Manager caution

[one]

There are explicit instances where an offence can be committed by the team scoring the goal and the caution is applied after the goal is scored e.g. player re-entering without permission and not impacting play, marks on the field of play.

I'll be interested to know about all those instances and their explicit law provision.

In the case of your example, law 3 or law 12 are not explicit. Goal scored with extra person on the field of play does not cover this. And for re-entering, the referee doesn't stop play immediately. Non of this says the goal has to be allowed or disallowed. That would be covered by law 10.1.

Using your logic, let's say a striker is through on goal, a teammate of striker recklessly pushes an opponent behind play with no impact to play. 5 seconds later the striker scores. I can allow the goal and then go back and caution the team mate for reckless push before the goal was scored. Would I be correct in law?

 

[Quarryref]

Using your logic, let's say a striker is through on goal, a teammate of striker recklessly pushes an opponent behind play with no impact to play. 5 seconds later the striker scores. I can allow the goal and then go back and caution the team mate for reckless push before the goal was scored. Would I be correct in law?

No of course not, which illustrates the problem of trying to take a sentence written in English, or any other language, and apply a literal interpretation of every word in every circumstance. It doesn't work with the LOTG or anywhere else, which is also partly why lawyers can earn so much money arguing with each other and why we need to apply common sense !

 

[Quarryref]

So in your interpretation

A. Player leaves the field of play after being assessed by a physio on the field of play.

One second before his team scores, 90 yards away from play and 30 yards from any other player, he puts a foot back on to the field of play. You are disallowing the goal ?

or

B. As the ball is coming in from a corner taken by his team at the other end of the field, you notice the goalkeeper of the attacking team making a mark on the edge of his area to help him identify the middle of the goal (as GKs always used to do !). Centre Forward heads the ball into the net. You are disallowing the goal ?

or

C. Same situation as B, you notice the same GK has one inch of shinpad showing above his sock ? You still disallowing the goal ?

 

[WalterPinkman]

I am perplexed as to why some very experienced referees here think it's ok (under whatever circumstance) to caution for dissent after the next stoppage in this case. It is a very clear error in law and can lead to the replay of the match in some circumstances (eg a goal is scored by the offending team).

If it's dissent, it's dissent, the nature of it matters not. You can use the nature of a disagreement to determined if it's dissent, but once you have determined it's dissent, it's an offence. You have only two options, play advantage or stop play for an IFK. Playing advantage can only happen on certain define by law which doesn't apply here.

I'm ok to go for a warning after the next stoppage, meaning you have determined it was not dissent. But if go for a caution, and the manager has not done anything during the stoppage, it means you are publicly agreeing there was an offence and it happened before the stoppage.

This would not be too different to giving and IFK for a player dissent but not cautioning. Or giving an IFK for a handling that is not deliberate. The lotg doesn't give us the luxury of making these decisions because it makes it easier for us and helps us with game management. These are black and white decisions. The only get out of jail here is determining it was not bad enough for it to be dissent so no offence is committed and you can't caution for it.

I don’t agree. I think it comes down to a common sense principle. If the opposing team have the ball and for example, start a promising attack, are you really going to bring that back to caution the opposing manager? It is very much a situation of “what does the game expect?”.

 

[one]

No of course not, which illustrates the problem of trying to take a sentence written in English, or any other language, and apply a literal interpretation of every word in every circumstance. It doesn't work with the LOTG or anywhere else, which is also partly why lawyers can earn so much money arguing with each other and why we need to apply common sense !

How do we get consistency if every referee applies their common sense, their interpretation of "spirit of the game" or "safe refereeing" and doesn't align to something that is clearly written in law?
In fact not dealing with a manager's dissent immediately because his team is on an attack is not common sense to me at all. What message would that send? It highlights how we look at common sense differently and how that can bring inconsistency.

Sure if the laws are not clear then deal with it how you think makes sense or according to expectations.

 

[one]

So in your interpretation

A. Player leaves the field of play after being assessed by a physio on the field of play.

One second before his team scores, 90 yards away from play and 30 yards from any other player, he puts a foot back on to the field of play. You are disallowing the goal ?

or

B. As the ball is coming in from a corner taken by his team at the other end of the field, you notice the goalkeeper of the attacking team making a mark on the edge of his area to help him identify the middle of the goal (as GKs always used to do !). Centre Forward heads the ball into the net. You are disallowing the goal ?

or

C. Same situation as B, you notice the same GK has one inch of shinpad showing above his sock ? You still disallowing the goal ?

A. To me that is trifling and not an offence. One thing I wouldn't do for sure is allow the goal and go and caution him.

B. Same, either not consider it as an offence (you have enough discretion for this) or if you are cautioning it's an offence and if there is clear evidence it happened before the goal, goal must be disallowed.

C. This is a completely irrelevant analogy. No offence is committed or can be commited here. It's a matter of equipment correction and laws have plenty of provisions to allow the goal here.

