LOTG promotion test
- Thread starter Trip
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
What did the exam think the right answer was?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think it is a problem of the drafting process that there so often seem to be things that you need to know some of the history to fully understand. And that has long been an issue in the Laws, which could gloss over things that "everyone knows." (In years past, that led to the US's Advice to Referees, which (mostly, but not always successfully) tried to collect the things that everyone knows or that IFAB said in a memo or circular at some time in the past, as so many folks becoming soccer referees in the US didn't have extensive background with the Game.)
Caution and IFK. But given that another question (own goal 'scored' from goal kick) definitely had no correct answers (the 'correct' one mentioned the ball only being live after it's left the PA) I wouldn't put too much faith in that.
Correct answer would be a corner kick. Before, if the ball hadn't left the PA, it would have been retaken.
one
RefChat Addict
Play continues (no retake). Ball is in play and no offence has been committed.
Edit: oh I see. You mean prior to 19/20. Yes correct.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
So I don't understand your comment about IFAB getting it wrong--that is what both I and IFAB said.
(On the other question, sounds like an old test--that used to be the right answer. And the caution/IFK answer for the player leaving the field was also a very easy answer until a couple of years ago when they started adding in DFKs for certain misconduct--until then, misconduct was always an IFK (unless it was also a foul).)
one
RefChat Addict
This scenario is not directly covered. The problem is both you and IFAB are thinking old school.
The player playing the ball can be nothing but interference. That's why we (or at least I) stop play. Interference for a long time was either a dropped ball or IFK restart. This got changed over a number of recent years to DFK (difference scenarios added) to make it a fairer restart. Now because this scenario is not directly covered, you can go for the old line of thought and give IFK or the more recent and give DFK.
If you are stopping play for any other reason than interference then I'd argue interference is the more serious offence.
It was a joke.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
OK, you know what the Laws are intended to mean more than the people who wrote them.
I have already set out why I and IFAB are correct as the Laws are (poorly) written. The Laws do not have a general "offense" of interference but they do very clearly establish that the offence in the OP is USB. Our player was not off the field; he was legally on the field and had simply asked for permission to leave; the Laws deem it unsporting to ask to leave and then participate. I wouldn't object if IFAB made the OP a DFK, but they didn't, and I don't think it is our role to infer one from a different offense because we think it would be more logical--there are a lot of things I think could be more logical in the Laws!
one
RefChat Addict
I think the OP debate has run its course but I would respond to this. I don't claim to know more than anyone else. As for IFAB, you only have to look further up in this thread (or look at the handball law) to see their understanding of what the intent was 5 years ago (no offence intended). You are giving too much credit to them. And I quote you "there are a lot of things I think could be more logical in the Laws". You are not alone.OK, you know what the Laws are intended to mean more than the people who wrote them.
