Correct restart following OFFINABUS

[Trip]

I think it was the first time I've shown a straight red for OFFINABUS, having blown the whistle to stop play while the ball was still live (in the keeper's hands).

I restarted with an indirect free kick on the basis that OFFINABUS is not one of the DFK offences and IDFK is for 'any other offence'. However, reading law 12 it says:

If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against:
• an opponent – indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick
• a team-mate, substitute, substituted player, team official or a match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick
• any other person – a dropped ball

So it looks like it should have been a direct free kick? The key question is this: does calling the referee a 'c*nt' constitute committing an offence 'against' a match official. I'm guessing it does.

 

[xPositor]

Which side committed the offence? GK or attacker's team? Could have been a pen...

 

[bester]

IFAB have decreed that only physical offences committed against a match official result in an DFK so it's just an IDFK. Read the FAQs on the IFAB website.

 

[Padfoot]

IFAB have decreed that only physical offences committed against a match official result in an DFK so it's just an IDFK. Read the FAQs on the IFAB website.

Or alternatively don't and award the penalty if it's the defending team at fault.....far better solution than IFAB's cowardly backtracking when they realised what they had done.......

 

[Trip]

The offence was committed by a defender but he was not in the penalty area.

 

[Trip]

IFAB have decreed that only physical offences committed against a match official result in an DFK so it's just an IDFK. Read the FAQs on the IFAB website.

Good spot.

Q7: What is the restart of the referee stops play for dissent/offensive language etc.?
If the referee stops play to penalise a player for dissent/offensive language etc. the restart is an IDFK.

I'm pretty sure that's not what the law says, but this does seem to be the definitive answer. Thanks.

 

[youwhatref?!]

I was made aware of:

Penal (Contact etc) - DFK
Technical (Which would cover dissent, etc) - IDFK

 

[Russell Jones]

Or alternatively don't and award the penalty if it's the defending team at fault.....far better solution than IFAB's cowardly backtracking when they realised what they had done.......

It amuses me immensely that on this issue you glibly advocate disregarding the LOTG (because it doesn't suit your personal agenda) and yet where other refs have the temerity to suggest they might use their discretion in different circumstances, your response is often scathing. Double standards anyone?

 

[DB]

It amuses me immensely that on this issue you glibly advocate disregarding the LOTG (because it doesn't suit your personal agenda) and yet where other refs have the temerity to suggest they might use their discretion in different circumstances, your response is often scatching. Double standards anyone?

Absolutely what I was thinking. Come on Padders, you've let me down here

@Trip indirect is the correct restart in this situation. You were correct. There has been guidance released by IFAB relating to that exact thing.

 

[RustyRef]

It amuses me immensely that on this issue you glibly advocate disregarding the LOTG (because it doesn't suit your personal agenda) and yet where other refs have the temerity to suggest they might use their discretion in different circumstances, your response is often scatching. Double standards anyone?

Completely agree, you can't hold the morale high ground for one issue and then openly state that you will defy the laws on another because you don't agree with them.

It can only be an IDFK, there is no other option. Indeed, awarding a penalty as Padfoot suggests would be so incorrect in law it could result in the game having to be replayed. Not really something you want on your conscience or record as a referee ...

 

[Padfoot]

It amuses me immensely that on this issue you glibly advocate disregarding the LOTG (because it doesn't suit your personal agenda) and yet where other refs have the temerity to suggest they might use their discretion in different circumstances, your response is often scatching. Double standards anyone?

Or simply tongue firmly in cheek......

 

[Ganajin]

Or alternatively don't and award the penalty if it's the defending team at fault.....far better solution than IFAB's cowardly backtracking when they realised what they had done.......

This does not sound tongue in cheek. If you are really joking about cherry-picking which laws to follow and which to ignore, you should really do it in a way that sounds funny. Or at least use a smiley emoticon. Personally I think your claim to be joking is a better example of "cowardly backtracking" than anything IFAB have done.

 

[Padfoot]

This does not sound tongue in cheek. If you are really joking about cherry-picking which laws to follow and which to ignore, you should really do it in a way that sounds funny. Or at least use a smiley emoticon. Personally I think your claim to be joking is a better example of "cowardly backtracking" than anything IFAB have done.

Who said it was supposed to be funny?

Suggest you go away and consider what "tongue in cheek" may mean other than a simply humorous angle.......then again maybe don't.....wouldn't want you over taxing yourself...........

 

[PinnerPaul]

It amuses me immensely that on this issue you glibly advocate disregarding the LOTG (because it doesn't suit your personal agenda) and yet where other refs have the temerity to suggest they might use their discretion in different circumstances, your response is often scatching. Double standards anyone?

Scatching - is that better or worse than scathing?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

 

[Jack Phillips]

Great Banter