LOTG promotion test
- Thread starter Trip
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
Yes agree, nice find. I think the answer there is inconsistent with law 3. It's poor from IFAB (as usual) that they cover something in a q&A in an app but not in the published version of the LOTG.
I would say not. It is the same act that is the cause for both punishable offences. So this would fall under offences at the same time (and not in quick succession). For offences at the same time you sanction the more serious one, in this case they are the same sanction. As for the restart, it falls back to the one that has a restart defined for which according to Q&A is IFK.
I would say not. It is the same act that is the cause for both punishable offences. So this would fall under offences at the same time (and not in quick succession). For offences at the same time you sanction the more serious one, in this case they are the same sanction. As for the restart, it falls back to the one that has a restart defined for which according to Q&A is IFK.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
Not trying to change your mind on this because I don't think we would agree on it but making sure you know why I think it is inconsistent. We are not talking about the exact wording in LOTG here because it is not directly covered (Q&A is not part of the LOTG). We are talking about interpreting what is in the LOTG to cover a rare case.
From Law 3, player re-enters the field without permission. Referee stops play:
- Player has not interfered with play -> IFK
- Player has interfered with play (no other offence) -> DFK
The restart in point 1 is for a generic restart when paly is stopped to sanction a player. That restart can still apply even if the player interferes with play or anything else, unless there is a more severe punishment restart (such as CRUEF push of an opponent regardless of if it interfering with play directly). Why does point 2 have a DFK restart if the interference is not CRUEF? For me it is because, the act of interfering with play when you no longer should be involved (in this context) is a DFK offence (independent of re-entering). And that is more severe than the IFK from point 1 which still applies.
The act of interference (same context again), using the same logic, should still have a DFK punishment even if the player has not left the FOP yet.
The offence is mentioned in law though. It is listed as a usb so the clause of any other offence not mentioned in law can't be relied upon.
I don't ever recall seeing that a free kick is indirect unless a DFK is specified...
I'd like to see where in law 12.3 it says play is restarted with an IDFK.
I think this would be a simultaneous offence so SPA would still only be a caution but DOGSO would be red due to the punish the more serious offence clause
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
As I said, in more than one occasion, I have email responses from IFAB that contradicted or at least were inconsistent with LOTG.
I take those responses with a pinch of salt.
one
RefChat Addict
Not sure what your follow up email is but I would point out that according to their reasoning, interfering after entering without permission should also be IFK but the law clearly says DFK.
I think this is the issue of having a list of offences in law 3, when they should sit in law 12.
My response was:
"Many thanks for your response.
Can you please tell me where in law states that unsporting behaviour is an indirect free kick? In the list of unsporting behaviour there are multiple example of direct free kick offences and to the best of my knowledge no where is it implied that unsporting behaviour is idfk.
And is there any reason why this interference from a player who is not allowed to interfere differs from say a player who enters the field of play without permission and interferes?"
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Yeah, we're not going to agree . . . and IFAB says I'm right.
The Laws long were clear that misconduct without a foul was an IFK. That has been watered down some. I (and apparently IFAB) still read the default for misconduct being an IFK unless there is also a DFK foul or an offense specifically identified as a DFK for a particular kind of misconduct. I don't deny there is some logic in the parallel to the Law 3 discussion about re-entering the field (as I alluded to far above), but I (and apparently IFAB) believe it is slightly different in that the offense of reentering play is worse (often cynical) than a player who hasn't left the field yet after asking to leave. IFAB wanted to punish those who were actually off the field with a DFK, not those leaving the filed. (And you can't just say that the player is treated as off the field as soon as given permission--if that was the case, the Laws wouldn't have it as a species of USB, it would simply be re-entering.)
Nine times out of ten, the DFK/IFK isn't going to matter much on this as it most likely to occur near touch lines . . . but that 10th time in the PA is going to be fun for the ref . . .
But it sure would be nice if IFAB would stop dropping tidbits about misconduct in other Laws, and give us a well-written, consolidated vision of misconduct in Law 12. But that is obviously too much to ask.
Its ridiculous. They have just replied to say that it's idfk as play has been stopped for an offence not mentioned in law.Yeah, we're not going to agree . . . and IFAB says I'm right.
The Laws long were clear that misconduct without a foul was an IFK. That has been watered down some. I (and apparently IFAB) still read the default for misconduct being an IFK unless there is also a DFK foul or an offense specifically identified as a DFK for a particular kind of misconduct. I don't deny there is some logic in the parallel to the Law 3 discussion about re-entering the field (as I alluded to far above), but I (and apparently IFAB) believe it is slightly different in that the offense of reentering play is worse (often cynical) than a player who hasn't left the field yet after asking to leave. IFAB wanted to punish those who were actually off the field with a DFK, not those leaving the filed. (And you can't just say that the player is treated as off the field as soon as given permission--if that was the case, the Laws wouldn't have it as a species of USB, it would simply be re-entering.)
Nine times out of ten, the DFK/IFK isn't going to matter much on this as it most likely to occur near touch lines . . . but that 10th time in the PA is going to be fun for the ref . . .
But it sure would be nice if IFAB would stop dropping tidbits about misconduct in other Laws, and give us a well-written, consolidated vision of misconduct in Law 12. But that is obviously too much to ask.
However this cannot be the answer in any world as the offence is mentioned in the laws so @one ypu were bang on the money.
@socal lurker I accept that once upon a time such a concept existed. However, at present, it does not, nor is it implied anywhere in the current edition.
Ive said it a thousand times before the laws should be written in such a way as tomorrow's referees can pick up the book and apply what's written without having to also revise the previous 5 editions to understand why changes were made and how to apply a changed law that means something different without the explanation.
Also its not so much the concept of extra persons. Its all other examples a player interferes when they aren't allowed to is a DFK.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It's typical poor writing, but the misconduct/IFK has always meant for a offense for which a restart is not mentioned--there really is no misconduct not mentioned in Law as it has to be one of the listed reasons for misconduct for the R to give a caution or send off. (The language was actually more clear back in the days of Law XII.) Dissent is obviously mentioned in the Laws, but this language has historically been the reason that there is an IFK restart for dissent. The language got muddled when they decided to create DFKs for VC against referees. Poor drafting on that led to confusion as the language they used, literally, would have made dissent a DFK. Rather than fixing the language to say what they meant, the cure to that confusion was the language we now have on verbal misconduct always being an IFK.
I think it is clear (other may disagree) that IFAB always knew this was an IFK and had no intention for it to change when they added the DFK for miscreants running onto the field to interfere. That IFAB struggles for clarity in drafting is pretty well known.
I suspect that this made its way in to the Laws because it was seen as unfair, and the only way to stop play is to caution. As I recall (and I have not gone back to chase it down), this arose as a USB issue in the old Q&A--when USB was more discretionary/fluid and IFAB did not try to manage every possible scenario by adding an offense to the Laws. I agree a caution to a clueless player seems harsh--an IFK offense with a caution in the discretion of the referee it if was unsporting would make a lot of sense. But IFAB isn't adding referee discretion these days, its taking it away. And this almost never happens anyway.
