Correct Restart?

[Ge0rge]

Have a quick question from my game a couple of weeks back.

Keeper has the ball in his hands, gets a small nudge from an opposing player. He looks to me as he thinks he has been fouled, I tell him to carry on. He then shows dissent towards me. I stop the game, with the keeper still in his box and the ball still in his hands, sin binning the goal keeper. All good up til here. My question is, what's the correct restart?

As it was a 'verbal offence', it's my understanding that it should be a drop ball where the ball was when the game was stopped to the opposing team. However, this would have been a drop ball in the box that they were attacking, which is prohibited under law, and instead the defending team should receive the ball. This seems a little backwards, as the team that has offended has the ball back, and the only price they have paid is a sin bin (and if this were to happen at a higher level, it would have inly resulted in a mere yellow card).

In the end, I went for an indirect free kick inside the box, and whilst this is wrong in law, I only found this out after the game!

So how should I have restarted the game?

 

[bester]

Indirect free kick is the correct restart for all verbal offences where you have stopped play. It's explicitly stated in law.

Not sure where you've got a dropped ball restart from

A goalkeeper can't be challenged when the ball is in hands, so a small nudge is probably a foul

 

[RefereeX]

As said above, I'm not sure why you think the IDFK is wrong in law. It's absolutely correct.

 

[JamesL]

Have a quick question from my game a couple of weeks back.

Keeper has the ball in his hands, gets a small nudge from an opposing player. He looks to me as he thinks he has been fouled, I tell him to carry on. He then shows dissent towards me. I stop the game, with the keeper still in his box and the ball still in his hands, sin binning the goal keeper. All good up til here. My question is, what's the correct restart?

As it was a 'verbal offence', it's my understanding that it should be a drop ball where the ball was when the game was stopped to the opposing team. However, this would have been a drop ball in the box that they were attacking, which is prohibited under law, and instead the defending team should receive the ball. This seems a little backwards, as the team that has offended has the ball back, and the only price they have paid is a sin bin (and if this were to happen at a higher level, it would have inly resulted in a mere yellow card).

In the end, I went for an indirect free kick inside the box, and whilst this is wrong in law, I only found this out after the game!

So how should I have restarted the game?

All verbal offences are indirect free kick restart.

I'm struggling with this one... Keeper has been fouled... And then sin binned for his reaction to you, appearing to, not take any action.

I think telling him to get on with it, or words to that effect was a bad choice on your part. I think a better way is firstly to acknowledge you've seen it (do this by verbally telling the offender "leave the keeper when he has it in please") and then shout to keeper "it's in your hands keeper, I've seen it, play on, advantage".

This acknowledges you have seen and are dealing with the foul, at which point if he gives you a volley full then I'd support a sin bin.

I'm not saying sin bin was wrong but I can see, if as written version of events are accurate, why the keeper has dissented to being told to get on with it and I can only imagine the perception to the onlookers as to how this will have looked.

 

[socal lurker]

the above is good advice. The only thing I’d add to what James said is to recognize what the players want and read the game. challenging the GK is a foul. James is right that most GKs would rather have the ball in the hand. But if the GK clearly wants the foul, just call it. Give the foul, tell the attacker to leave the keeper alone, and you’ve likely defused the situation.

I’d also add one other thing you might want to think about from the game. What came before it? GKs don’t tend to get bent out of shape for a trivial nudge—they tend to get upset if they feel the R won’t protect the, more broadly. Was there a pattern of messing with the GK? Or something else? We can’t always figure out the triggers, but when odd things happen, going back through what led up to it can sometimes give us clues on things we might be able to handle better.

 

[Ge0rge]

All verbal offences are indirect free kick restart.

I'm struggling with this one... Keeper has been fouled... And then sin binned for his reaction to you, appearing to, not take any action.

I think telling him to get on with it, or words to that effect was a bad choice on your part. I think a better way is firstly to acknowledge you've seen it (do this by verbally telling the offender "leave the keeper when he has it in please") and then shout to keeper "it's in your hands keeper, I've seen it, play on, advantage".

This acknowledges you have seen and are dealing with the foul, at which point if he gives you a volley full then I'd support a sin bin.

I'm not saying sin bin was wrong but I can see, if as written version of events are accurate, why the keeper has dissented to being told to get on with it and I can only imagine the perception to the onlookers as to how this will have looked.

Ok thank you - I thought I was correct in law on the day, but was told by a fellow official (someone who is much much more qualified that me) after the game that I was wrong so glad to clear that up.

When I say nudge, it was one of those where the player was chasing down the ball, and keeper got there first. The contact was no where near enough for the keeper to be impeded in any way shape or form. If that level of contact had occurred anywhere else on the pitch, no one would have even thought of appealing. Would you say that it’s different for goal keepers?

I appreciate what you are saying about communication with the keeper saying you had seen it, and I would have said that if I deemed it to be an advantage for the foul, but in this case, I deemed no offence full stop (apologies if I had not made that clear in my first question)

Thank you for the feedback

 

[JamesL]

Ok thank you - I thought I was correct in law on the day, but was told by a fellow official (someone who is much much more qualified that me) after the game that I was wrong so glad to clear that up.

When I say nudge, it was one of those where the player was chasing down the ball, and keeper got there first. The contact was no where near enough for the keeper to be impeded in any way shape or form. If that level of contact had occurred anywhere else on the pitch, no one would have even thought of appealing. Would you say that it’s different for goal keepers?

I appreciate what you are saying about communication with the keeper saying you had seen it, and I would have said that if I deemed it to be an advantage for the foul, but in this case, I deemed no offence full stop (apologies if I had not made that clear in my first question)

Thank you for the feedback

Thanks for sharing your thought process.
Although you didn't feel there was a foul ok the GK, remember that as soon as they have the ball in their control (touching with any part of the hand) they can't be challenged.
So whilst anywhere else the contact is trifling, not a foul, here once the GK has it, any contact really should be seen as illegal. And the GK will know it which, again inexcusable, is probably why he reacted how he did..

 

[Runner-Ref]

Just to add to what @JamesL has put; there's nothing wrong with saying 'you've seen it' even if there isn't necessarily a foul. Sometimes just acknowledging you have seen some contact is enough to pacify them. This doesn't just relate to goalkeepers either

The fact you told him to 'carry on' is a positive as it shows you were alert to what was going on. But that slight change in choice of words can make all the difference

 

[Martiju]

Just to add to what @JamesL has put; there's nothing wrong with saying 'you've seen it' even if there isn't necessarily a foul. Sometimes just acknowledging you have seen some contact is enough to pacify them. This doesn't just relate to goalkeepers either

The fact you told him to 'carry on' is a positive as it shows you were alert to what was going on. But that slight change in choice of words can make all the difference

I confess that I use 'I've seen it' all the time, precisely because it means whatever the players want it to mean. Normally what I'm actually thinking is 'I've seen what happened but it was trivial, so let's carry on', or 'I've seen what you think happened, but it was nothing' but if the player thinks I've acknowledged that something terrible happened to them and I'm keeping an eye out for the next nefarious assault, that also suits me fine!