New Ref - Scenario Advice

[PEvans]

Hi all - New ref here and i’m really interested to know what would be the correct steps in the following scenario:

A striker is standing in the penalty area and obstructs the keeper just as they’re about to throw the ball. The attacker’s clear intention is to prevent the throw which he succeeded in doing. In retaliation, the goalkeeper immediately elbows the striker in the back.

What’s the correct decision here? Is the order of events important? Could a penalty be awarded or is this not appropriate given the original obstruction offense was committed first?

Thanks all!

 

[JamesL]

Order of events is very important.

An idfk would be awarded against the attacker and the GK would be sent off for VC.

Hard to sell but the correct outcome.

 

[Russell Jones]

Whilst it’s not (yet) a mandatory caution, you might also wish to consider a yellow card for the striker to better ‘sell’ the overall outcome.

 

[Samuel]

If you are cautioning the striker, I'm running over the logistics of the order of sanction. Obviously normally you go more severe sanction first but in an already hard to sell situation like this would anyone consider the caution for the striker first? Otherwise I can imagine there will be a lot of confusion over what you have seen.

 

[JamesL]

If you are cautioning the striker, I'm running over the logistics of the order of sanction. Obviously normally you go more severe sanction first but in an already hard to sell situation like this would anyone consider the caution for the striker first? Otherwise I can imagine there will be a lot of confusion over what you have seen.

Not for me.

Most severe sanctions first. So I would deal with the red and then come back to the cautions. This is fairly normal and standard practise/instructions (taken from mass con).

 

[one]

Verbal communication is key here to avoid confusion. Explaing the decision clearly before giving the IFK will prevent any confusion.

I'd assume there will be some sort of confrontation which has to be dealt with first. Straight after that I'd get the captains in and explain the decision before issuing sanctions.

 

[socal lurker]

Solid advice above. For those with less experience, the reason to address the VC first is to calm things down and dissuade anyone from retaliating against the keeper and expanding the conflict.

 

[PEvans]

Amazing, thanks so much for all your feedback and advice, being a new ref, it’s just so valuable to me to have this resource. Such a great community here.

 

[LothianRef]

Hard to sell but the correct outcome.

As long as you’re clear in your communication then I think it’s a fairly easy sell. First offence is obstructing the keeper, so that’s the restart regardless of what happens after that. As @Russell Jones says, a yellow for the attacker can help sell it.

From personal experience last season I had a blatant SPA/reckless trip that I gave a free kick for. Attacker then got up and slapped his opponent across the face. Red for attacker for VC, yellow for defender for initial tackle and direct free kick restart. Couple of “how is it their free kick if he got sent off?” queries, but after explaining it’s for the initial foul, everyone accepted it without issue.

 

[Johnson]

Verbal communication is key here to avoid confusion. Explaing the decision clearly before giving the IFK will prevent any confusion.

I'd assume there will be some sort of confrontation which has to be dealt with first. Straight after that I'd get the captains in and explain the decision before issuing sanctions.

Interesting. I’d go the other way round. I’d issue sanctions then explain the decision. My thought process is 1) you shouldn’t delay sending off a player 2) players are more likely to listen to your explanation and not try and persuade you to make a decision beneficial to them if you’ve already issued sanctions.

 

[one]

Interesting. I’d go the other way round. I’d issue sanctions then explain the decision. My thought process is 1) you shouldn’t delay sending off a player 2) players are more likely to listen to your explanation and not try and persuade you to make a decision beneficial to them if you’ve already issued sanctions.

That would be my usual process as well. However when there is mass confrontation and there is a good chance that the outcome may confuse players, getting the captains and explaing first has worked better for me.