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

[Padfoot]

My email to IFAB....


Please can you explain how dissent and offensive language (when used towards a person) are not offences "against a match official", and therefore play restarted with a DFK or PK?

Dissent is the quintessential offence against a match official as it directly relates to their performance and/or decision making. For example if a player turns to a referee and says "You're blind and useless referee"....this is dissent and obviously directed against a match official. Likewise a player that turns round and uses offensive, insulting or abusive language towards a referee....how is that not to be considered as "against a match official"?

The wording of your FAQ's in relation to this matter seem to suggest that dissent or offensive language are not to be considered as "serious" offences and do little to inspire confidence in many match officials that I have spoken to.


The reply....


Historically, any offence against a non-opponent was punished with an IDFK, including dissent etc..

It was decided that only physical offences against non-opponents should become a direct FK.

Although it was decided not to include dissent/offensive language as direct FK offence this does is something which is under review as we continue the Law revision process.

Best wishes

David Elleray
Technical Director
The International Football Association Board - IFAB


So there you have it, absolutely no attempt to answer the actual question asked....just adds to the confusion because the revised laws most definitely do not come close to reading the way that Dave describes.

​

 

[GraemeS]

There is no contradiction in the body of the Laws. It states:
That's completely clear to me. Dissent is a cautionable offence, committed against a match official. The restart of play for any cautionable offence is an indirect free kick if the restart for this offence is not mentioned elsewhere in the Laws. However, the restart is mentioned elsewhere in the Laws. In fact, in the same Law, it states that any offence against a match official while the ball is in play is a direct free kick or penalty kick.

However, the Q&A directly contradicts that advice. It states that the restart is an IDFK for dissent / offensive, insulting, abusive language.

This is not a clarification, it is a contradiction. Technically speaking, referees are entirely within their rights to award a direct free kick / penalty kick, and players are entirely within their rights to expect only an indirect free kick.

As per the FAQ Q6: Why is an offence against someone who is not an opponent now a direct free kick? Does this include dissent/offensive language?
If, for example, a player strikes a team-mate, substitute, team official or, perhaps even worse, a match official this is serious but only restarting with an IDFK suggested that the offence was not serious so it is now a direct free kick for any offence (directly) against anyone (except an opponent). This does not include dissent/offensive language etc. as this is not a direct/physical offence against a person (see below).

So as I postulated, IFAB don't currently consider dissent or OFFINABUS to be directed against a person in the same way striking, kicking etc must be. Slightly counter-intuitive, but the rest of the laws do look a little more consistent once you accept that.

I certainly don't agree with Padfoot's tone in some of the posts I've read, but I have to call out that ridiculous personal attack. This has absolutely zero to do with referees choosing to ignore the Laws, and everything with referees being presented with two contradictory prescribed restarts for the same offence. To claim that someone is in dereliction of their duty by awarding either a direct free kick / penalty kick or indirect free kick when both are prescribed restarts for this offence is ridiculous.

Your vitriol should instead be aimed at the IFAB team. They failed to release the Laws with enough time for them to be reviewed and have such errors highlighted (and corrected) before a final version was released.

Not knowing the answer and making an incorrect decision to award a DFK is excusable, especially given the confusion around this law. However we've now been given a clear statement regarding what IFAB consider to be the correct interpretation of their badly-written laws. That should be the end of it. And any referee who knows this but still intends to go out tomorrow and give a DFK or even a PK for dissent because they feel like they're some kind of renegade fighting a crusade against weak refereeing deserves all the vitriol they get IMHO.

 

[Padfoot]

As per the FAQ Q6: Why is an offence against someone who is not an opponent now a direct free kick? Does this include dissent/offensive language?
If, for example, a player strikes a team-mate, substitute, team official or, perhaps even worse, a match official this is serious but only restarting with an IDFK suggested that the offence was not serious so it is now a direct free kick for any offence (directly) against anyone (except an opponent). This does not include dissent/offensive language etc. as this is not a direct/physical offence against a person (see below).

So as I postulated, IFAB don't currently consider dissent or OFFINABUS to be directed against a person in the same way striking, kicking etc must be. Slightly counter-intuitive, but the rest of the laws do look a little more consistent once you accept that.



Not knowing the answer and making an incorrect decision to award a DFK is excusable, especially given the confusion around this law. However we've now been given a clear statement regarding what IFAB consider to be the correct interpretation of their badly-written laws. That should be the end of it. And any referee who knows this but still intends to go out tomorrow and give a DFK or even a PK for dissent because they feel like they're some kind of renegade fighting a crusade against weak refereeing deserves all the vitriol they get IMHO.

