The Ref Stop

Correct Restart?

M

Matthew

RefChat Addict
Slightly odd one yesterday that I was hoping to get some clarity on.

Feisty (and very enjoyable) top of the table U15 match yesterday. Ball played upfield and two players went into a 50:50 challenge, after which the ball broke free. As the ball rolled away, the two opposing players squared up to each other and began pushing and shoving, so I immediately stopped the game to get everything calmed down. Certainly nothing amounting to VC, so two b*llockings and two AA cautions later we were good to go.

That brings me to the question of the restart. The ball had broken free and neither team was in possession, and a player from each side was responsible, so I went with a contested drop ball. No complaints from either team, but I don’t think the restart was right. What should I have done in that situation?
 
The Ref Stop
Matthew said:
Slightly odd one yesterday that I was hoping to get some clarity on.

Feisty (and very enjoyable) top of the table U15 match yesterday. Ball played upfield and two opposition attackers went into a 50:50 challenge, after which the ball broke free. As the ball rolled away, the two players squared up to each other and began pushing and shoving, so I immediately stopped the game to get everything calmed down. Certainly nothing amounting to VC, so two b*llockings and two AA cautions later we were good to go.

That brings me to the question of the restart. The ball had broken free and neither team was in possession, and a player from each side was responsible, so I went with a contested drop ball. No complaints from either team, but I don’t think the restart was right. What should I have done in that situation?
Click to expand...
If two attacking players committed AA then it’s a IDFK to the defending team from the point of the first offence (pick a player since they’re next to each other) I believe. If you did decide on a drop ball for whatever reason it would be uncontested and with the team which last had possession.

I realise you might mean to opposing players, in which case I find a defensive free kick easier to sell, or as I said, who “started” it? That’s the first offence and should be punished with an IDFK
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
If two attacking players committed AA then it’s a IDFK to the defending team from the point of the first offence (pick a player since they’re next to each other) I believe. If you did decide on a drop ball for whatever reason it would be uncontested and with the team which last had possession.

I realise you might mean to opposing players, in which case I find a defensive free kick easier to sell, or as I said, who “started” it? That’s the first offence and should be punished with an IDFK
Click to expand...
Apologies, re-read and it’s not clear so now updated. It was two opposing players, so sounds like a defensive free kick would be the easier sell.
 
Russell Jones said:
You either penalise the first offence (if you saw the sequence of what happened) or, if you're unclear who / how it started, then it's an uncontested drop ball to the team that (in your opinion) touched the ball last
Click to expand...
Don't think I agree with this Old Bean
DB is 'no infarction or outside agent' restart
The restart should be based on that 'simultaneous' excerpt from the book, but it must be a free kick IMO

Bet you enjoyed that last minute Southampton PK yesterday though!!??? A Dropped Ball would have been more apt than a PK 😆🤣
 
Last edited:
No way can this be a dropped ball restart. It certainly can't be contested as these are no longe a thing.

We have stopped play to issue cautions to 2 players committing adopting aggressive attitude offences therefore we must restart with a free kick as an offence has been committed by a player.

If there is any contact between the 2 then we should be restarting with a DFK.

As the referee you have to decide a) who commits the offence first, rare for two players to simultaneously star AAA. One usually a retaliator.

If they were truly simultaneous then the restart si for the most serious offence. Laws explain what that means.
 
JamesL said:
If they were truly simultaneous then the restart si for the most serious offence. Laws explain what that means.
Click to expand...
With that, how does it work if both players are given a caution?

Thought it was based on the sanction although I'm probably wrong 🤣🤣
 
The only way this could have been a dropped ball is that if play was stopped to prevent handbags (or AA as you call it). If it had already happened prior to stopping play and the cautions were for the aggressions prior to stopping play then it has to be a free kick.

@JamesL interesting interpretation of DFK for contact. I don't think it is meant to apply here. I'd go IFK even if there is contact that doesn't amount to careless. If the reason I stop play is not for a push because it's not careless, but it's for cautioning then it's IFK. If the careless offence happens before the cautionable AA then it's the first offence and determines the restart as DFK.

OP almost certainly not simultaneous offences even if it's just for AA. One has to have happened a fraction of a second before the other. I have mention this many times before, simultaneous offences are almost always the same act that causes two offences. E.g reckless challenge that is dogso-r is punished for the latter.

In a situation like OP I'd go with for a IFK. And I'd choose the team in a way that gives me the better overall match control which is usually the defending team.
 
one said:
The only way this could have been a dropped ball is that if play was stopped to prevent handbags (or AA as you call it). If it had already happened prior to stopping play and the cautions were for the aggressions prior to stopping play then it has to be a free kick.

