Would it not fall in the category of striking an opponent??
IFAB Circular 11
- Thread starter Peter Grove
- Start date
@santa sangria All of that is spot on. Wouldn't be averse to the 4th official having a small screen though which he could use to supplement his view, would solve most of the problems.
From Law 12:
"If a player standing on or off the field of play throws an object (including the ball) at an opposing player, substitute, substituted or sent off player, or team official, match official or the ball, play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the object struck or would have struck the person or the ball. If this position is off the field of play, the free kick is taken on the nearest point on the boundary line; a penalty kick is awarded if this is within the offender’s penalty area.
If a substitute, substituted or sent off player, player temporarily off the field of play or team official throws or kicks an object onto the field of play and it interferes with play, an opponent or match official, play is restarted with a direct free kick (or penalty kick) where the object interfered with play or struck or would have struck the opponent, match official or the ball. "
The second paragraph includes the phrase 'or kicks an object'. Peculiarly, however, the first paragraph refers only to the throwing of an object. Is this an oversight, or is there a critical difference between the two situations?
I think there was a discussion on here some time ago about whether spitting and throwing objects (ball, glove, shinguard, boot etc.) on the field of play are equivalent to striking offences. There are several sentences in law 12 clarifying that you restart 'where the object would have struck the opponent'. But this seems not to cover situations in which a player throws something in no particular direction (unspecified unsporting behaviour if it doesn't interfere with play?) or in which the throw/kick lacks the force to strike its target.
"If a player standing on or off the field of play throws an object (including the ball) at an opposing player, substitute, substituted or sent off player, or team official, match official or the ball, play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the object struck or would have struck the person or the ball. If this position is off the field of play, the free kick is taken on the nearest point on the boundary line; a penalty kick is awarded if this is within the offender’s penalty area.
If a substitute, substituted or sent off player, player temporarily off the field of play or team official throws or kicks an object onto the field of play and it interferes with play, an opponent or match official, play is restarted with a direct free kick (or penalty kick) where the object interfered with play or struck or would have struck the opponent, match official or the ball. "
The second paragraph includes the phrase 'or kicks an object'. Peculiarly, however, the first paragraph refers only to the throwing of an object. Is this an oversight, or is there a critical difference between the two situations?
I think there was a discussion on here some time ago about whether spitting and throwing objects (ball, glove, shinguard, boot etc.) on the field of play are equivalent to striking offences. There are several sentences in law 12 clarifying that you restart 'where the object would have struck the opponent'. But this seems not to cover situations in which a player throws something in no particular direction (unspecified unsporting behaviour if it doesn't interfere with play?) or in which the throw/kick lacks the force to strike its target.
Last edited:
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Maybe the Law starts from the premise that ON the FOP there shouldn't be random objects lying around waiting to be kicked! Whereas off the FOP the existence of water bottles, subs boards etc etc is entirely to be expected ....
OK - so "If a substitute, substituted or sent off player, player temporarily off the field of play or team official throws or kicks an object onto the field of play and it interferes with play, an opponent or match official, play is restarted with a direct free kick (or penalty kick) where the object interfered with play or struck or would have struck the opponent, match official or the ball. " So there is no law against throwing or kicking an object onto the field if it doesn't interfere with play.... And there is no law against another player kicking that object or any foreign object at an opposing player, substitute, substituted or sent off player, or team official, match official or the ball.
Technically I agree with you, but I guess you could caution for UB? Particularly if they’re trying to gain an advantage and make the ball deflect off something (which then doesn’t interfere with play). Easy enough to sell I think.
Yes, if the object genuinely doesn't interfere with play, I guess no offence has been committed. If a player keeps doing this deliberately, though, I venture that it would warrant a USB caution at a stoppage in play. Moreover, since the law asserts that the object need not actually strike a player/match official/ball, I would argue that occasions where there is no interference are relatively few.
On your second point, I think that part of the law almost certainly extends to kicking an object at an opponent, substitute, team official or the ball. I cannot see the logic of denying that. Perhaps, as Russell has suggested, it is just far less likely that such objects will be on the field.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I think this is a situation where we have to read between the lines (and/or use a 'spirit of the game' interpretation). Despite the fact that the two paragraphs refer to different categories of participant, I think a major distinction here is between throwing (or by analogy, kicking) an object at another participant and throwing or kicking an object onto the field that was not directed at anyone. If the object is directed at someone, I would say the principle in the first paragraph applies whether it strikes them or not and it is only if it was not directed at an individual that we should ignore it unless it interferes with play. It's just my opinion but I think that's a better interpretation than saying that just because the law is written in such a clumsy way that it doesn't actually state it in so many words, it's OK for a player to kick an object at another participant unless it also interferes with play.
For me, such an interpretation would fall within the purview of the statement that:
For me, such an interpretation would fall within the purview of the statement that:
OK - so If a substitute, substituted or sent off player, player temporarily off the field of play or team official throws or kicks an object onto the field of play and it interferes with play, an opponent or match official, play is restarted with a direct free kick (or penalty kick) where the object interfered with play or struck or would have struck the opponent, match official or the ball. " So there is no law against throwing or kicking an object onto the field if it doesn't interfere with play.... And there is no law against another player kicking that object or any foreign object at an opposing player, substitute, substituted or sent off player, or team official, match official or the ball.
Having set that particular hare running, I'd be quite happy with UB or VC (if enough force was used) for kicking something at someone (e.g. the manager kicking a boot at a player and cutting an eyelid.... gosh, that's 14 years ago!)