'MINE , LEAVE IT '

[deusex]

I make it very loud and clear in youth footie in particular, PLEASE PUT A NAME ON A CALL - if same player continues AND it causes confusion then it’s an IDFK (hopefully not where it can lead to a problem for myself, eg penalty box … don’t need that stress!) - if no confusion then it’s an extra strong personal word as I jog past - never even had to give card …

My level of tolerance is lower bar with adult footie - they should know better, but I think less incidents

Sorry but for me there is no in-between.
If your stop the came you are saying the player has deliberately cheated and must caution.
The players are perfectly entitled to shout "mine" if it is not a deliberate attempt at deception.

 

[deusex]

'You can call "mine" or whatever if the other player is a team mate, but if the other player is an opponent and in your opinion a shout - whatever is said - distracts him then it's an IDFK and a caution.'

Sorry , not great with the quote options...But 'Markref' summed up my understanding. If in my perception the 'shout' has interfered, or distracted...then offence. In my case I could not identify the offender amongst several players , however i did not see anyone react , stop or do anything out of the ordinary. However my attempts at explanation fell on deaf ears. Blue were convinced that the 'shout' in and of itself was an offence.

IIRC it has to be a deliberate attempt to deceive. A player just being distracted isn't enough.

 

[deusex]

It's not an offence to say "mine" "leave it" or anything else like this. The offence is distracting an opponent, and potentially any words could do this. I had a player asking the question on Sunday because an opponent shouted as a team mate shot at goal. It didn't put him off so no offence, although it's not ideal so a quiet word in passing. In the past I've sent a player off for shouting "leave it" as an opponent went to put the ball into the goal from two yards out and it did put him off so he didn't take the shot.

As Graeme says, if you stop play you must caution for Unsporting behaviour (mine was DOGSO, which is obviously the more serious offence so this is what was punished)

You can call "mine" or whatever if the other player is a team mate, but if the other player is an opponent and in your opinion a shout - whatever is said - distracts him then it's an IDFK and a caution.

Is this correct in law? If so I've learnt something new.

 

[JamesL]

IIRC it has to be a deliberate attempt to deceive. A player just being distracted isn't enough.

"Distract
Disturb, confuse or draw attention (usually unfairly)"

Noting about deliberately in law but, I think, more often than not there is an obvious attempt to deceive in these offences

 

[JamesL]

Is this correct in law? If so I've learnt something new.

Yes. If a verbal distraction offence DOGSO then you should send off and restart with idfk.

 

[lesbobly]

Sorry Les but it's completely wrong to insist on this and makes it more difficult for your colleagues whom don't, correctly, insist on a name.

I don’t think LOTG, or advice to officials, says that a way of getting the players to play in the spirit of the game, AT AN EARLY AGE, is right or wrong … but happy if you can point out the page that I’m missing this - and if you really think that something like this is going to cause a referee a problem in the future I might question that referees ability - no two referees officiate in EXACTLY the same way … you only have to read the range of opinions on this forum…

For example- Just read through the threads on the use of the “C” word - huge levels of interpretation - and you are concerned about me encouraging young football players to put a name on a shout and avoiding issues … surely it’s about game management of MY game not trying to make life easier for you … there are many more refereeing inconsistencies to worry about … after all, you don’t have to go any further than last weeks premiership games

You need a sense of perspective …

 

[lesbobly]

"Distract
Disturb, confuse or draw attention (usually unfairly)"

Noting about deliberately in law but, I think, more often than not there is an obvious attempt to deceive in these offences

We are back to the craft of mind reading (I missed that on my referee course), if you are going to make a choice between deliberate and not-deliberate … I guess that’s why the word deliberately is not used

Referees decision … you don’t need rafts of documents or dictionary interpretations to know if a player is seeking to gain an advantage ….

 

[GraemeS]

We are back to the craft of mind reading (I missed that on my referee course), if you are going to make a choice between deliberate and not-deliberate … I guess that’s why the word deliberately is not used

Referees decision … you don’t need rafts of documents or dictionary interpretations to know if a player is seeking to gain an advantage ….

I'm not a huge fan of asking referees to judge intent, but the case of verbal distraction, I don't think there's often much ambiguity. Either it's a natural shout for the context or it's not.

 

[es1]

I don’t think LOTG, or advice to officials, says that a way of getting the players to play in the spirit of the game, AT AN EARLY AGE, is right or wrong … but happy if you can point out the page that I’m missing this - and if you really think that something like this is going to cause a referee a problem in the future I might question that referees ability - no two referees officiate in EXACTLY the same way … you only have to read the range of opinions on this forum…

For example- Just read through the threads on the use of the “C” word - huge levels of interpretation - and you are concerned about me encouraging young football players to put a name on a shout and avoiding issues … surely it’s about game management of MY game not trying to make life easier for you … there are many more refereeing inconsistencies to worry about … after all, you don’t have to go any further than last weeks premiership games

You need a sense of perspective …

I totally see what @JamesL is coming from tbh.

