Tell me where it doesn't
New Law - "misconduct...against...match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick"
- Thread starter TomThompson
- Start date
No
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Any referee that goes to the time and trouble to digest both the revised Laws AND the subsequent FAQ's will, I believe, be clear that dissent remains punishable by an IFK. Unless, of course, that referee has a chip on his shoulder that dissent SHOULD be punishable by a DFK, in which case they might wilfully obfuscate the matter
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Any referee that goes to the time and trouble to digest both the revised Laws AND the subsequent FAQ's will, I believe, be clear that dissent remains punishable by an IFK. Unless, of course, that referee has a chip on his shoulder that dissent SHOULD be punishable by a DFK, in which case they might wilfully obfuscate the matter
Or by the fact that the law says that offences against match officials are restarted with a DFK or PK?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Smokescreen
one
RefChat Addict
When the new laws were written, obviously no one went through them with a fine toothcomb to see if everything new it says is exactly (no more or no less) what is intended. Once it was released it became obvious some new laws interpreted literally are different to the way they were intended. And that’s why FAQ were released.
DFK for offences against match officials is only one example. If one is going to go literally with this new law then one can’t pick and choose and should follow everything literally.
So if one awards a DFK for dissent then one should also award a goal if he extends time for a penalty kick to be taken and the ball ends up in the goal at the other end before the ball stops, goes out of play or an offence is committed. And that I would like to see.
(see http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/2016-17-penalty-kick-complete.7958/ )
DFK for offences against match officials is only one example. If one is going to go literally with this new law then one can’t pick and choose and should follow everything literally.
So if one awards a DFK for dissent then one should also award a goal if he extends time for a penalty kick to be taken and the ball ends up in the goal at the other end before the ball stops, goes out of play or an offence is committed. And that I would like to see.
(see http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/2016-17-penalty-kick-complete.7958/ )
Hi
Please read Law 12 of the Laws and tell me where it says that it is a direct free kick offence? The word opponent has been removed from the DIRECT free kick offences in Law 12 so that if a player commits a DFK offence as stated in law 12 against a referee, sub etc it is a DFK. The interesting one is that spits at an opponent still includes opponents which is still a DFK whereas spitting at a match official one has to conclude is still an IDFK. So we are still left with commits other offences not mentioned elsewhere as an IDFK of which dissent is one.
Please read Law 12 of the Laws and tell me where it says that it is a direct free kick offence? The word opponent has been removed from the DIRECT free kick offences in Law 12 so that if a player commits a DFK offence as stated in law 12 against a referee, sub etc it is a DFK. The interesting one is that spits at an opponent still includes opponents which is still a DFK whereas spitting at a match official one has to conclude is still an IDFK. So we are still left with commits other offences not mentioned elsewhere as an IDFK of which dissent is one.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Except that this has already been clarified/modified by the subsequently-issued FAQ where it says that this only applies to offences of a direct (i.e. physical) nature and states perfectly clearly that:
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Which is also quite obviously nonsense.....the idea that someone shouting at an official 'ref, you're blind and bloody useless...' or 'ref, you f**king c**t' is not an offence against a person is simply too ridiculous to give any credence to.
Treat it with the utter contempt it deserves.....
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I'm sorry but you're wilfully misrepresenting what the IFAB have said. There is nothing saying that dissent is not an offence against a referee or match official. However they are saying is that it is not a physical offence (i.e. does not involve physical contact). And they could hardly be more clear in saying that for an offence against a match official to be punishable by a DFK or penalty it must be a physical offence. Whatever else you might think about dissent, it does not involve physical contact.
It almost seems as if you have not read the two FAQ's that taken together, clearly lay out the intent of the law in this regard. They make an incontrovertible distinction between a direct (physical) offence against a match official which is punishable by a DFK or penalty and the non-physical offence of dissent, where the restart if the referee has stopped play to deal with it, is an IFK.
It is quite clear that you don't like this particular part of the Laws and I can understand (and even respect) that opinion but to say that it's obviously nonsense is, in itself, nonsense. It's a perfectly clear and understandable distinction and if you're going to treat it with contempt then you might as well just ignore any other parts of the law that you don't like. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the law to apply and which parts not to apply, based on your personal likes or dislikes, no matter how sincerely they are held, or how vehemently you express them.
Hi
The wording of Law 12 has been changed. Everyone is focussing on the advice. Opponent has been removed from the 10 penal offences wordings so for example strikes an opponent has been replaced with strikes. Striking now can be a player, sub, referee, team official not just an opponent which makes it an DFK restart etc. Dissent is not one of the DFK offences so it has to be an IDFK as before.
The advice and guidelines are not part of the laws. So read law 12 as currently written and nowhere in Law 12 does it say that OFFINABUS / dissent is a DFK restart. It does say that striking, kicking, charging, pushing etc is a DFK restart and that can be directed against a player, sub, referee, team official. If a ref stops the game to caution send off for an offence not mentioned in the law it is an IDFK. Dissent is not mentioned as one of the DFK restarts so it has to be an IDFK as before
The wording of Law 12 has been changed. Everyone is focussing on the advice. Opponent has been removed from the 10 penal offences wordings so for example strikes an opponent has been replaced with strikes. Striking now can be a player, sub, referee, team official not just an opponent which makes it an DFK restart etc. Dissent is not one of the DFK offences so it has to be an IDFK as before.
The advice and guidelines are not part of the laws. So read law 12 as currently written and nowhere in Law 12 does it say that OFFINABUS / dissent is a DFK restart. It does say that striking, kicking, charging, pushing etc is a DFK restart and that can be directed against a player, sub, referee, team official. If a ref stops the game to caution send off for an offence not mentioned in the law it is an IDFK. Dissent is not mentioned as one of the DFK restarts so it has to be an IDFK as before
I usually love getting my head round abstruse bits of the law, but this is just silly. IFAB changed the law and they didn't quite mean how it could be interpreted, so they've clarified it (though even having to have Q&A to explain newly-revised rules is itself an admission of failure). Inconsistency of objective decisions is a major problem, but dissent / Offinabus are subjective, otherwise Rooney wouldn't have got away with it constantly. At any level, with different levels of toleration, it would be a minefield. I presume we can all agree that the incident (top right from the masthead of "Foul") would be a DFK....
