One foul worse than the other - restart

[afronaut81]

Ok so I thought this was in the LOTG but can't find it. Two players are jostling for the ball. Red player does a careless challenge but before you blow for that the Blue player returns with a reckless challenge.

When awarding the DFK do you go with the first foul or the worst foul?

 

[Peter Grove]

You go with the first foul. Once you have decided in your own mind that a foul has occurred, even if you haven't already managed to blow the whistle, the ball is dead.

The very first line of Law 12 says:

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

So the second challenge, having occurred when the ball was not in play, can't be given (though it can still be penalised as misconduct).

 

[Nij]

You go with the first foul. Once you have decided in your own mind that a foul has occurred, even if you haven't already managed to blow the whistle, the ball is dead.

The very first line of Law 12 says:



So the second challenge, having occurred when the ball was not in play, can't be given (though it can still be penalised as misconduct).

The ball is out of play if any of three things happen - "a foul is committed" is not one of them.
The ball is in play at all other times - both fouls have occurred with the ball in play.

 

[JamesL]

You only punish the more serious offence when two offences occur simultaneously. Example of this is careless foul that denies and OGSO.

I can see Peters point that in the referees
mind the ball is not in play, it just hasn't yet been communicated.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi Nij
When the referee decides that the first foul is being called then that is the decision. The second foul has technically happened when the ball is out of play based on the referees decision so Peter Grove is correct. The whistle is only the signal that an offence has been called. Generally the time between the decision and the whistle is not significant. They are not simultaneous offences such as handling while offside. In that case the more serious offence ie handling is called.
In the OP the correct decision is DFK to Blue yet Blue can still be cautioned for the reckless challenge.

 

[one]

The ball is out of play if any of three things happen - "a foul is committed" is not one of them.
The ball is in play at all other times - both fouls have occurred with the ball in play.

Huh?

So an attacker fouls a defender in the PA. The referee is about to blow the whistle and drops it, by the time he picks it up, the defender handles the ball. Are we giving a penalty?

For the purposes of "play has been stopped by the referee" (one of the three things), as PG already mentioned, that moment is when the referee decides to stop play and not when he blows the whistle.

 

[Nij]

Huh?

So an attacker fouls a defender in the PA. The referee is about to blow the whistle and drops it, by the time he picks it up, the defender handles the ball. Are we giving a penalty?

For the purposes of "play has been stopped by the referee" (one of the three things), as PG already mentioned, that moment is when the referee decides to stop play and not when he blows the whistle.

No - it is the moment the referee actually does stop play. Otherwise what, the ball is out of play when the foul happens and the referee decides to stop for it, but magically wasn't out of play if it went in the goal before the whistle and the referee awards a goal?

The idea that play can be stopped without anybody else knowing is nonsense. Everybody needs to know the same thing, from facts, whether play is continuing or not, hence the law says the ball is in play at all other times except for when these three things have occurred.

We can justify giving the DFK to the defender as the first offence, or we can justify it as the more grievous offence, but we can't justify it by saying the handball happened when the ball was out of play, because it wasn't.

 

[Nij]

Hi Nij
When the referee decides that the first foul is being called then that is the decision. The second foul has technically happened when the ball is out of play based on the referees decision so Peter Grove is correct. The whistle is only the signal that an offence has been called. Generally the time between the decision and the whistle is not significant. They are not simultaneous offences such as handling while offside. In that case the more serious offence ie handling is called.
In the OP the correct decision is DFK to Blue yet Blue can still be cautioned for the reckless challenge.

Law says otherwise, however much "the referee's mind" wants otherwise. The ball is out of play when the referee stops play, not when they think something inside their head.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi Nij
Going to disagree on this one. Who stops play? The referee so once he decides to call the first foul that is it. The whistle is only the signal of his decision.
As to the OP there is only one correct answer as written and that is to call the first careless foul. The second foul is misconduct. He can be dishonest and say the whistle was for the second foul just because he thinks it is more grievous.
The fact is that there was a foul, the referee decided there was and before he communicated that decision there was another foul.

 

[one]

If we are going to be precise on the wording of the laws; there are many events which are not offences but the referee has to stop play for. Say immediately after a foul and before the referee communicates his decision the ball goes over the touchline. How would you restart play?

 

[one]

here is another example of the referee decides when the ball is in/out of play regardless of communication. The ball goes out for a throw in and travels some distance away. The referee decides it's a good opportunity to speak to a player regarding an incident (or attend an injury). Players restart play without referees knowledge and away from his view when he is not 'ready'. As far as the game is concerned the ball is not in play and once the referee notices this and stops proceedings, it's not a dropped ball restart. We are going back to the throw in.

 

[Nij]

If we are going to be precise on the wording of the laws; there are many events which are not offences but the referee has to stop play for. Say immediately after a foul and before the referee communicates his decision the ball goes over the touchline. How would you restart play?

If a foul happens for which a FK can be given, then that FK can be given, because the foul occurred while the ball was in play.
Give the FK. What else are you expecting to be said here?

Hi Nij
Going to disagree on this one. Who stops play? The referee so once he decides to call the first foul that is it. The whistle is only the signal of his decision.
As to the OP there is only one correct answer as written and that is to call the first careless foul. The second foul is misconduct. He can be dishonest and say the whistle was for the second foul just because he thinks it is more grievous.
The fact is that there was a foul, the referee decided there was and before he communicated that decision there was another foul.

So, two fouls occur in quick succession while the referee has not yet decided either is a foul.
According to your logic, the second one is happening while ball in play because the referee hasn't yet made the decision even in their mind, so what are you going to do then?

