The Ref Stop

Delaying, distance or diving, you decide!

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

It is my interpretation that if you are punishing the more serious offence then the outcome should have been either: handball, no card, DFK or not giving required distance, yellow card, IDFK.

To do both is punishing both offences committed at the same time.

As you don’t have to stop play for the simulation you could give the handball and DFK and yellow for USB.
 
The Ref Stop
Abeverley said:
If the defending player hadn’t touched the ball at all, would you have still cautioned him for being too close?
Click to expand...
Depends where the ball had ended up... if he'd had no impact on play and the thrower's team had good clean possession then, in this game, I would not have stopped the game to caution. It was a hot game, and I had to choose when to interfere. YMMV though;)
 
Abeverley said:
It is my interpretation that if you are punishing the more serious offence then the outcome should have been either: handball, no card, DFK or not giving required distance, yellow card, IDFK.

To do both is punishing both offences committed at the same time.
Click to expand...
I have the same question - is it OK to penalise the handball and the FRD?
 
santa sangria said:
I have the same question - is it OK to penalise the handball and the FRD?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how if committed simultaneously.
It’s like allowing advantage and then calling back after a mistake.
No double bit at cherry for advantage and shouldn’t be punished twice.
This is my opinion and on my interpretation.
Choosing to punish the most serious offence in terms of restart etc in my opinion would mean the handball.
But then: defo could book for simulation too but I don’t think you could could book for FRD there really- unless you don’t punish the handball and give IDFK.
 
santa sangria said:
I have the same question - is it OK to penalise the handball and the FRD?
Click to expand...
So, you got duff information from your AR at the time. By instructing you that Veron was guilty of HB in the process of FRD, the AR has implied that the ball came into play. The HB in this case sounds no different from using any other part of the body to impede the throw, unless there was SPA
IDFK & USB based on what you were told by the AR
Re-throw & USB if you'd been given the correct info and no possibility of SPA (because the ball was not in play)
 
santa sangria said:
So, last game of the season between two tasty, quick sides, Plenty of lip and athleticism on show. Astro, rain, assessor, good ARs, though one did not cloak himself in glory by showing up late, texting through the pre match, being late out for the second half and missing a great chance for a wait and see in injury time... I digress.

It was tight. I had a good advantage YC. A couple of warnings, laughed off a bit of banter. Waved away a bit of theatrics. The greens younger, more organized, better trained. The whites, international, some flair, very quick but switch off in transitions.

The weird moment... with the problem player, white right back who thinks he's Veron...
Veron concedes a throw, stands still, as green goes to take the throw, Veron moves within a yard, green takes, Veron blocks, this is 5 yards from AR2, then Veron goes down clutching his face, not unlike Rivaldo....
For a split second I wonder if the green has committed a reckless throw to the face. But I race to AR2. He says straight away YC for Veron, handball.

I encourage Veron to get up, give the YC and order a DFK.

At full time, we discuss the incident again. AR2 says the ball didn't enter the pitch, the handball prevented the ball entering.

So, I am wondering, did I make a correct decision, would that decision have changed based on knowing the whole story, and what could I have given:

- YC DFK for handball (USB) - at the time this was OK, but after finding out the ball wasn't in play, this was wrong
- YC retake throw for delaying the restart - knowing the ball was out of play, this would have worked
- YC IDFK for distracting the thrower (USB) - in the LotG it says "if the throw-in has been taken an indirect free kick is awarded." It doesn't specify if the ball should have entered the FoP but I think that should be inferred, so, maybe, but no
- YC retake throw for distracting the thrower (USB) - if the ball didn't enter the FoP (?)
- YC retake for not respecting the required distance - could this be justified if the ball has not entered the FoP?
- YC for deceiving the referee (USB) - AR2 said he would have been happy with this too!
- YCx2 anyone!?
Click to expand...
Throw-in is a restart
Throw-in was prevented
YC for delaying the restart
Simples
 
one said:
I started a similar thread here back when I joined. The agreement at the time was, it is implied that the ball is not in play until it leaves the hands of the thrower otherwise the first offence would be a handball by the thrower :)
Click to expand...
There have been a few previous discussions about the wording of the throw-in law in regards to when the ball is in play and so forth. For what it's worth, the NFHS rules have what i think is an interesting and perhaps better form of wording. It actually avoids part of the conundrum by not referring to when the ball is in play, but when it is playable. It goes as follows:
On a throw-in, the ball is playable when it has left the hands of the thrower and any part of it breaks the plane of the touchline.
Click to expand...
 
I don't really like introducing a new term/concept (playable) into the law or changing the wording for the sake of it. Simple is best if it works. What's there should suffice but if we really need further clarification all needs to be added is "leaves the thrower's hands and" after "The ball is in play when it".
 
As an opposition player can’t encroach within 2-yards of the taker it can’t be playable as soon as it’s left the takers hands.
 
What if a thrower chooses to thorow it before the opposition has a chance to retreat . Same concept as any other restart for required distance.
 
No exemption for not retreating on quickly taken throw-ins in the laws of the game?
Even if there were the high school definition wouldn’t make sense without additional qualifiers.

If he’s not jumping the throw is very unlikely to hit him anyway.
 
one said:
I don't really like introducing a new term/concept (playable) into the law or changing the wording for the sake of it. Simple is best if it works. What's there should suffice but if we really need further clarification all needs to be added is "leaves the thrower's hands and" after "The ball is in play when it".
Click to expand...
Except it isn't just for the sake of it - it's for the sake of avoiding the contradiction inherent in saying, "The ball is in play when it enters the field of play," when (as others have pointed out in the past) if the player's hands are still in contact with the ball at this point, it could be argued that a handling offence has occurred.

I had thought of using wording such as you suggest but the problem there is that you are then contradicting the provisions of Law 9. By expressing it not in terms of when the ball is in play but when it is playable, you avoid either contradiction.
 
Any contradiction with Law 9 will be consistent with other contradictions. If Law 9 was the overriding one (or could not be contradicted) then if the ball is on the field of play, its in play even if the referee has stopped the game. My head hurts even thinking about that last sentence :)
 
JH said:
Throw-in is a restart
Throw-in was prevented
YC for delaying the restart
Simples
Click to expand...

The referee believed that the ball was in play, therefore the restart happened and nothing was delayed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top