One foul worse than the other - restart

[one]

I am only going on with this because it is a healthy debate. I acknowledge everyone here will get to the same outcome in game situations.

As I said, I only accept Nij's argument about a whistle stopping play if we also accept that a referee MUST punish the first of two offenses. So, in your case above he cannot give a throw and also caution the player for the earlier SFP. However he CAN decide the the SFP was not in his mind an offense and give the TI

The referee thinks SFP foul was an offence. But he didn't have enough time to blow before the ball went out.
The thing is, what causes a TI restart (or other restarts than FK/PK) is not an offence so the "punish the first offence" reasoning here doesn't stick. There has been only one offence committed here. That means if the ball was in play even after the referee decided it was a foul, he now has a choice of two restarts both of which can be supported in law.

PS: SFP is a send off not a caution but I think that was just an oversight.

 

[Nij]

I am only going on with this because it is a healthy debate. I acknowledge everyone here will get to the same outcome in game situations.



The referee thinks SFP foul was an offence. But he didn't have enough time to blow before the ball went out.
The thing is, what causes a TI restart (or other restarts than FK/PK) is not an offence so the "punish the first offence" reasoning here doesn't stick. There has been only one offence committed here. That means if the ball was in play even after the referee decided it was a foul, he now has a choice of two restarts both of which can be supported in law.

PS: SFP is a send off not a caution but I think that was just an oversight.

But if there's only one offence, penalising the first offence is pretty easy, isn't it?

 

[one]

But if there's only one offence, penalising the first offence is pretty easy, isn't it?

Not if you haven't stopped play in time, ball is still in play and there is another event which needs a different type of restart.

 

[socal lurker]

Not if you haven't stopped play in time, ball is still in play and there is another event which needs a different type of restart.

I think we passed the line of overthinking this and making a simple concept complex some time back. Even if the R hadn't made a decision or blown the whistle for a foul before the ball went out of play, Rs can change their decision any time until there has been a restart. If the R has a foul that occurred with the ball in play, it's a foul and a FK. The only reason to not call it (and let there be a TI), is if the R were to decide it was trifling. (On the goal line there could be arguments for advantage, I suppose, as a GK may be more advantageous than a FK in the corner, and even a CK could be more advantageous than an IFK in the corner.)

Just because IFAB has been doing its darndest to make the Laws more complicated doesn't mean we have to find ways to make it worse.

 

[RustyRef]

Blimey, this is 3 pages of saying the same thing. Simplifying it, it takes time for the referee to put the whistle in his mouth and blow, but that doesn't mean that a foul committed only becomes a foul once the whistle sounds. This isn't exactly rocket science unless I am missing something obvious.

 

[one]

I think we passed the line of overthinking this and making a simple concept complex some time back.

I think we all agree on that. As I mentioned before, we all have the same outcome but this is a healthy debate about the concept of what is the actual moment in time when the ball is considered out of play.

If the R has a foul that occurred with the ball in play, it's a foul and a FK. The only reason to not call it (and let there be a TI), is if the R were to decide it was trifling. (On the goal line there could be arguments for advantage, I suppose, as a GK may be more advantageous than a FK in the corner, and even a CK could be more advantageous than an IFK in the corner.)

That is not the point though. We all agree what the outcome should be. The point is, (even though a TI should not be awarded) the notion of the law supporting a TI decision after a SFP is ludicrous. And if we say the ball is in play until the referee blows the whistle, it means the law does support a TI decision.

 

[Nij]

I think we all agree on that. As I mentioned before, we all have the same outcome but this is a healthy debate about the concept of what is the actual moment in time when the ball is considered out of play.


That is not the point though. We all agree what the outcome should be. The point is, (even though a TI should not be awarded) the notion of the law supporting a TI decision after a SFP is ludicrous. And if we say the ball is in play until the referee blows the whistle, it means the law does support a TI decision.

The law does support a TI decision as an alternative to the FK decision, if one sticks purely to the written letter.

The point is that we're not robots: we choose the best of multiple options where they exist, precisely because the laws cannot record every possible situation and specify an outcome for each one (to see what that would be like, read the MLB rulebook some time. That is what ludicrous looks like).

When two fouls occur at the same time, we penalise the more severe in a priority order; when two fouls occur at different times while the ball is in play, we penalise the first; when one foul occurs and the ball goes out of play, we penalise the foul unless deemed unnecessary.

