LOTG promotion test

[Trip]

I've just done this test and there was a question on it I can't work out the answer to even having had the opportunity to consult the book.

I can't remember the exact wording but the gist is that a player asks permission to leave the FOP, permission is granted, and before he's left the ball comes towards him and he kicks it away.

None of the answer options are 'play on'. What's the correct sanction (if any) and restart?

 

[one]

DFK/PEN and caution.

 

[Trip]

I don't suppose you can remember where in the laws that is?

 

[one]

I'll look for restart but in would be in the interference section.

 

[Trip]

Yeah sorry, I should have said it was the restart I couldn't find.

 

[JamesL]

I don't think the exact scenario is covered. For me the player who has permission to leave now requires permission to return so should be dealt with in accordance law 3 section 8 players outside of field of play.
Such a rare occurrence that permission would be given to leave with the ball in play. In 8/9 years I don't think it's ever happened.

 

[socal lurker]

I think it should be an IFK--the player hasn't left the field yet.

Such a rare occurrence that permission would be given to leave with the ball in play. In 8/9 years I don't think it's ever happened.

I've seen it with a bloody nose. It could also occur if permission is requested while play is stopped, and the R doesn't wait for him to be off the field before permitting the restart.

 

[Trip]

I don't think the exact scenario is covered.

Yeah that's what I suspected. Cheers.

Here's another one I am struggling to find an answer to:

"In the IFAB laws of the game there are how many roles of Match Officials that are referred to?"

Possible answers are 5, 6, 7 or 8. This wording is exact - one of my fellow promotion candidates took a screenshot.

 

[JamesL]

Law 6

 

[JamesL]

It could also occur if permission is requested while play is stopped, and the R doesn't wait for him to be off the field before permitting the restart.

I don't think play should be restarted until he has left. If he is leaving, then he becomes an extra person on field of play.

I think it should be an IFK--the player hasn't left the field yet.

What makes you think IFK? Pretty much all other scenarios involving, player, sub, team official would be a DFK.
As this isn't specifically covered in law I think we have to find a close/similar fit to other offences to find the elusive "what does football expect"

 

[socal lurker]

I don't think play should be restarted until he has left. If he is leaving, then he becomes an extra person on field of play.

I understand what you are saying, but I can't think of anything in the LOTG that says that if a player asks to leave the FOP the R has to wait for him to leave before restarting. It is probably best practice, but I don't think it is actually best practice--this is different from a sub or a sent off player.

What makes you think IFK? Pretty much all other scenarios involving, player, sub, team official would be a DFK.
As this isn't specifically covered in law I think we have to find a close/similar fit to other offences to find the elusive "what does football expect"

It's a caution to a player on the field of play for USB--that's an IFK. The fact that non-players can create DFK (yet another recent IFAB solution in search of a problem) doesn't change how a player is sanctioned. I don't think anyone expects a DFK (heck, I don't think anyone other than refs expects a DFK when a sub does something . . . )

 

[JamesL]

I understand what you are saying, but I can't think of anything in the LOTG that says that if a player asks to leave the FOP the R has to wait for him to leave before restarting. It is probably best practice, but I don't think it is actually best practice--this is different from a sub or a sent off player.

It's a caution to a player on the field of play for USB--that's an IFK. The fact that non-players can create DFK (yet another recent IFAB solution in search of a problem) doesn't change how a player is sanctioned. I don't think anyone expects a DFK (heck, I don't think anyone other than refs expects a DFK when a sub does something . . . )

There are lots of usb offences that aren't idfk so I don't think we automatically say usb is idfk
For me, all other instances of player interference when not allowed is DFK so I think logic says this situation follows that principle.
Although I agree that maybe the muggles might not think in that way.

 

[socal lurker]

There are lots of usb offences that aren't idfk [1]so I don't think we automatically say usb is idfk.
For me, all other instances of player interference when not allowed is DFK.
Although I agree that maybe the muggles might not think in that way.

The indirect is the default in Law 12 for "any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player." It's an IFK unless something in the Laws specifies that it is a DFK--and nothing that I'm aware of does. I don't think you get to analogize here to things you think are similar--Law 12 says it is an IFK if a DFK is not specified.

