Little things

[Will Triffitt]

Hi guys, I was wondering if you could help me. In this last season of refereeing, I have noticed that there seem to be quite a few "niggley fouls". For example, pushing when cha;llenging for the ball and kicking the back of the players legs when they are chasing the ball. What classes as a foul? How bad does something need to be? I know you have the 10 penal offences in the LOTG and the off ball offences that class as an indirect free kick but what can you penalise people for and how can you make sure that you see the vast majority of these little offences and punish them appropriately. Thanks!!!

 

[Martiju]

Hi Will. A lot of it depends on the temperature of the game and personally I try and clamp down on these kinds of things early on to avoid them getting out of control. I know what you mean though, and remind myself that it is a contact sport - but only when players are making genuine attempts for the ball. Basically then, my advice is to watch for these early, call the FK every time if needs be, and hopefully it calms it down. If it doesn't you can discuss with the captains then escalate. Bottom line is that it's your call - if it looks like a foul and sounds like a foul, it's a foul!

 

[Will Triffitt]

Hi Will. A lot of it depends on the temperature of the game and personally I try and clamp down on these kinds of things early on to avoid them getting out of control. I know what you mean though, and remind myself that it is a contact sport - but only when players are making genuine attempts for the ball. Basically then, my advice is to watch for these early, call the FK every time if needs be, and hopefully it calms it down. If it doesn't you can discuss with the captains then escalate. Bottom line is that it's your call - if it looks like a foul and sounds like a foul, it's a foul!

Thanks a lot!

 

[AlexF]

Remember that there are "three" levels of contact (four really, but humour me for a moment):

1. Careless
2. Reckless
3. Excessive Force

For seven of the penal fouls, those determine the level of the foul.

Now, having said that, in the Laws of the past (removed for "simplification") it stated that referees should not whistle for "trifling" contact. So, in short, a bit of niggly contact may not actually move past that "trifling" level up to "careless", and the contact must be "careless" at a minimum in order to actually become a foul.

I know -- verbiage that really doesn't say much -- but the short version is "you'll leave to know it when you see it".

 

[Kes]

The thing to remember is that over the course of a match, these "niggly little things" can have an accumulative effect on the attitude of players and increase frustration if complaints about these things ("Come on ref, he was all over me there!!") are seen to be ignored. It's part and parcel of what makes our job very difficult at times, and whatever your call, you're going to upset at least 11 of them. The key is consistency I suppose, but it's often difficult for it not to appear as if you're simply reacting to player demands/appeals if you go too far with the whistle.
If in doubt, it's probably best to penalise early on rather than let things go. You can always show a bit more leniency as the game progresses if it's appropriate to do so.

 

[Will Triffitt]

Another thing is an incident I that had in a youth game at the weekend. A player (red 7) played a lovely through ball to red 9. However, red 9 was in an offside position. As the ball was travelling towards the number 9, yellow 4 made very hard and late challenge (worthy of a yellow card) on red 7. I gave a freekick for the foul but red 9 was offside. Which do you give. The asisstant ref gave the offside, I gave the fould. The defending team weren't happy with me but the attacking team were. What would have been the correct decision to make?

 

[Russell Jones]

Sounds like you got this one spot on as it appears that the foul occurred before the Red 9 was actually offside (rather than was simply standing in an offside position). The AR did his job in giving the offside but you're penalising the first offence.

Equally, if the offside had in fact happened first, you'd still have been within your rights to penalise that offence but also still show the YC to the Yellow 4 for the late challenge

 

[Markt]

You were right to penalise the foul. The late challenge is a more serious offense than the offside, and when there are two offenses committed at the same time you penalise the more serious.
If you'd already stopped play before the challenge came in it could well be a red card rather than a yellow (obviously depending upon the relative distances / times / force involved), because a player putting in a hard challenge on an opponent who doesn't have the ball is asking to be sent off for excessive force. The opponent would not be expecting the challenge so it would hurt more. Since the ball is not involved it would probably be VC rather than SFP.
You should generally avoid use of advantage when the offender is being cautioned, so even if the attacker hadn't been offside you should probably still have stopped play to caution the player. In that case the roles would have been reversed, with the defending team being happy with you but the attacking team not so!
The assistant is there to assist and should have been watching for the offside so probably wouldn't have seen the foul. Hopefully he dropped the flag as soon as you stopped play and awarded the free kick. Club assistants don't seem to get this and resolutely keep the flag up to drop you in it.

 

[AlexF]

You were right to penalise the foul. The late challenge is a more serious offense than the offside, and when there are two offenses committed at the same time you penalise the more serious.

You're confusing things a bit here.

When there are two fouls committed by the same team, you penalize the most serious. When there are things for either team, you penalize the first.

My reading of the situation is that the player in offside position was interfering with play by impacting/interfering with the defender, forcing the defender to make the poor tackle.

Based on that, offside is the thing that stops the play, so IFK for the defensive team, but a caution for the reckless tackle (by description) to the defender.

If the defender tackled the player in offside position, but the ball was "not near them" at the time, then penalizing the play with a direct free kick to the attacking team is the right thing to do.

If you'd already stopped play before the challenge came in it could well be a red card rather than a yellow (obviously depending upon the relative distances / times / force involved), because a player putting in a hard challenge on an opponent who doesn't have the ball is asking to be sent off for excessive force. The opponent would not be expecting the challenge so it would hurt more.

