Distraction by attacker during play

[RobOda]

This is such a confusing one for me, (for obvious reasons), as I've never really seen it in any of my matches, even when I'm on A/R duty.

Yet, I've had players and coaches feel that calling 'mine' is an offence etc.

 

[socal lurker]

I agree that it is a mandatory caution.
But law 12 specifically states IDFK for "other verbal offences" so I don't particularly agree with why you suggest no caution is wrong in law.
Horses for courses I suppose.

I think you need history on that verbal offenses to give it context. When they added offenses against refs as DFK, some argued that dissent or OFFINABUS were now DFKs. The “other verbal” was intended to clarify that verbal (non-physical) offenses could only be IFKs, not to envision verbal offenses umnetuoned in the Laws that refs could come up with on their own. It is wrong in law to give an IFK for verbal distraction without giving a caution.

(One could, I suppose, stop play, decide it wasn’t enough to warrant a caution, and so give a DB back to the team that had the ball. That can be rationalized, is still but playing fast and loose with the law, too.)

 

[socal lurker]

This is such a confusing one for me, (for obvious reasons), as I've never really seen it in any of my matches, even when I'm on A/R duty.

Yet, I've had players and coaches feel that calling 'mine' is an offence etc.

I’ve had it once or twice—it’s the kinda thing that is so blatant when you need to call it that it’s hard to miss.

 

[one]

I think you need history on that verbal offenses to give it context. When they added offenses against refs as DFK, some argued that dissent or OFFINABUS were now DFKs. The “other verbal” was intended to clarify that verbal (non-physical) offenses could only be IFKs, not to envision verbal offenses umnetuoned in the Laws that refs could come up with on their own. It is wrong in law to give an IFK for verbal distraction without giving a caution.

(One could, I suppose, stop play, decide it wasn’t enough to warrant a caution, and so give a DB back to the team that had the ball. That can be rationalized, is still but playing fast and loose with the law, too.)

Isn't it wonderful that one needs a history lesson in order to be able to apply a low correctly.

If it is any consolation we have had this discussion at least 3 times since that bit of law was put in place. The last time was around that, a referee made up new 'verbal offences' because of it.

 

[ComeOnRef]

I've only ever had one caution for verbally distracting an opponent.
Striker running towards defender, defender screams (literally screams in his face) striker lost control of the ball in hesitation and raised his hands up to stop running into him, defender puts the ball out for a throw in.
Striker headbutts him in retaliation. YC for Defender RC for Striker.
Madness.

 

[JamesL]

Isn't it wonderful that one needs a history lesson in order to be able to apply a low correctly.

If it is any consolation we have had this discussion at least 3 times since that bit of law was put in place. The last time was around that, a referee made up new 'verbal offences' because of it.

Tbh I don't need a history lesson. I am fully aware that verbally distracting an opponent is a caution.
I am also aware the restart is IDFK. I just disagreed with how we rusty described why an IDFK on its own would be wrong in law. I agreed it was wrong.
Verbally distract = caution and IDFK.

 

[one]

Fair enough. But to be clear that was not a dig at you @JamesL . I for one in the past, and know others, in many cases have misinterpreted the laws because it was not worded the best way and could only know 'the spirit of it' if known the history of it.

Many of these are being fixed in recent years. A good example I can think of is goalkeepers not being sanctioned for handling related offences. But at the same rate many new ones are being introduced.