IFAB says advantage can be played from incorrectly taken throw-in?

[GraemeS]

Yeah, I have no issue with someone who would argue that it's dissent by action or that it's delaying the restart by forcing the ball to be fetched and replaced for the kick to occur again. But I agree that mandatory caution feels incorrect, particularly for someone who genuinely thinks they've heard a whistle or heard you say that they can go when ready.

 

[JamesL]

This was an FA released LOTG test, and the question revolved around a player taking the free kick prior to the whistle. The correct answer was that the player should be cautioned.
It was something (from memory) along the lines of a 'a player is clearly told to wait for the whistle before taking a free kick, and then as the referee starts marking out the required distance and before giving the signal, the free kick is taken and goes in the goal - what is the correct outcome?'
The answer given was 'Disallow the goal, retake the free kick and caution the player that took it early.'

What the colleague found wasn't that section, it was something that says if a player takes a free kick before the whistle after being told it must be after the whistle, the player must be cautioned.

I recall the question. I was expecting it to be in a q&a but I can't find it.

The guidance to match officials says this:

If the referee wants the player(s) to wait for the whistle before restarting play (e.g. when ensuring that defending players are 9.15m (10 yd) from the ball at a free kick) the referee must clearly inform the attacking player(s) to wait for the whistle.

Googles AI says the above and says it should be a caution but then none of its sources say that it should be.

A caution is absolutely supportable in many circumstances but there will be edge cases I imagine where it shouldn't be cautioned.

 

[one]

This was an FA released LOTG test, and the question revolved around a player taking the free kick prior to the whistle. The correct answer was that the player should be cautioned.
It was something (from memory) along the lines of a 'a player is clearly told to wait for the whistle before taking a free kick, and then as the referee starts marking out the required distance and before giving the signal, the free kick is taken and goes in the goal - what is the correct outcome?'
The answer given was 'Disallow the goal, retake the free kick and caution the player that took it early.'

What the colleague found wasn't that section, it was something that says if a player takes a free kick before the whistle after being told it must be after the whistle, the player must be cautioned.

This is a free kick and as explained above it's not mandatory. When cautioned, it would be for dissent and not for breach of free kick procedure.
It raises an interesting new question which is not the same as the OP. It can be for CFK but for PK,
If the taker takes the penalty shot before the signal from the referee and kicks it wide, can we play advantage and count it as a miss?

 

[RefereeX]

This is a free kick and as explained above it's not mandatory. When cautioned, it would be for dissent and not for breach of free kick procedure.
It raises an interesting new question which is not the same as the OP. It can be for CFK but for PK,
If the taker takes the penalty shot before the signal from the referee and kicks it wide, can we play advantage and count it as a miss?

I know it’s a free kick, that’s what I said originally, but if it’s for a free kick, there’s no logical reason that a penalty kick would be different.

It may not be explicitly mandated in the law book, but I’m telling you that the English FA have described it this way in a laws of the game test which counts towards promotion and suggested a caution is mandatory. I answered retake free kick and no sanction and I got it wrong.

 

[socal lurker]

I am all but positive that there was guidance that a caution was to be given for a second time kicking before the whistle, not the first. (I’ve always thought it should be situational and based on judgment—was it a o,Ayer being convpfused or over excited on one hand, or being a knucklehead?)

 

[socal lurker]

It raises an interesting new question which is not the same as the OP. It can be for CFK but for PK,
If the taker takes the penalty shot before the signal from the referee and kicks it wide, can we play advantage and count it as a miss?

Before the big rewrite that introduced the whistle into the Laws for thr first time, including making it mandatory for PKs, the Laws said the referee would signal. It was a common interpretation on an early taken and missed PK that the ref must have done something to signal and therefore it was a miss.

 

[Archer]

Was observed last night and it was specifically mentioned (in a chat about ceremonial DFKs) that after telling the taker “restart on my whistle” if they do so beforehand… caution and reset.

Funny how these things pop up.

 

[ARF]

Can someone write to ifab with this scenario and ask for a decision.

Just seen in a referee group on FB that someone emailed IFAB about it:

Law 5 states:
The referee
(…)
• allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds
Within the spirit of the Law, an incorrect throw-in (where the ball enters the field of play) can be considered an offence and thus advantage can be applied.
Best regards, The IFAB

 

[one]

I originally used some unkind words but I have toned it down a bit.

Honestly at the time I wrote that post I had anticipated that answer. It's getting boring now that every time ifab comes up with an answer that does not make sense, they use the spirit of the law to justify it.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Yes as we could just as easily say that within the spirit of the law an incorrect throw-in can be considered not an offence. But their post is far more definitively worded than their explanation!