Likewise those referees who choose to allow players to abuse them and then hide behind poorly written and ill conceived laws thus perpetuating the player belief that officials are "fair game" for the abuse deserve the same condemnation and vitiriol.

At least those referees taking a hard line against it are trying to improve things for their colleagues and the game in general....while the naysayers are simply trying to improve their popularity and marks.

If all referees at grassroots level applied the law AS IT IS WRITTEN, instead of the ridiculous interpretation given (which was no doubt hastily concocted when someone at the professional level pointed that the Premier League weren't going to be happy with PK's given for dissent...) by simpering fools who have don't have to go out there week in and week out to face the ever rising levels of dissent and abuse in the grassroots game.....then things would improve real quick. It wouldn't take too many PK's for players to start realising that the consequences of the abuse could really affect their game.

 

[richard ramjane]

Likewise those referees who choose to allow players to abuse them and then hide behind poorly written and ill conceived laws thus perpetuating the player belief that officials are "fair game" for the abuse deserve the same condemnation and vitiriol.

At least those referees taking a hard line against it are trying to improve things for their colleagues and the game in general....while the naysayers are simply trying to improve their popularity and marks.

If all referees at grassroots level applied the law AS IT IS WRITTEN, instead of the ridiculous interpretation given (which was no doubt hastily concocted when someone at the professional level pointed that the Premier League weren't going to be happy with PK's given for dissent...) by simpering fools who have don't have to go out there week in and week out to face the ever rising levels of dissent and abuse in the grassroots game.....then things would improve real quick. It wouldn't take too many PK's for players to start realising that the consequences of the abuse could really affect their game.

if you apply the law as it is written, you are deliberately ignoring the direct question and answer Q6, which, as much as i agree the statement in the laws is in contradiction to, i have to admit that as the question has been asked, and subsequently answered i will be using that as my guideline.

 

[GraemeS]

Likewise those referees who choose to allow players to abuse them and then hide behind poorly written and ill conceived laws thus perpetuating the player belief that officials are "fair game" for the abuse deserve the same condemnation and vitiriol.

At least those referees taking a hard line against it are trying to improve things for their colleagues and the game in general....while the naysayers are simply trying to improve their popularity and marks.

If all referees at grassroots level applied the law AS IT IS WRITTEN, instead of the ridiculous interpretation given (which was no doubt hastily concocted when someone at the professional level pointed that the Premier League weren't going to be happy with PK's given for dissent...) by simpering fools who have don't have to go out there week in and week out to face the ever rising levels of dissent and abuse in the grassroots game.....then things would improve real quick. It wouldn't take too many PK's for players to start realising that the consequences of the abuse could really affect their game.

I'm not suggesting "hiding" behind laws, I'm suggesting applying them. If your intention is to go onto a football pitch dressed in black and make up laws and interpretations as you go along, I'd strongly recommend hanging up your kit and finding a different way to channel your frustrations.

 

[Padfoot]

I'm not suggesting "hiding" behind laws, I'm suggesting applying them. If your intention is to go onto a football pitch dressed in black and make up laws and interpretations as you go along, I'd strongly recommend hanging up your kit and finding a different way to channel your frustrations.

Not making any Laws up....simply applying the one that is already there in black and white. Interpretations are just another word for opinion......their is A mine is B......I've tried to ask for a better explanation from the law makers but they have just come back with an even more contradictory answer.......

If they meant what Dave has said they meant....why didn't they write the law in that way?

The easiest way out of all of this farce is to simply never stop play to caution for dissent.....thus avoiding the whole abortion of an issue......just go back and ping em once the ball is out of play.

 

[svenny76]

So can I give a pk for dissent or not??

I was sooooo looking forward to doing that!

Because it's always that goon of a centre half who pipes up!

 

[ASM]

So can I give a pk for dissent or not??

I was sooooo looking forward to doing that!

Because it's always that goon of a centre half who pipes up!

No. According to IFAB's guidance you cannot restart play with a DFK (or penalty) if you stop play to caution a player for dissent.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

My email to IFAB....


Please can you explain how dissent and offensive language (when used towards a person) are not offences "against a match official", and therefore play restarted with a DFK or PK?

