Distracting a Match Official during play

[TomThompson]

After making a judgement that an incident does not infringe the law (e.g. not to give a foul for a challenge) and so allowing play to continue, I often get players offering a brief opinion while the play continues. Having been a player in the lower leagues for many years I witnessed this quite often and it was usually ignored by the ref. I do the same. However there are cases when a player's comments persist, and while the content of what they are saying may relate to an incident, it may not be clear and obvious dissent. Such a case might be when a player wants to know how you came to your judgement. When such comments persist it can be distracting and if it is not challenged it may continue. In such cases I feel this warrants a break in play and a restart with a DFK against the offender. I feel this would be sanction enough, however I cannot find any room in the laws to do this without then cautioning the player for dissent. This would lead me into having to present the situation as dissent which would be hard to do.

Do other refs have a strategy within the law to deal with such in play "conversations" without resorting to dissent.

Thank you

 

[Tino Best]

A quick I'll talk when there is a break in play might help. Players tend to move on quite quick, but you can always explain at full time if the atmosphere is ok. I had a good 20 mins conversation with a GK who asked about some of my decisions it was friendly and non confrontational. But there are certainly times when this wouldn't be advisable!

 

[Padfoot]

My favourite c1 caution.....’shows a lack of respect for the game’......covers just about whatever you want it to......

 

[TomThompson]

My favourite c1 caution.....’shows a lack of respect for the game’......covers just about whatever you want it to......

Padfoot,
I like that one. I knew something was in there. I was doing a text search for "spirit", but found nothing applicable.
On the one hand it does not satisfy my want for a DFK but no caution, but on the other hand I think the situation fits this description so well i'll go with the caution.
Ta

 

[TomThompson]

A quick I'll talk when there is a break in play might help. Players tend to move on quite quick, but you can always explain at full time if the atmosphere is ok. I had a good 20 mins conversation with a GK who asked about some of my decisions it was friendly and non confrontational. But there are certainly times when this wouldn't be advisable!

Thanks Tino,
this a useful tool for the utility belt.
Ta

 

[JamesL]

Padfoot,
I like that one. I knew something was in there. I was doing a text search for "spirit", but found nothing applicable.
On the one hand it does not satisfy my want for a DFK but no caution, but on the other hand I think the situation fits this description so well i'll go with the caution.
Ta

It would have to be an idfk. 1 verbal offence are idfk and 2 its an idfk if the game is stopped for anything that is not mentioned in law.

 

[GraemeS]

As I said on another thread, my first response would be a short explaination: "Clean tackle", "not deliberate" (in the case of handball), "not enough there" - something like that to try and at least appear human! I have no problem doing that for pretty much every decision if required and it doesn't even register as a toe on the dissent ladder to me, however persistent.

If a player then queries further, I'd try and put him off until a break in play (or half/full time if you can!) and if that still doesn't stop him, a firm "not now player" counts as a final warning for me. Any more than that and I feel totally justified in stopping play for a caution, and associated IFK to restart things.

As I think the OP realises, a DFK without a card purely for chat is not an option - however you could take an opportunity to give a softer FK that you might otherwise let go or allow an advantage, in order to give you an opportunity to give a bollocking to the persistent complainer.

 

[Big Cat]

Stopping play for any verbals = IDFK and mandatory caution (C1, UB, C2)
Right?
No room in Law to just stop for a chin-wag...

 

[santa sangria]

Let’s talk at half time.
Let’s explain after the handshake.

 

[santa sangria]

dupe

 

[TomThompson]

It would have to be an idfk. 1 verbal offence are idfk and 2 its an idfk if the game is stopped for anything that is not mentioned in law.

Padfoot,
by verbal offence I assume you mean a case of dissent and not "verbal distraction" which the law only specifies as against an opponent.
If you mean dissent then, in respect of the restart, I noticed that a few years ago this part of the changed (though not entirely transparently).
section 4 of Law 12 specifies:
If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play
against:..
..a team-mate, substitute, substituted or sent off player, team official or a
match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick

I took this to include dissent and other referees I spoke to at the time confirmed my interpretation. This would imply that dissent->DFK and that unsporting behaviour -> idkf.

 

[JamesL]

Padfoot,
by verbal offence I assume you mean a case of dissent and not "verbal distraction" which the law only specifies as against an opponent.
If you mean dissent then, in respect of the restart, I noticed that a few years ago this part of the changed (though not entirely transparently).
section 4 of Law 12 specifies:
If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play
against:..
..a team-mate, substitute, substituted or sent off player, team official or a
match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick

I took this to include dissent and other referees I spoke to at the time confirmed my interpretation. This would imply that dissent->DKF and that unsporting behaviour -> idkf.

You're correct. But ifab issued a clarification to state that verbal offences were idfk and then updated the wording in the book.

I'll dig it out.