Or further, a foul occurs and the referee decides they will stop play, but the ball goes into the goal as they are raising their whistle. According to you, this cannot be a goal, so are you going to disallow it?

 

[Nij]

here is another example of the referee decides when the ball is in/out of play regardless of communication. The ball goes out for a throw in and travels some distance away. The referee decides it's a good opportunity to speak to a player regarding an incident (or attend an injury). Players restart play without referees knowledge and away from his view when he is not 'ready'. As far as the game is concerned the ball is not in play and once the referee notices this and stops proceedings, it's not a dropped ball restart. We are going back to the throw in.

"Powers and Duties
The referee:
...
supervises and/or indicates the restart of play"
If the referee is not supervising the restart, it should not occur, so this situation has nothing to do with whether the ball is in play in the referee's mind.

 

[one]

If a foul happens for which a FK can be given, then that FK can be given, because the foul occurred while the ball was in play.
Give the FK. What else are you expecting to be said here?

The ball also went over the line while it was in play. What makes you give the foul but not the throw in? You hadn't stopped play for the foul. Remember you can't apply the first offence concept here (exact wording of the law and all that ).

"Powers and Duties
The referee:
...
supervises and/or indicates the restart of play"
If the referee is not supervising the restart, it should not occur, so this situation has nothing to do with whether the ball is in play in the referee's mind.

Not quite right. The referee not performing his power/duty does not nullify play. For example if the referee punishes the less serious offence in an offences at the same time scenario, it does not nullify the punishment or play or the game. Nothing changes. Its just a case of the referee not performing his/her powers and duties.

Anyway we are talking semantics here. When it comes to it, the outcome what the two of us would do is the same. Its just for different reasons.

 

[Peter Grove]

@Nij, this is a basic part of the principles of refereeing and always has been. As the law says, the ball is out of play whenever, "play has been stopped by the referee."

Play has been stopped by the referee when the referee decides to stop it. So ask yourself - when does the referee's decision occur? Is it when they decided to make it, or when they outwardly communicate that decision? Plenty of examples have been given such as when the referee's whistle malfunctions or they drop it. If the referee tries to blow the whistle but no sound comes out, by your logic that means the referee has not made a decision to stop play but that is patently false.

 

[Nij]

@Nij, this is a basic part of the principles of refereeing and always has been. As the law says, the ball is out of play whenever, "play has been stopped by the referee."

Play has been stopped by the referee when the referee decides to stop it. So ask yourself - when does the referee's decision occur? Is it when they decided to make it, or when they outwardly communicate that decision? Plenty of examples have been given such as when the referee's whistle malfunctions or they drop it. If the referee tries to blow the whistle but no sound comes out, by your logic that means the referee has not made a decision to stop play but that is patently false.

Play is stopped by the referee when the referee blows the whistle. Not when they think play should be stopped or when they attempt to do so, but when they actually do stop it.
Anything else is deliberately avoiding the most sure and objective signal available to the game, in place of the totally subjective, impossible-to-demonstrate, claim that the referee thought something.
Really, consider what you're claiming. The referee thought, and therefore play is stopped.

 

[Peter Grove]

Play is stopped by the referee when the referee blows the whistle. Not when they think play should be stopped or when they attempt to do so, but when they actually do stop it.

So, to take @one's example, if a foul occurs and the ball deflects out over the side line before the referee blows the whistle, you're giving a throw-in?

 

[Nij]

The ball also went over the line while it was in play. What makes you give the foul but not the throw in? You hadn't stopped play for the foul. Remember you can't apply the first offence concept here (exact wording of the law and all that ).

So, to take @one's example, if a foul occurs and the ball deflects out over the side line before the referee blows the whistle, you're giving a throw-in?

Why not? There is only one offence, it occurred when the ball was in play, and therefore the free kick can be awarded for it. The fact that other things happened afterward doesn't mean this foul suddenly never existed.

Now your turn. A defender fouls an attacker, the referee decides it is a foul and raises the whistle, but the ball is kicked into the goal before they blow it. Your logic says this cannot ever be a goal - you really wouldn't be awarding it?

 

[one]

Now your turn. A defender fouls an attacker, the referee decides it is a foul and raises the whistle, but the ball is kicked into the goal before they blow it. Your logic says this cannot ever be a goal - you really wouldn't be awarding it?

Made some corrections. I decided it is a foul, I raised the whistle but did not blow waiting to see if I can play advantage. It materialised and I awarded the goal. I never decided i am stopping play before the ball goes in (that is all i am willing to say or write in any report). A good referee is one who can improvise and use the full extent of what the law allows him to use to achieve a fair outcome.

You turn. In my example, if I decide to award a TI, would you say it is not in accordance to the LAWS of the game? And if it is not why not?

 

[Peter Grove]

That's a straw man argument - you're trying to deflect from the situation at hand by bringing up a different scenario. We've had this discussion before and most people say they would probably give the 'technically' incorrect decision and award the goal because overall, it's for the best outcome for the good of the game. However it's also usually pointed out that this is why you shouldn't be too quick on the whistle when there's a chance of a goal being scored. The law also makes specific allowance for playing the advantage when a team will benefit.

In the OP there were two fouls at different times by players on different teams so there is no question - you have to punish the first offence that occurs.

Why not? There is only one offence, it occurred when the ball was in play, and therefore the free kick can be awarded for it. The fact that other things happened afterward doesn't mean this foul suddenly never existed.

This makes no sense - you're the one saying that when there are two fouls shortly after each other, you can ignore the first one and pretend it didn't exist, even though the ball was definitely in play when it happened.