Dissent is the quintessential offence against a match official as it directly relates to their performance and/or decision making. For example if a player turns to a referee and says "You're blind and useless referee"....this is dissent and obviously directed against a match official. Likewise a player that turns round and uses offensive, insulting or abusive language towards a referee....how is that not to be considered as "against a match official"?

The wording of your FAQ's in relation to this matter seem to suggest that dissent or offensive language are not to be considered as "serious" offences and do little to inspire confidence in many match officials that I have spoken to.


The reply....


Historically, any offence against a non-opponent was punished with an IDFK, including dissent etc..

It was decided that only physical offences against non-opponents should become a direct FK.

Although it was decided not to include dissent/offensive language as direct FK offence this does is something which is under review as we continue the Law revision process.

Best wishes

David Elleray
Technical Director
The International Football Association Board - IFAB


So there you have it, absolutely no attempt to answer the actual question asked....just adds to the confusion because the revised laws most definitely do not come close to reading the way that Dave describes.

​

Happy to help support @ASM on this point. Under Law 12 it says...
Q6: Why is an offence against someone who is not an opponent now a direct free kick? Does this include dissent?
If, for example, a player strikes a team-mate, substitute, team official or, perhaps even worse, a match official this is serious but only restarting with an IDFK suggested that the offence was not serious so it is now a direct free kick for any offence (directly) against anyone (except an opponent). This does not include dissent (see below)
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.

This continues the theme in other parts of the Laws where physical contact (or attempted physical contact) results in the award of a DFK but a "technical" offence, not involving physical contact (or attempted), results in the award of an IDFK.

Full document here
http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/revision-of-the-laws-of-the-game-questions-and-answers.7980/

It actually borrows from the way other sports, such as Rugby Union (that bastion of respect for match officials) treat what they regard as "technical" offences. They are sanctioned by the lesser punishment, which in their case is a free kick. That is a restart from which the team taking the kick cannot score directly, just like an IDFK.

To be honest @Padfoot I think that it is only a matter of time before the sanction for dissent becomes a DFK, but only outside the penalty area. I think the current position is a halfway house designed to edge towards the referee nirvana of properly punishing dissent by word or action with a DFK. There will probably be another revision in a year or so and this will come in.

No, I'm not joking. I think it is coming.

Without wanting to say I told you so... two things, I said that physical offences = DFK whereas technical offences =IDFK
AND they continue to keep the laws under review and I think there will be a change to make dissent an offence punished by a DFK. Nice to know that my thinking lines up with DE

 

[shorty]

Without wanting to say I told you so... two things, I said that physical offences = DFK whereas technical offences =IDFK
AND they continue to keep the laws under review and I think there will be a change to make dissent an offence punished by a DFK. Nice to know that my thinking lines up with DE

If this is the case, the why does it not clearly state in the FAQ that if there is any contradiction between the Laws and the FAQ that the FAQ takes precedence, as it supersedes the Laws?

If I go to the IFAB website at present, the FAQ and Laws are presented as one combined document. There is no clear indication of which document has precedence over the other.

No. According to IFAB's guidance you cannot restart play with a DFK (or penalty) if you stop play to caution a player for dissent.

Only if you accept that the FAQ supersedes the Laws. This is not made clear at all.

 

[richard ramjane]

the FAQ must logically supersede the Laws. without the Laws the question cannot be asked

 

[Peter Grove]

Only if you accept that the FAQ supersedes the Laws. This is not made clear at all.

Of course the FAQ's supersede the Laws. If they didn't, there would be absolutely no point in issuing them - you could just answer every question by saying, "Please refer to the original Laws document." To me, the fact that the FAQ's deal with questions that have arisen after the original Laws were published and are issued in response to those questions, means that they have to be taken as interpreting and/or modifying the Laws as originally written. They are issued specifically to allow referees to know how to proceed, in cases where the original Laws are not sufficiently clear or even, as in this case, could be seen as contradictorory.

Furthermore, I don't think you can argue that official interpretations issued by the IFAB are just an opinion that you are free to disagree with if you feel like it. The IFAB is the one and only law-making body for the game of football and to the best of my knowledge, any interpretation officially issued by them (as in a FAQ on the IFAB website) carries the weight of Law.

In fact, in a very real sense, every new edition of the Laws that is published is just another set of interpretations (or opinions) from the IFAB.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

If they wrote the FAQ before the revision of the LOTG then they are even more incompetent than previously imagined.

You mean like this @Padfoot ?

If this is the case, the why does it not clearly state in the FAQ that if there is any contradiction between the Laws and the FAQ that the FAQ takes precedence, as it supersedes the Laws?

