A&H

New Law - "misconduct...against...match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick"

TomThompson

TomThompson

New Member
Is there a contradiction in the new rules regarding the restart after misconduct against match officials?

Much of the old text remains regarding when to award a DFK and IFK.
This includes the "for everything else" clause in Law 12.2
"An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:..
commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player"

This covers stoppages to caution for dissent (when no advantage), and Off-In-Abus on match officials; this is not explicitly stated (perhaps it should be), but this is the section cited by most forum threads to cover the restart after such misconduct.

However the recent amendments state (Law 12.4):
"If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against...a match official
– a direct free kick or penalty kick"

So what is the restart after a stoppage for dissent or Off-In-Abus?
Should Law 12.1 (Direct Free Kicks) now be rewritten to include such misconduct?
 
The Referee Store
"Its in there"? Which of the 3 places mentioned - 12.1, 12.2 , 12.4 do you mean as "right there".
If such misconduct belongs in section 12.1 it should be in there, not left in section 12.2 (by inference) and then corrected in section 12.4. That's not how you write Laws. That's just muddled. Section 12.4 becomes a mere addendum to section 12.1 and correction to 12.2. muddled, muddled, muddled.

I would be happy to go with new wording of 12.4 as gospel, but I posed this question to a Level 3 referee, and he told me such misconduct was still IFK
Someone is confused...because the law is confused.

And for fun ...here is the wording of 12.2 on the FIFA website
IFK => "Commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in law 12"
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf - page 21
 
I would have though that if you are running with play and a player says something offensive towards you, you would have to analyse where the ball is, what could the next phase or two of play be. If nothing really can come of it then stop, show the player a card and then direct free kick from where you were when they said it. I like that IFAB have simplified the laws but some of them, especially the new ones, are still confusing
 
TomThompson said:
"Its in there"? Which of the 3 places mentioned - 12.1, 12.2 , 12.4 do you mean as "right there".
If such misconduct belongs in section 12.1 it should be in there, not left in section 12.2 (by inference) and then corrected in section 12.4. That's not how you write Laws. That's just muddled. Section 12.4 becomes a mere addendum to section 12.1 and correction to 12.2. muddled, muddled, muddled.

I would be happy to go with new wording of 12.4 as gospel, but I posed this question to a Level 3 referee, and he told me such misconduct was still IFK
Someone is confused...because the law is confused.

And for fun ...here is the wording of 12.2 on the FIFA website
IFK => "Commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in law 12"
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf - page 21
Click to expand...
as in it reads in 12.4 specifically, offences against match officials, surely in that situation you are ignoring everything else and going with that....
dissent directed at a match official, DFK or pen
OFFINABUS against a match official, DFK or pen
 
Will Triffitt said:
I would have though that if you are running with play and a player says something offensive towards you, you would have to analyse where the ball is, what could the next phase or two of play be. If nothing really can come of it then stop, show the player a card and then direct free kick from where you were when they said it. I like that IFAB have simplified the laws but some of them, especially the new ones, are still confusing
Click to expand...
the restart would have to be where the offence took place in that situation, i.e where the fella (or lass) was standing when they OFFINABUS'ed ?
 
IFAB's FAQ document covers this (partly at least)
IFAB FAQ p9 Law 12 section said:
Q6: What is the restart of the referee stops play for dissent?
If the referee stops play to penalise a player for dissent, the restart is an IDFK.
Click to expand...
Reference to offences against other people is really relating to the direct free kick offences in Law 12. For example, previously if a player pushed the referee or assistant, the restart would have been an IDFK having stopped play to administer the relevant sanction, now it is a DFK.
 
Restart however you like - you can guarantee that if we're not sure, neither team is going to have the first foggiest...

#SpiritOfTheGame
 
ASM said:
IFAB's FAQ document covers this (partly at least)

Reference to offences against other people is really relating to the direct free kick offences in Law 12. For example, previously if a player pushed the referee or assistant, the restart would have been an IDFK having stopped play to administer the relevant sanction, now it is a DFK.
Click to expand...

Which is an absolute mockery of the new law.....

