A&H

Kicking the ball away

i hope what is said at this meeting corresponds to what is said at the pool meeting next month so that we're both working from the same set of interpretations/assumptions!
Don't worry, some of the Observers will be at both - I definitely will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
The Referee Store
You can normally tell by the player's body language as well as what is happening in the game. A player from the losing side, or even with the scores even unless his team are major underdogs, is hardly likely to try and delay the restart. In my experience where it is dissent the ball tends to travel much further as it is kicked in anger, whereas when delaying the restart players often try to get away with it by kicking it relatively small distances

What everybody will want is consistency! Better to think about this before the season than 2 weeks in.
 
Cant speak for what's going to be but i showed quite a few cards for kicking the ball away, its usually petulantly done and an easy card to administer.....generally once you've dished one out it stops it from being done again too!!!
 
where it is dissent the ball tends to travel much further as it is kicked in anger,
If he's kicked the ball away because he doesn't like your decision (ie doesn't think it was a foul) then I'm going dissent.
So a stationary striker in offside position (only just) receives the ball from a team mate. You call offside. He kicks the ball away into the stands (or the next suburb) clearly in anger about your decision. He is already on a yellow. The comp uses sin bin. What is your decision?
 
So a stationary striker in offside position (only just) receives the ball from a team mate. You call offside. He kicks the ball away into the stands (or the next suburb) clearly in anger about your decision. He is already on a yellow. The comp uses sin bin. What is your decision?
He gets a caution for dissent and a sin bin
 
So a stationary striker in offside position (only just) receives the ball from a team mate. You call offside. He kicks the ball away into the stands (or the next suburb) clearly in anger about your decision. He is already on a yellow. The comp uses sin bin. What is your decision?
Is his team winning? If yes, he has delayed the restart. If no, then he might have committed an act of dissent.
 
Then there's already a big disparity in what tutors and course-leaders are teaching
Who are these "course leaders"? Anyone delivering the Temporary Dismissal workshops should have attended a webinar from Mark Ives and preferably be trained as an Affiliate Tutor specialising in refereeing.
 
Is his team winning? If yes, he has delayed the restart. If no, then he might have committed an act of dissent.
I appreciate that you are using "what football expects" here. But from LOTG view point, it doesn't say "A player is cautioned if guilty of: delaying the restart of play with intent to do so". or "if his team is winning" If a player commits the offence, he is guilty of it. If you want to teach it the way you put it, it is your prerogative but it is technically not in accordance with the laws of the game. What the player has done is dissent by action as well as delayed the restart of play at the same time. The correct LOTG decision is to punish the more serious offence. In the past it made no difference. But now that we have sin bin, sometimes DTROP is the correct decision until there is a law change to say otherwise.

On a separate note, I would not use "if team is winning" as a criteria for DTROP. I used an example in post 12 when a loosing team wants to delay the restart. Another example is a losing team doing it for defenders to get back in a counter attack.
 
The correct LOTG decision is to punish the more serious offence. In the past it made no difference. But now that we have sin bin, sometimes DTROP is the correct decision until there is a law change to say otherwise.
Wow. I hadn't thought about it that way. But will that not create a massive inconsistency.
You are saying that in one game a player could launch it in to the next suburb and get a sin bin.
In the same game another player could commit the same offence but be sent off for SBO.
Are you not punishing the outcome rather than the action there? Is it really a simultaneous offence?
There are times where it might be but is it not mostly one or the other?
 
Wow. I hadn't thought about it that way. But will that not create a massive inconsistency.
You are saying that in one game a player could launch it in to the next suburb and get a sin bin.
In the same game another player could commit the same offence action but be sent off for SBO.
Are you not punishing the outcome rather than the action there? Is it really a simultaneous offence?
There are times where it might be but is it not mostly one or the other?

I changed one word. Yes they are two offences at the same time (same action which can be interpreted as two different offences). The inconstancy and punishing the outcome is the nature of the "two offences at the same time" punishment and is an acceptable part of it. Although I would not use the term 'inconsistency'.

Lets look at another example of it. A careless push in a game is usually a DFK no sanction. in the same game a careless push which is also a DOGSO is now two offences at the same time. The more serious offence requires a send off (inconstancy?). Is the send off punishing the outcome? I think so. Other offences at the same time examples work similar. We simply accept this because it has been practiced and nothing new. In the case of sin bin Vs send off, it is a new concept and accepting the comparison raises questions. As I said earlier, the laws may well in the future say punish sin bin over SBO. But it does not say that now.
 
The correct LOTG decision is to punish the more serious offence. In the past it made no difference. But now that we have sin bin, sometimes DTROP is the correct decision until there is a law change to say otherwise.
But... they're not always two offences.

It's not always dissent. It's not always delaying the restart.

You, as a referee, have to be able to read what's happening/happened well enough to actually be able to figure out what just happened, and context tells you that.

It will always be one or the other... on rare occasions it might actually be both.
 
But... they're not always two offences.
Agreed

It's not always dissent. It's not always delaying the restart.
Agreed again. Read my posts further up. Start with post #9 and then this one which is post #36 you quoted is referring to.
So a stationary striker in offside position (only just) receives the ball from a team mate. You call offside. He kicks the ball away into the stands (or the next suburb) clearly in anger about your decision. He is already on a yellow. The comp uses sin bin. What is your decision?
This for me is dissent and delaying the restart.

It will always be one or the other... on rare occasions it might actually be both.
I think you are contradicting yourself there. :)
 
So a stationary striker in offside position (only just) receives the ball from a team mate. You call offside. He kicks the ball away into the stands (or the next suburb) clearly in anger about your decision. He is already on a yellow. The comp uses sin bin. What is your decision?

Either or, you have to play it by ear. If you think he has kicked the ball away in frsutration or anger at the offside decision then it is dissent, if you think he did it to delay the restart then it is that.
 
Back
Top