The best argument for a DFK would be Law 8--but that requires the player awaiting permission to "re-enter the field." Our player in this scenario did not re-enter the field, he was still making his way off of it.

(IFAB has definitely made this whole subject a lot more complicated over the last few years--the flurry of DFK additions do nothing, IMO, to improve the game, but become much harder to keep track of. Someone must have seen or imagined unfair scenarios and felt the need to "fix" the "only IFK" problem but IMO mostly created extra muck to try to keep track of.)

 

[Trip]

Law 6

Law 6 is the other match officials, and even if we assume the question means them, there's nothing about 'roles'. Maybe I'm being dim.

 

[one]

As mentioned above the restart scenario is not directly covered. However I agree with @JamesL on the reasoning/logic behind the restart. In fact I thought it was fairly obvious and there wont be much debate about it.

The fact there is explicit clause on cautioning the player, it implies the player is considered a "temporarily off the field of play" player from the moment permission is granted to leave the filed of play. Law 3.8 (I have removed some wording to summaries):

"If a player who requires the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play re-enters... the referee must ... stop play ... if the player ... interfere with play. caution the player...
...play...must be restarted with a direct free kick from the position of the interference"

Note there is also a caution here, but it is not IFK. Because play was not stopped for the specific (and only) reason of cautioning the player for re-entering which would have made it an IFK restart. It was stopped for the offence of interference which is a DFK restart. The OP offence is also an interference offence which has a DFK restart.

 

[socal lurker]

As mentioned above the restart scenario is not directly covered. However I agree with @JamesL on the reasoning/logic behind the restart. In fact I thought it was fairly obvious and there wont be much debate about it.

The fact there is explicit clause on cautioning the player, it implies the player is considered a "temporarily off the field of play" player from the moment permission is granted to leave the filed of play. Law 3.8 (I have removed some wording to summaries):

"If a player who requires the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play re-enters... the referee must ... stop play ... if the player ... interfere with play. caution the player...
...play...must be restarted with a direct free kick from the position of the interference"

Note there is also a caution here, but it is not IFK. Because play was not stopped for the specific (and only) reason of cautioning the player for re-entering which would have made it an IFK restart. It was stopped for the offence of interference which is a DFK restart. The OP offence is also an interference offence which has a DFK restart.

I understand the argument, but disagree with your conclusion. Our player did not "re-enter." You may be right about IFAB meant--they hardly have a good history of saying what they mean clearly. But I think this is a pretty crappy test question.

 

[one]

Yeah that's what I suspected. Cheers.

Here's another one I am struggling to find an answer to:

"In the IFAB laws of the game there are how many roles of Match Officials that are referred to?"

Possible answers are 5, 6, 7 or 8. This wording is exact - one of my fellow promotion candidates took a screenshot.

This is a poor question IMO. OK for a trivia night, but for a LOTG test maybe not . EDIT: just as good/bad question would be, what page is law 6 in the IFAB laws of the game?

Just like many other lotg questions you would have to guess what they mean by the question. I suspect they mean counting this and including the referee as well. That should make 7 the right answer.

"Other match officials (two assistant referees, fourth official, two additional
assistant referees, reserve assistant referee, video assistant referee (VAR) and
at least one assistant VAR (AVAR)) may be appointed to matches."

 

[socal lurker]

Law 6 is the other match officials, and even if we assume the question means them, there's nothing about 'roles'. Maybe I'm being dim.

"Who cares?" seems to be the best response. Unless you're reffing professionally, most of the roles are irrelevant and a waste of time to think about. But I think the answer is R, AR, 4O, AAR, RAR, VAR, AVAR. So I think the answer they are looking for is 7.

I can't say I'm impressed by the test questions. I've always thought that test questions should focus on key issues or things that are important to think about. I don't think either of these two do that.

 

[one]

I understand the argument, but disagree with your conclusion. Our player did not "re-enter." You may be right about IFAB meant--they hardly have a good history of saying what they mean clearly. But I think this is a pretty crappy test question.

Yeah. That's is why I put the emphasis on the offence being 'interference'. Agree about being a crappy test question. A good test question should have a clear answer in the LOTG and there should only be one way a reader can interpret the question or the LOTG answer.

 

[bester]

If the touch also stopped a promising attack would it be a double yellow?

If the interference was a reckless tackle would it be a double yellow?