hate writing reports too! 
- Status