We don't need to invoke some philosophical abstraction about decisions made in the referee's mind instantly stopping play, to determine which foul(s) are penalised, when there are far more concrete, simple, and lawful means to do so.

 

[one]

When two fouls occur at the same time, we penalise the more severe in a priority order; when two fouls occur at different times while the ball is in play, we penalise the first; when one foul occurs and the ball goes out of play, we penalise the foul unless deemed unnecessary.

We both achieve the same outcome. This is the best I can do for a compromise on how we come to that decision

From that quote, there are three sections, two are specifically from LOTG, but you have 'made up' (for lack of a better phrase) the bold part to support your interpretation.
I 'made up' "the ball is out of play when the referee decides to stop play" to support my interpretation.

Who is to say which is right? Traditionally though, attested by the more traditional poster here, my interpretation has been the one taught.

 

[Nij]

From that quote, there are three sections, two are specifically from LOTG, but you have 'made up' (for lack of a better phrase) the bold part to support your interpretation.
I 'made up' "the ball is out of play when the referee decides to stop play" to support my interpretation.

Who is to say which is right? Traditionally though, attested by the more traditional poster here, my interpretation has been the one taught.

Well, which of the two principles requires additional posits to achieve the aim: "penalise the first offence of any number of offences" or "penalise the first offence of any number of offences except if the ball goes out of play, then act as if the ball went out of play when the first offence occurred"? And of those principles, which can be applied across the match as-is, which requires further caveats to prevent (what all have agreed are) ludicrous outcomes?

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
My last word on this. A referee cannot in consecutive fouls decide to punish the second foul just because it is more serious because he hasn’t blown his whistle for the first foul. This comes back to integrity and honesty by the official. Soccer is not like other sports where misconduct can turns over the first decision.
Case in point is a reckless challenge by Blue on Red. Red jumps up before the whistle has sounded and kicks Blue in the shin. The only correct decision is free kick to Red, Blue cautioned for the reckless challenge and Red is sent off for VC not SFP.
Now the point i have been making is that the referee made a decision to stop play for the reckless challenge and he was late of signaling his decision to stop play.
We all agree the whistle is used to stop play yet we cannot arbitrarily say that because the whistle had not sounded that no decision was made.
The whistle is a signal of a decision by the referee. FWIW whistle is not mentioned anywhere in the 17 Laws.

 

[Nij]

Hi
My last word on this. A referee cannot in consecutive fouls decide to punish the second foul just because it is more serious because he hasn’t blown his whistle for the first foul. This comes back to integrity and honesty by the official. Soccer is not like other sports where misconduct can turns over the first decision.
Case in point is a reckless challenge by Blue on Red. Red jumps up before the whistle has sounded and kicks Blue in the shin. The only correct decision is free kick to Red, Blue cautioned for the reckless challenge and Red is sent off for VC not SFP.
Now the point i have been making is that the referee made a decision to stop play for the reckless challenge and he was late of signaling his decision to stop play.
We all agree the whistle is used to stop play yet we cannot arbitrarily say that because the whistle had not sounded that no decision was made.

So, in all of that, why does it matter that the whistle hasn't been blown, if you're just going to penalise the first offence anyway? You still don't need the convoluted stuff about "decisions made in the mind of the referee stop play even though play hasn't stopped".

The whistle is a signal of a decision by the referee. FWIW whistle is not mentioned anywhere in the 17 Laws.

Law 5 makes the whistle mandatory equipment for the referee - search on the LOTG app to check for yourself.

The same app further includes additional guidance and instructions that we may assume should be considered above all else except the law itself, given its source directly from the horse's mouth.
That guidance says, "the whistle is needed to: [...] stop play: [...] for a free kick or penalty kick".

 

[Big Cat]

I am confused...can someone answer simply "is the ball no longer in play when the foul is committed, or when the whistle is blown for the foul?"
Thanks

Who cares?

 

[ASM]

I think we’ve gone round this roundabout quite enough to be honest.

If offences occur sequentially (i.e. one before the other) you should not apply the punishing the more serious offence logic however you are still perfectly at liberty and should apply any disciplinary sanction that any subsequent offence accrues.

The restart would still be that for the initial offence.