@JamesL interesting interpretation of DFK for contact. I don't think it is meant to apply here. I'd go IFK even if there is contact that doesn't amount to careless. If the reason I stop play is not for a push because it's not careless, but it's for cautioning then it's IFK. If the careless offence happens before the cautionable AA then it's the first offence and determines the restart as DFK.

OP almost certainly not simultaneous offences even if it's just for AA. One has to have happened a fraction of a second before the other. I have mention this many times before, simultaneous offences are almost always the same act that causes two offences. E.g reckless challenge that is dogso-r is punished for the latter.

In a situation like OP I'd go with for a IFK. And I'd choose the team in a way that gives me the better overall match control which is usually the defending team.
Click to expand...
I can't really interpret "if an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick" In any other way. And that would be consistent with how all other offences penalised for with and without contact fouls (eg PIADM, impeding progress, which goes to some length to specify this without contact is idfk and with is direct).

I'd argue as well that once contact is made such as "pushing and shoving" we're no longer in aggressive attitude land. We've passed attitude and moved to action, so I'd argue the OP should have reported C1 SP (pushes or pulls an opponent).

As always we do what's suits your game at the time within the framework of the law but I'd disappointed to see an indirect free kick following pushing and shoving.
 
JamesL said:
I can't really interpret "if an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick" In any other way. And that would be consistent with how all other offences penalised for with and without contact fouls (eg PIADM, impeding progress, which goes to some length to specify this without contact is idfk and with is direct).

I'd argue as well that once contact is made such as "pushing and shoving" we're no longer in aggressive attitude land. We've passed attitude and moved to action, so I'd argue the OP should have reported C1 SP (pushes or pulls an opponent).

As always we do what's suits your game at the time within the framework of the law but I'd disappointed to see an indirect free kick following pushing and shoving.
Click to expand...
I think this is potentially one of the very few scenarios where the general ignorance of players to the LotG actually helps. Nobody questioned the restart, which certainly helped from a match control point of view.

I‘m sure this won’t be the last time, so it’s a good one to learn from for me.
 
JamesL said:
I'd argue as well that once contact is made such as "pushing and shoving" we're no longer in aggressive attitude land. We've passed attitude and moved to action, so I'd argue the OP should have reported C1 SP (pushes or pulls an opponent).
Click to expand...
This is really a local FA thing and nothing to do with lotg right? As far as lotg goes I am fairly certain OP stopped play to caution for USB and not because of a 'listed' DFK offence.

In terms of contact, if a player makes an offensive gesture to an opponent and makes contact in the process (not careless) and you stop play, will you go DFK or IFK restart?

How about a goalkeeper in PA touches with hand a ball deliberate kick to him by a team mate and makes contact with opponent (not careless) at same time? IFK or penalty?

Happy to live with our difference of opinion here (if you don't wish to call it interpretation 😊).
 
Restart definitely incorrect, contested drop balls are no longer a thing - if you're awarding a dropped ball, it must be uncontested to the team who last had possession of the ball.

In practice, I can see how a drop ball is the 'best' outcome here, particularly at lower levels.

However... Pushing, striking or attempting to strike are listed as offences punishable by a direct free kick and furthermore, any offence involving contact is penalised by a direct free kick. So as referee, you must judge who committed the offence first or if the pushes happened simultaneously, then you punish the most serious of the two.

If you stopped play because of a verbal offence, then the restart is an indirect free kick.
 
CA1992 said:
Restart definitely incorrect, contested drop balls are no longer a thing - if you're awarding a dropped ball, it must be uncontested to the team who last had possession of the ball.
Click to expand...
Not quite, it's the team who last touched the ball. ;) :)
 
one said:
This is really a local FA thing and nothing to do with lotg right? As far as lotg goes I am fairly certain OP stopped play to caution for USB and not because of a 'listed' DFK offence.

In terms of contact, if a player makes an offensive gesture to an opponent and makes contact in the process (not careless) and you stop play, will you go DFK or IFK restart?

How about a goalkeeper in PA touches with hand a ball deliberate kick to him by a team mate and makes contact with opponent (not careless) at same time? IFK or penalty?

Happy to live with our difference of opinion here (if you don't wish to call it interpretation 😊).
Click to expand...
Well we will have to live with a difference of opinion...
The code we enter is a local FA thing, yes.

The 2 offences you are talking about I have 2 counter points. 1) the laws specifically list the offences as indirect 2) the contact is independent to the offence we are punishing.

In the OP, with the ball in open play we have pushing and shoving. This to me is why we are stopping play and meets the "contact fouls are direct."

I understand there is a world, where perhaps there is just gesticulating, and we stop play to prevent but I'd argue even that would be indirect as a verbal/non physical offence has been committed. And I think if the card comes out then dropped ball restarts are completely off the table.
 