Dissent is an offence committed against a match official.....the quintessential offence against a match official.

The FAQ answer is typical of the elite level attitude towards dissent and why RESPECT fails so hard.....they don't really believe there is anything wrong with it and don't view as anything other than a technical offence.

I will be interpreting the law as it is clearly written....and if I stop the game to caution for dissent the restart will be a DFK or PK.
 
Padfoot said:
Which is an absolute mockery of the new law.....

Dissent is an offence committed against a match official.....the quintessential offence against a match official.

The FAQ answer is typical of the elite level attitude towards dissent and why RESPECT fails so hard.....they don't really believe there is anything wrong with it and don't view as anything other than a technical offence.

I will be interpreting the law as it is clearly written....and if I stop the game to caution for dissent the restart will be a DFK or PK.
Click to expand...
That's your prerogative however given your history of critical posts about referees picking and choosing the application of the laws I might be as bold as to suggest that it displays hypocrasy of highest order.
 
It's absurd, isn't it? The LOTG state, in black and white, that an offence against a match official is both a DFK and an IFK. Dissent, by definition, is an offence against a match official.
If they wanted it to only include offences with physical contact they should have said so in the LOTG - seriously, don't they proofread the LOTG before releasing them?
But this momumental screwup means different referees will interpret it differently. Great job, IFAB.
 
It's clumsily written, but I'd argue it's actually relatively clear once you analyse it.

There is an explicit list of offences that are the only offences that can result in a DFK, and the laws have clarified that a DFK can now be given for committing those offences against an official as well. But there is no stipulation in that section (12.1) regarding any other offences that may result in a DFK. Taken on it's own merits, utterly unambiguous.

The laws are very very clear about that, and this is only emphasised by that fact that in the section on IFK offences, there is a statement regarding any "other" offence that requires play to be stopped.

It's badly written as a result of the slightly non-intuitive definition of what can and cannot be committed "against" someone, but I think the laws do not currently consider dissent or OFFINABUS to be committed "against an opponent (or match official)" in the same way pushing, charging etc are. Until dissent and OFFINABUS appear on that list, the correct restart can only be an IFK.[/B]
 
GraemeS said:
It's clumsily written, but I'd argue it's actually relatively clear once you analyse it.

There is an explicit list of offences that are the only offences that can result in a DFK, and the laws have clarified that a DFK can now be given for committing those offences against an official as well. But there is no stipulation in that section (12.1) regarding any other offences that may result in a DFK. Taken on it's own merits, utterly unambiguous.

The laws are very very clear about that, and this is only emphasised by that fact that in the section on IFK offences, there is a statement regarding any "other" offence that requires play to be stopped.

It's badly written as a result of the slightly non-intuitive definition of what can and cannot be committed "against" someone, but I think the laws do not currently consider dissent or OFFINABUS to be committed "against an opponent (or match official)" in the same way pushing, charging etc are. Until dissent and OFFINABUS appear on that list, the correct restart can only be an IFK.[/B]
Click to expand...

The law is quite specific in that it says 'commits an offence against a match official...'

The meaning is simple.....any offence that is committed against a match official is restarted with a DFK or PK.....

The attempts to dilute it to avoid having to give a PK for dissent etc, are pandering to the elite game (and the ignorant) who believe that dissent, offinabus etc are 'soft' offences.

This is actually one revision that might actually make players a little more reluctant to dish out the abuse......let's not toss it away so easily.
 
GraemeS said:
It's clumsily written, but I'd argue it's actually relatively clear once you analyse it.

There is an explicit list of offences that are the only offences that can result in a DFK, and the laws have clarified that a DFK can now be given for committing those offences against an official as well. But there is no stipulation in that section (12.1) regarding any other offences that may result in a DFK. Taken on it's own merits, utterly unambiguous.
Click to expand...
there is absolutely nothing to state or imply that the part talking about 'dfk' for 'offence against a match official' only refers to 'assault'. Or in other words, absolutely nothing to state that something which would otherwise be a DFK offence is only what's referred to here.
It states 'offences against a match official'. By definition, that includes dissent.

Of course, assault on a match official is also covered by 'stops play for any other reason to issue a card'. So both assault and dissent are stated as being both IFK and DFK.
 