The big difference between this thread and the other is that how you decide to deal (or not) with words/dissent/abuse etc is entirely up to the referee. although many of us would do certain things (reds or yellows) for certain words or expressions we wouldn't all do the same each time as the outcome is down to the interpretation of the ref.

However, if you stop play for a shout of 'leave it' or 'mine', you must restart with an indirect free kick and caution the offender. laws are very clear on that.

I think how you apply the laws (or would apply them) is admirable in youth football but it may cause confusion if someone else applies the law strictly / correctly the following week

 

[lesbobly]

I totally see what @JamesL is coming from tbh.

The big difference between this thread and the other is that how you decide to deal (or not) with words/dissent/abuse etc is entirely up to the referee. although many of us would do certain things (reds or yellows) for certain words or expressions we wouldn't all do the same each time as the outcome is down to the interpretation of the ref.

However, if you stop play for a shout of 'leave it' or 'mine', you must restart with an indirect free kick and caution the offender. laws are very clear on that.

I think how you apply the laws (or would apply them) is admirable in youth football but it may cause confusion if someone else applies the law strictly / correctly the following week

I see few referees applying ABSOLUTE according to LOTG - in a Sunday morning park game there would often be no players left on the pitch - maybe sometimes referees should look at themselves and ask “what is really my role here” - to apply the law down to the last nut and bolt or allow the match to be fair and enjoyable to all (aka “in the spirit of the game)? - don’t let’s hide behind “the law says” (watch the Prem you know that’s not true, and there would be outrage if it were) but use much more of Law 18 …

 

[lesbobly]

I'm not a huge fan of asking referees to judge intent, but the case of verbal distraction, I don't think there's often much ambiguity. Either it's a natural shout for the context or it's not.

“natural shout” from a 10 year old v 30-year-old experienced pro - I’m not convinced they are the same - just when I see two 10-year-olds squaring up to each other - who have much less emotional control than their 30-year-old Dads - are you seriously suggesting we treat them both the same? I’m sure you don’t …

 

[GraemeS]

“natural shout” from a 10 year old v 30-year-old experienced pro - I’m not convinced they are the same - just when I see two 10-year-olds squaring up to each other - who have much less emotional control than their 30-year-old Dads - are you seriously suggesting we treat them both the same? I’m sure you don’t …

I'm suggesting exactly the opposite.

You look at the player, decide what they might naturally do in that situation, decide if the opponent was confused by that shout and make a decision accordingly. If you choose to play on then fine, if you choose to stop then you caution and restart with an IFK.

Which decision you reach will depend on context and might be different if the same shout was made by a 10 YO vs a 30 YO in OA football. Of course. That's why my previous answer included "for the context".

 

[JamesL]

I don’t think LOTG, or advice to officials, says that a way of getting the players to play in the spirit of the game, AT AN EARLY AGE, is right or wrong … but happy if you can point out the page that I’m missing this - and if you really think that something like this is going to cause a referee a problem in the future I might question that referees ability - no two referees officiate in EXACTLY the same way … you only have to read the range of opinions on this forum…

For example- Just read through the threads on the use of the “C” word - huge levels of interpretation - and you are concerned about me encouraging young football players to put a name on a shout and avoiding issues … surely it’s about game management of MY game not trying to make life easier for you … there are many more refereeing inconsistencies to worry about … after all, you don’t have to go any further than last weeks premiership games

You need a sense of perspective …

It does cause me a problem, though. I am plagued by players whom think this is an offence and then I'm the one that gets dogs abuse and assumed that I am the one who doesn't know what I am doing because last week's referee was making up offences that don't exist anywhere on any page in the book you are pointing me to look in (which I have read once or twice).

 

[markref]

Is this correct in law? If so I've learnt something new.

Yes, LOTG says that a sending off offence is "denying a goal....... by an offence punishable by a free kick" It doesn't say that it has to be direct. Since the player isn't making an attempt at the ball this is a sending off. Then because it's a verbal offence the restart is an indirect free kick.

In my case a player was two yards from the goal with the ball and no one in front of him when an opponent standing behind him shouted "leave it!" and he did. The game was a cup semi final, so the player denied the equaliser and was sent off but the opponents did not score from the free kick and his team held on to win one - nil.

 

[JamesL]

We are back to the craft of mind reading (I missed that on my referee course), if you are going to make a choice between deliberate and not-deliberate … I guess that’s why the word deliberately is not used

Referees decision … you don’t need rafts of documents or dictionary interpretations to know if a player is seeking to gain an advantage ….

I didn't say it needed to be deliberate. The definition is from the laws of the game glossary.
I was merely saying, it is very obvious if a players action is intended to verbally distract an opponent, as its not really an instruction you would give to opposition. Same as maybe shouting man on when your opponent has the ball. These are clearly designed to distract and affect a reaction from the opponent.
Shouting your own name could also be done in a way that verbally distracts an opponent.