If a tackle is reckless if the ball is in play, it's still reckless if the ball is not in play. Don't confuse what the opponent is expecting and where the ball is with what the level of force involved is. There are fairly well defined definitions of each level of force in the Laws, and those don't change if the ball is not in play.

Since the ball is not involved it would probably be VC rather than SFP.

To be more precise, the play has been stopped in this case.

You should generally avoid use of advantage when the offender is being cautioned, so even if the attacker hadn't been offside you should probably still have stopped play to caution the player. In that case the roles would have been reversed, with the defending team being happy with you but the attacking team not so!

Again, some confusion here -- avoid use of advantage when you're sending someone off (unless the ball is literally going into the goal). For cautions, it's fine -- just communicate. For example, in this case, if the attacker was not offside and was in alone on the GK, just use something like "#4, I'm coming back for you... play on, advantage!"

 

[Kes]

My reading of the situation is that the player in offside position was interfering with play by impacting/interfering with the defender, forcing the defender to make the poor tackle.

Then I think you're the only one that reads it that way Alex. ?
Will clearly says that the defender committing the foul, fouled No7, but the pass was played through to No 9 who was offside.

It's a clear and straightforward call since he also says the foul was committed as the ball was travelling towards the No 9. No 9 isn't offside until he receives the ball anyway. (?).

Good call Will. Sounds to me like you got the decision spot on.

 

[AlexF]

By the interpretation clarification, he's interfering with the defender while in an offside position and the ball was coming to them. He does NOT need to touch the ball, merely interfere with the defender.

So... if the ball is "near"* to them, then it's an offside offence. If the ball has just been kicked and is still many yards downfield, then it's not an offside offence at all.

* Referee to determine precisely what "near" is, of course.

 

[Kes]

By the interpretation clarification, he's interfering with the defender while in an offside position and the ball was coming to them. He does NOT need to touch the ball, merely interfere with the defender.

So... if the ball is "near"* to them, then it's an offside offence. If the ball has just been kicked and is still many yards downfield, then it's not an offside offence at all.

* Referee to determine precisely what "near" is, of course.

Mate, he doesn't mention the word "near" at all. (Well, not that I can see?) That's the bit you appear to have made up for yourself. There's nothing ambiguous about his post in any way. ?

 

[PP62]

Alex, Will clearly stated that red 7 passed the ball and was then fouled by yellow 4 as the ball was travelling to red 9. The fact red 9 was in an offside position is irrelevant as he didn't have any impact on yellow 4's decision to commit to a tackle after the ball had gone. Yellow card for yellow 4.

 

[Will Triffitt]

Alex, Will clearly stated that red 7 passed the ball and was then fouled by yellow 4 as the ball was travelling to red 9. The fact red 9 was in an offside position is irrelevant as he didn't have any impact on yellow 4's decision to commit to a tackle after the ball had gone. Yellow card for yellow 4.

Yeah. The pass was straight foraward one that a 5 year old could have done. There were players around but it was a clear pass from the midfielder to the attacker - no deflections or anything. No defenders were impacting the atacking team (apart from the tackle) and the same the other way

 

[AlexF]

Yah, by "near" I'm more throwing that consideration out that the ball is getting to playing distance for the PIOP.

If that's the case (that the ball is near), then that player is interfering and the defender has committed to a tackle to attempt to get the ball away/etc. Thus... offside (with misconduct).

If the ball is, as I noted above, still a considerable distance and the tackle is for no apparent reason, then it's clearly going to be a foul and no offside.

 

[Peter Grove]

By the interpretation clarification, he's interfering with the defender while in an offside position and the ball was coming to them.

There is absolutely no indication in Will's original description or in any of his subsequent posts, that the PIOP interfered with an opponent, no matter which of the current interpretations or clarifications you use. All he says is that the ball was headed towards a PIOP. There is no mention whatsoever of where this player was in relation to the opposition. So how you can say he was interfering with an opponent when we don't even know that he was within 50 yards of an opponent, is beyond me.

In relation to an offence occurring while a player is in an offside position, previous FIFA Q&A's had a couple of scenarios. Although neither of them exactly match the scenario here, they are somewhat analogous. If you are one of those who believe that such previous rulings can be looked to for guidance then you may find these interesting.

Q. The ball is played to a player in an offside position by a team-mate, but a defending player touches it deliberately with his hand. What action does the referee take?
A. If, in the opinion of the referee, the player in the offside position should be penalised for being in an offside position, he will award offside and restart the match with an indirect free kick .
However, if in the referee’s opinion, the player should not be penalised for being in an offside position, a direct free kick, or a penalty kick, will be awarded against the player who handled the ball.

Q. An attacker in an offside position inside his opponents’ penalty area but not involved in active play is violently struck by an opponent. What action does the referee take?
A. The opponent is sent off for violent conduct and a penalty kick is awarded.

 

[AlexF]

Re: FIFA Q&A -- precisely. That's what I was trying to get at. I'd forgotten that they'd actually codified that a number of years back.

I did come across a clip from a recent match that shows the "offside, but caution to the defender" play quite nicely:

Again though, I agree -- if that ball is "miles away", then foul against the defender. But as soon as you deem that PIOP is interfering/etc, then the offside offence is committed, and you get a situation much like the one in the video here.