If I go to the IFAB website at present, the FAQ and Laws are presented as one combined document. There is no clear indication of which document has precedence over the other.



Only if you accept that the FAQ supersedes the Laws. This is not made clear at all.

Have you ever tried writing a FAQ based on a document when that document hasn't yet been written?

 

[Padfoot]

Have you ever tried writing a FAQ based on a document when that document hasn't yet been written?

If they wrote the FAQ before the revision of the LOTG then they are even more incompetent than previously imagined.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The fact is
-yes, the LOTG are written absurdly badly. It seems that nobody proofread them
- yes, the LOTG simultaneously state that dissent is both a DFK/PK and an IFK offence. And assumption to the intent otherwise is precisely that - an assumption or guess. I'm referring to what is stated in black and white
- but the FAQ (should be called an errata) corrects this. Given it's from IFAB of course it has the same weight as law
-Any referee who is aware of that has no excuse for awarding a DFK for dissent. Any referee who is not aware of that can certainly be forgiven.

 

[shorty]

the FAQ must logically supersede the Laws. without the Laws the question cannot be asked

Of course the FAQ's supersede the Laws. If they didn't, there would be absolutely no point in issuing them - you could just answer every question by saying, "Please refer to the original Laws document." To me, the fact that the FAQ's deal with questions that have arisen after the original Laws were published and are issued in response to those questions, means that they have to be taken as interpreting and/or modifying the Laws as originally written

Have you ever tried writing a FAQ based on a document when that document hasn't yet been written?

While it seems unintuitive - in my industry, FAQs are quite commonly released at the same time as the formal document (such as a specification, directive, guide) that they refer to. The team tasked with developing the formal document will circulate the formal document internally, and then prepare an FAQ document. This document takes a more casual tone and delves into the reasoning, and explains anything that may be off. Both the formal document and the FAQ (the supporting casual document) are released externally at the same time and carry the same weight. The FAQ does not supersede - it merely supplements. It is therefore seen to be very poor if there is any contradiction between either document.

If there is a contradiction found between both documents, usually the formal document is found to be binding or either document may be used at the choice of the consumer. If this is unacceptable to the team tasked with developing the specification, they would then go and update both documents to ensure that any inconsistency / contradiction is removed.

They are issued specifically to allow referees to know how to proceed, in cases where the original Laws are not sufficiently clear or even, as in this case, could be seen as contradictorory.

I don't think there really was any contradiction until that awful FAQ was released.

Furthermore, I don't think you can argue that official interpretations issued by the IFAB are just an opinion that you are free to disagree with if you feel like it. The IFAB is the one and only law-making body for the game of football and to the best of my knowledge, any interpretation officially issued by them (as in a FAQ on the IFAB website) carries the weight of Law.

There was no way I was going to be awarding a DFK once the FAQ had been released. My argument however, is that the entire process has been very sloppy. Football is a multi-billion dollar enterprise - yet if this document and the supporting FAQ were released by even a small business in my field, they would be getting an absolute grilling. This document and its annexures literally affect millions of people, and for a select tens of thousands of them, relate to putting bread on the table.

In fact, in a very real sense, every new edition of the Laws that is published is just another set of interpretations (or opinions) from the IFAB.

Why then, has the original document that has been amended not been updated to reflect this? All that needs to be changed is this:

• If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against:
  • an opponent – indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick
  • a team-mate, substitute, substituted player, team official or a match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick
  • any other person – a dropped ball

to

• If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against:
  • an opponent – indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick
  • a team-mate, substitute, substituted player, team official or a match official (other than dissent or offensive, insulting and/or abusive language/gestures) – a direct free kick or penalty kick
  • any other person – a dropped ball

For eleven words, the contradiction is removed. Update the document, release a circular acknowledging the error, and remove any offending copies of the old document from the website. To leave incorrect information on the website is just plain lazy.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

So you've seen a FAQ issued simultaneously but you haven't answered my question. FAQ written before document? And I don't mean project notes anticipating the release of the main document

 

[shorty]

No, never. But generally when a collection of documents are released, they are all given equal consideration.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

No, never. But generally when a collection of documents are released, they are all given equal consideration.

Thanks for clearing that up. In this case the FAQ supplements the original and where there is disagreement, the FAQ takes priority as it is the most recent information.

 

[shorty]

And it says that where on the IFAB website / in the FAQ?