 

[JamesL]

Dont need the clarification, the laws now state:

Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or
gestures or other verbal offences

verbal distraction/distracting ref verbally idfk - it is your only option, even if you deem it to be unsporting the restart has to be indirect.

I do recall that the original rewrite mistakenly, addmitted by ifab, changed these offences todfk but issued a clarification and amended law.

 

[TomThompson]

Stopping play for any verbals = IDFK and mandatory caution (C1, UB, C2)
Right?
No room in Law to just stop for a chin-wag...

Cat,
it's the term "any verbals" that I struggle with...If the law said "any verbals" I wouldn't have raised the issue - cards akimbo!
There is a level of comment by players that is hard to pigeonhole as dissent. Where the boundary is, is different for everyone. When as a player I witnessed the over zealous application of dissent by a referee, I found that it antagonised a whole team (if not both) when just one player had originally had a niggling issue. It made the players feel (rightly or wrongly) like the ref was bringing too much ego to the equation.
Personally I feel that "verbal distraction" should be an offence that may be cautioned and not must be cautioned as the law states. It should also be extended to distracting referees, not just opponents

 

[Big Cat]

Dont need the clarification, the laws now state:

Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or
gestures or other verbal offences

verbal distraction/distracting ref verbally idfk - it is your only option, even if you deem it to be unsporting the restart has to be indirect.

I do recall that the original rewrite mistakenly, addmitted by ifab, changed these offences todfk but issued a clarification and amended law.

I'm sure there are many examples of 'non-specific law' being negated by 'more specific law'

 

[TomThompson]

Dont need the clarification, the laws now state:

Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or
gestures or other verbal offences

verbal distraction/distracting ref verbally idfk - it is your only option, even if you deem it to be unsporting the restart has to be indirect.

I do recall that the original rewrite mistakenly, addmitted by ifab, changed these offences todfk but issued a clarification and amended law.

Thank you James,
I think my quoted section went in in 16/17 and yours was added in 17/18...Shame really; I think offenses against match officials should be DFK. So if you take out dissent and Offinabus, what is left? Just VC I suppose. Any VC on me would restart with a an ARITC - "All rise in the court".
Ta

 

[Big Cat]

Cat,
it's the term "any verbals" that I struggle with...If the law said "any verbals" I wouldn't have raised the issue - cards akimbo!
There is a level of comment by players that is hard to pigeonhole as dissent. Where the boundary is, is different for everyone. When as a player I witnessed the over zealous application of dissent by a referee, I found that it antagonised a whole team (if not both) when just one player had originally had a niggling issue. It made the players feel (rightly or wrongly) like the ref was bringing too much ego to the equation.
Personally I feel that "verbal distraction" should be an offence that may be cautioned and not must be cautioned as the law states. It should also be extended to distracting referees, not just opponents

Accelerated path to losing respect is achieved by showing none by producing the confetti. It's a difficult balance, players are on our case for everything, but it's possible to communicate back in a manner which averts any dissent
Humor has its place. Sometimes acknowledging comments is better than blanking them
However, when players start poking and prodding for weakness, the retorts get blunter and shorter. "Enough", spoken with intent is typical of my warning stage; doesn't even need a stoppage

 

[lincs22]

@TomThompson - back to the original point of this thread.
1. Learn to ignore
2. If you need to tell them to will speak at the next stoppage.
3. Explain your decision, do not debate. Explain why gave /did not give the decision. Explain that their opinion is not required and further comment may be treated as dissent.
4. If there is too much if this from the team, grab the captain and explain all this questioning is undermining your control and you will start cautioning, if he cannot shut them up.

Following the above will show you have tried to engage and used the stepped approach. After this, caution is the only option,

 

[Big Cat]

@TomThompson - back to the original point of this thread.
1. Learn to ignore
2. If you need to tell them to will speak at the next stoppage.
3. Explain your decision, do not debate. Explain why gave /did not give the decision. Explain that their opinion is not required and further comment may be treated as dissent.
4. If there is too much if this from the team, grab the captain and explain all this questioning is undermining your control and you will start cautioning, if he cannot shut them up.

Following the above will show you have tried to engage and used the stepped approach. After this, caution is the only option,

Or
5. Scare the living daylights out of them by producing your avatar!

 

[Padfoot]

@TomThompson - back to the original point of this thread.
1. Learn to ignore
2. If you need to tell them to will speak at the next stoppage.
3. Explain your decision, do not debate. Explain why gave /did not give the decision. Explain that their opinion is not required and further comment may be treated as dissent.
4. If there is too much if this from the team, grab the captain and explain all this questioning is undermining your control and you will start cautioning, if he cannot shut them up.

Following the above will show you have tried to engage and used the stepped approach. After this, caution is the only option,

Or simply ignore the stepped approach and caution the first one that crosses your line.....the others will soon learn.

Why give them 4 or 5 bites of the Cherry before using the lemon?