JamesL said:
In the OP, with the ball in open play we have pushing and shoving. This to me is why we are stopping play and meets the "contact fouls are direct."
Click to expand...

The OP says "I immediately stopped the game to get everything calmed down". This to me is not game being stopped for a careless push.

I specifically did say, if you stop play for a careless push then DFK, you can also caution if you deem there was USB.

But... if someone pushes someone's else and it's not careless do you stop play for the push? I'd hope not. You only stop play if you want to caution*. And I'd counter your DFK with a similar reason to yours. the laws specifically list the restart as IFK.

I don't agree with your second counter, the contact in my examples is just as independent or dependent as the OP.

*If you do stop play purely preventative, the push was not careless and you deem there was no USB then the only correct restart is a dropped ball.
 
one said:
The OP says "I immediately stopped the game to get everything calmed down". This to me is not game being stopped for a careless push.

I specifically did say, if you stop play for a careless push then DFK, you can also caution if you deem there was USB.

But... if someone pushes someone's else and it's not careless do you stop play for the push? I'd hope not. You only stop play if you want to caution*. And I'd counter your DFK with a similar reason to yours. the laws specifically list the restart as IFK.

I don't agree with your second counter, the contact in my examples is just as independent or dependent as the OP.

*If you do stop play purely preventative, the push was not careless and you deem there was no USB then the only correct restart is a dropped ball.
Click to expand...

Without dissecting the OP too much, well actually I am, order of words, pushing and shoving started then play was stopped. That's probably quite important to my point.

Ball in play, two players want to aggressively start "pushing and shoving" each other then in my opinion they are acting without precaution, at minimum.

Of course not every push needs play to be stopped... But in this scenario presented in OP it was stopped because the players had engaged in "pushing and shoving" which by my opinion above is minimum careless.

And as I said in my previous post, the unsporting behaviour offence, in terms of English FA would be "SP", "pushing and pulling an opponent" and I would expect a referee to deem this kind of altercation as unsporting.

I think my 1st post doesnt help as I talked about aggressive attitude. I accept that Aggressive attitude is probably an idfk, because there is unlikely to be any foul contact as an attitude is a displayed behaviour and so we're in verbal/non contact land. Whereas pushing and shoving is an action, so we have escalated beyond an attitude imo.

There is a middle world, if said contact is negligible for example, a very light palm to the chest, or head to head, this is attitude, a behaviour and I'd punish it as such.

And as its not part of the OP, I will just say we respectfully disagree on the idfk examples you have given that were nought to do with the thread. 😎
 
JamesL said:
Without dissecting the OP too much, well actually I am, order of words, pushing and shoving started then play was stopped. That's probably quite important to my point.

Ball in play, two players want to aggressively start "pushing and shoving" each other then in my opinion they are acting without precaution, at minimum.

Of course not every push needs play to be stopped... But in this scenario presented in OP it was stopped because the players had engaged in "pushing and shoving" which by my opinion above is minimum careless.

And as I said in my previous post, the unsporting behaviour offence, in terms of English FA would be "SP", "pushing and pulling an opponent" and I would expect a referee to deem this kind of altercation as unsporting.

I think my 1st post doesnt help as I talked about aggressive attitude. I accept that Aggressive attitude is probably an idfk, because there is unlikely to be any foul contact as an attitude is a displayed behaviour and so we're in verbal/non contact land. Whereas pushing and shoving is an action, so we have escalated beyond an attitude imo.

There is a middle world, if said contact is negligible for example, a very light palm to the chest, or head to head, this is attitude, a behaviour and I'd punish it as such.

And as its not part of the OP, I will just say we respectfully disagree on the idfk examples you have given that were nought to do with the thread. 😎
Click to expand...
Without going into semantics too much, we're talking a matter of a couple of seconds from getting in each others' faces to the pushing, so I can't be definitive on whether it started before or after I stopped the game.

What I don't think helps in this situation is a lack of guidance on what constitutes AA. I've always been of the understanding that the kind of scenario in my post is AA (that came from an assessor years ago), but I can certainly see why it could be "pushing and pulling an opponent" too. Ultimately I think the takeaway is that the sanction (i.e. C1 yellow for each) is correct, but that there's room for debate on which code applies.

I clearly got the restart wrong, but it was actually "right" from a match control perspective in that specific scenario. That's absolutely not to say that I'd go with that restart again because it obviously can't be supported in law.
 
I would agree with James on this. If you stop play because of pushing, the restart should be a DFK.

The part I don't like about the new-ish guidance on simultaneous offenses is that if this were in the PA and the R decides these were simultaneous and of equal physical severity, then it should be a PK, as that is a more severe restart. But that just feels wrong to me. In the real world, I'm going to decide one came first or was more serious in such a case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top