I think you are missing the point here. It's about an offence before a goal by the same team.

 

[one]

If the opposing team have the ball and for example, start a promising attack, are you really going to bring that back to caution the opposing manager? It is very much a situation of “what does the game expect?”.

I don't understand how you can consider this being even a close analogy.

In OP offence is committed by the same team who scores the goal, law 10 requires the goal to be disallowed. Your example the offence is committed by the opposing team, law 5 requires you to play advantage.

I'm going to stop now. I have made my point and my view is clear... I think.

 

[Quarryref]

I'm going to stop now. I have made my point and my view is clear... I think.

Fair enough.

I wouldn't caution on A. as I described it either, but I would feel free to allow the goal and caution on A if the re-entry was more blatant (but didn't interfere).

I am definitely allowing the goal and cautioning on B.

I think you are taking 'provided no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal' beyond its intended interpretation, whereas I don't think 'only stop play if there is interference with play' is intended to have an unspoken qualification of 'unless a goal is scored'.

But I accept it's opinion and neither A nor B has ever actually happened to me in a match, whereas I have gone back and cautioned a manager for dissent after his team has scored and been backed on it without question

 

[santa sangria]

Fair enough.

I wouldn't caution on A. as I described it either, but I would feel free to allow the goal and caution on A if the re-entry was more blatant (but didn't interfere).

I am definitely allowing the goal and cautioning on B.

I think you are taking 'provided no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal' beyond its intended interpretation, whereas I don't think 'only stop play if there is interference with play' is intended to have an unspoken qualification of 'unless a goal is scored'.

But I accept it's opinion and neither A nor B has ever actually happened to me in a match, whereas I have gone back and cautioned a manager for dissent after his team has scored and been backed on it without question

Great conversation and great point from one.

IMHO in B, if you are allowing the goal and then cautioning, surely that’s an error in law and maybe grounds for appeal and replay (edit: no reply!).

AFAIK there’s not a proviso in law to ignore technical offences temporarily to allow goals! If there’s an offence and an advantage, then that’s different.

Very interesting.

 

[Quarryref]

IMHO in B, if you are allowing the goal and then cautioning, surely that’s an error in law and maybe grounds for appeal and reply.

I respectfully disagree.

I think what is intended is as written In Law 1 :

A player who makes unauthorised marks on the field of play must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. If the referee notices this being done during the match, the player is cautioned when the ball next goes out of play.

As with scenario A, I don't think there is any intention to caveat this with 'unless a goal is scored'

 

[CA1992]

I think this has been taken to some quite extreme lengths.

In reality - is a manager of a team in possession likely to give the referee dissent? Probably not.

Any dissent happening in play, is most likely to be from a manager who feels they have been ‘wronged’ - i.e. thinking their player has been fouled but R waves play on, R turns away a handball appeal for a penalty, etc - in those circumstances, the R needs to judge if the dissent reaches the threshold to warrant going over - or is it a quick appeal/moan and then done - the R will also have some job to actually hear it from the dugouts, as no doubt there will be appeals from players also.

Most instances - dissent will be occurring at stoppages in play relating to what’s happening on the field (i.e. disagreement over the decision you just gave) - which allows opportunity to deal with it before play restarts.

 

[socal lurker]

So in your interpretation

A. Player leaves the field of play after being assessed by a physio on the field of play.

One second before his team scores, 90 yards away from play and 30 yards from any other player, he puts a foot back on to the field of play. You are disallowing the goal ?

Note that A is also expressly addressed in Law 3 and a goal is not disallowed if the extra person did not interfere with play.

 

[santa sangria]

I think this has been taken to some quite extreme lengths.

In reality - is a manager of a team in possession likely to give the referee dissent? Probably not.

Any dissent happening in play, is most likely to be from a manager who feels they have been ‘wronged’ - i.e. thinking their player has been fouled but R waves play on, R turns away a handball appeal for a penalty, etc - in those circumstances, the R needs to judge if the dissent reaches the threshold to warrant going over - or is it a quick appeal/moan and then done - the R will also have some job to actually hear it from the dugouts, as no doubt there will be appeals from players also.

Most instances - dissent will be occurring at stoppages in play relating to what’s happening on the field (i.e. disagreement over the decision you just gave) - which allows opportunity to deal with it before play restarts.

So, your input is: it probably won’t happen

I think bench dissent with ball in play with own team in possession is a one in 500 matches type thing… and that makes it worth understanding.

(I had a 1 in 500 thing today: Spa foul but last touch leading to breakaway one on one offside… so, no advantage, no card, no offside, dfk for the foul… but I digress)…

A lot of refereeing (and especially assisting) is being prepared for when that very weird something happens. A lot of things you get the chance to think through… but many you get one decision moment… if you get it “wrong” maybe you get lucky… but these weird things can destroy matches.