Gents,
Thank you for your input.
Your interpretation of the new law agrees with my own... but they oppose that is the level 3 referee who I asked in person. I think he was wrong. And I have seen the contradiction of these clauses mentioned in other threads without necessarily being tackled head on.
It proves to me that the way the law is currently set out is ambiguous and confusing; it is simply badly written. Stating the obvious - when you make a change in one place you sometimes need to make a complimentary change in another. This was not done.
The problem lies with the clumsy section in 12.2 (IFK) "any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws". This is just lazy and clunking. It is also out of kilter with the rest of the laws in which lists of conditions are specified explicitly and completely.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
there is absolutely nothing to state or imply that the part talking about 'dfk' for 'offence against a match official' only refers to 'assault'. Or in other words, absolutely nothing to state that something which would otherwise be a DFK offence is only what's referred to here.
It states 'offences against a match official'. By definition, that includes dissent.

Of course, assault on a match official is also covered by 'stops play for any other reason to issue a card'. So both assault and dissent are stated as being both IFK and DFK.
Click to expand...
I agree - which is the bit I think is badly written. But that list is written as if it's exhaustive, which is why the IFK list allows for "any other offence", but the DFK list does not. That part of the law at least is clear, there are 10 offenses that you are correct to give a DFK for - no more, no less..
 
GraemeS said:
I agree - which is the bit I think is badly written. But that list is written as if it's exhaustive, which is why the IFK list allows for "any other offence", but the DFK list does not. That part of the law at least is clear, there are 10 offenses that you are correct to give a DFK for - no more, no less..
Click to expand...

And now you can give a DFK or PK for an offence against a match official.......absolutely crystal clear.

'Written as if...' doesn't mean it is exhaustive.....you're just reading it that way because it suits the point you are trying to make.....
 
GraemeS said:
The laws are very very clear about that, and this is only emphasised by that fact that in the section on IFK offences, there is a statement regarding any "other" offence that requires play to be stopped.

It's badly written as a result of the slightly non-intuitive definition of what can and cannot be committed "against" someone, but I think the laws do not currently consider dissent or OFFINABUS to be committed "against an opponent (or match official)" in the same way pushing, charging etc are. Until dissent and OFFINABUS appear on that list, the correct restart can only be an IFK.[/B]
Click to expand...

I would reinforce this point by mentioning that many refs I speak to - especially the younger ones - don't even realise that play can be stopped for dissent and OffInAbus against an official. Many assume that it must and can only be dealt with at the next stoppage. Why do they think this?
a) because that have never seen it happen on the TV, and
b) because it is not mentioned anywhere in the laws explicitly - its just buried in the "any other offence" phrase.

Sadly the wording of the law change does not clarify this matter either - "the ball is in play and a player commits an offence against... a match official".
a) many don't realise that dissent can be an in-play and "whistlable" offence, and
b) Many don't think dissent is against them.
The last statement may seem strange to some, but think of the way the word dissent is most often used..."a player shows dissent"...all very passive.
Please, Law Writers, list these offences explicitly - everything else is!
 
Padfoot said:
And now you can give a DFK or PK for an offence against a match official.......absolutely crystal clear.

'Written as if...' doesn't mean it is exhaustive.....you're just reading it that way because it suits the point you are trying to make.....
Click to expand...
when you say you "can" give a DFK, (and i'm not trying to be a pedant for the sake of it, i'm really trying to get a feel for people's thinking), does that mean that you can, but sometimes would choose not to ? or that you can, should, would and always will ?
for the record i'm currently sitting in the second camp
 
GraemeS said:
I agree - which is the bit I think is badly written. But that list is written as if it's exhaustive, which is why the IFK list allows for "any other offence", but the DFK list does not. That part of the law at least is clear, there are 10 offenses that you are correct to give a DFK for - no more, no less..
Click to expand...

But it doesn't specify DFK offence against a match official. It simply states 'offence against a match official'. no list is provided. Given a foul can only occur against an opponent, the list of penal fouls is irrelevant here. So I'm not sure what 'list' you're referring to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top