And on the deliberate front there are several instances where the laws require you to determine deliberateness... E.g. deliberate handball, deliberate trick, deliberate play.

 

[markref]

I've also had players shout their name very loudly as an opponent getting ready to shoot (ie "DAVE'S!") to put them off. Because they've been told they must call a name they do and then don't know why they get cautioned when this distracts the opponent. I had one tell me "I shouted my name! I didn't shout "leave it", so you can't book me!"

 

[RustyRef]

I make it very loud and clear in youth footie in particular, PLEASE PUT A NAME ON A CALL - if same player continues AND it causes confusion then it’s an IDFK (hopefully not where it can lead to a problem for myself, eg penalty box … don’t need that stress!) - if no confusion then it’s an extra strong personal word as I jog past - never even had to give card …

My level of tolerance is lower bar with adult footie - they should know better, but I think less incidents

Law absolutely does not support that, without wanting to sound harsh, you are just making things harder for "next weeks' referee. There is no requirement to put a name on it, that is a long-standing myth that unfortunately gets perpetuated by referees penalising it.

All you can look at is did the player verbally distract an opponent, in which case it is an IDFK and caution. You cannot give an IDFK without a caution, as the offence you are punishing is verbal distraction which is listed as a cautionable offence.

 

[lesbobly]

Law absolutely does not support that, without wanting to sound harsh, you are just making things harder for "next weeks' referee. There is no requirement to put a name on it, that is a long-standing myth that unfortunately gets perpetuated by referees penalising it.

All you can look at is did the player verbally distract an opponent, in which case it is an IDFK and caution. You cannot give an IDFK without a caution, as the offence you are punishing is verbal distraction which is listed as a cautionable offence.

Ok - I get it … it’s much better and superior refereeing to rigidly apply the LOTG (apart from Prem … special dispensation because they are high-profile … every week there is diregard for “playing by the book” - I’m sure nobody can possibly argue that).

So if we are SO “rigid” why do some refs allow the C word (both versions) and some don’t - forgot context - surely a word is word is word if you are rigidly applying LOTG - after all what can be worse than being called a cheat or a c**t - there is no excusable context IMHO

Secondly - if we are playing with CONTEXT - take the scenario - U12 team A has half-dozen shouts of LEAVE IT … we ignore, doesn’t happen, even though the ignorant parent supporters “think” it’s an offence … we plough on …

Now the tables are turned … team B is 1-0 up (it’s a cup final in the last minute); team A forward is distracted by the self-same leave it shout from team B - we blow the whistle - keeper made the shout / second YC - keeper gone - now it’s IDFK/pen “, no keeper and it’s all kicking off on the touchline “ref all the game they’ve been shouting LEAVE IT” - we do it once - bloody joke”

Now of course we know we are right because we follow the LOTG rigidly - we didn’t bother with a stepped approach (watch the leave it calls lads, if you must give your mate a call, shove a name on it - ITS A MYTH!), because in context all the other leave it’s were not an offence ….so we gave ourselves a problem but hey that’s ok because we played to the LOTG and not the spirit …

 

[JamesL]

Ok - I get it … it’s much better and superior refereeing to rigidly apply the LOTG (apart from Prem … special dispensation because they are high-profile … every week there is diregard for “playing by the book” - I’m sure nobody can possibly argue that).

So if we are SO “rigid” why do some refs allow the C word (both versions) and some don’t - forgot context - surely a word is word is word if you are rigidly applying LOTG - after all what can be worse than being called a cheat or a c**t - there is no excusable context IMHO

Secondly - if we are playing with CONTEXT - take the scenario - U12 team A has half-dozen shouts of LEAVE IT … we ignore, doesn’t happen, even though the ignorant parent supporters “think” it’s an offence … we plough on …

Now the tables are turned … team B is 1-0 up (it’s a cup final in the last minute); team A forward is distracted by the self-same leave it shout from team B - we blow the whistle - keeper made the shout / second YC - keeper gone - now it’s IDFK/pen “, no keeper and it’s all kicking off on the touchline “ref all the game they’ve been shouting LEAVE IT” - we do it once - bloody joke”

Now of course we know we are right because we follow the LOTG rigidly - we didn’t bother with a stepped approach (watch the leave it calls lads, if you must give your mate a call, shove a name on it - ITS A MYTH!), because in context all the other leave it’s were not an offence ….so we gave ourselves a problem but hey that’s ok because we played to the LOTG and not the spirit …

Apples and oranges. Chalk and cheese. Etc etc.
Ignoring a rule is very different to making one up.

 

[lesbobly]

Apples and oranges. Chalk and cheese. Etc etc.
Ignoring a rule is very different to making one up.

that says nothing and everything- if you are going to ignore then by definition you are making up your own rules … cake and eat it mate … not possible …