The Ref Stop

Pushing a team mate

S

simonj88

New Member
Was reffing a game at the weekend where a keeper punches a shot back out towards the penalty spot and the opposition winger is favourite to get there first, just as he’s about to shoot his team mate (the striker) pushes him out of the way falling awkwardly, the striker takes the ball on and scores.

What’s the correct decision there, just give the goal?
 
The Ref Stop
Sounds like just a bit of bickering between teammates. Has happened before where 2 members of the same team have been sent off for fighting (Lee Bowyer, Newcastle I think) but in this case, it's just a little shove. Let them sort it out among themselves. Good luck giving the goal then booking the striker for adopting an aggressive attitude, think that's an impossible sell.
 
Technically a push (or any other DFK offence) on a team mate is an IDFK to the other team I think.

It would be a brave referee that gave it.
 
Trip said:
Technically a push (or any other DFK offence) on a team mate is an IDFK to the other team I think.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. You can not give an IDFK for an offense committed against a teammate [after the 2016 re-write]. It's a DFK or PK (if the ball was in play, of course) In this case, you obviously give the goal. If there was violence involved with the push, then you could give the appropriate card.
 
Aha, I saw your reply because it was emailed to me (as it was written initially) and I was sure I'd read that in the LOTG so I went off to try to find it. I was coming back here to say it looks like you're right and then I see your edit. It was in the laws I first learned.
 
Also, law 12 list of offences punishable by dfk are for offences committed against an opponent e.g. pushing. This is very specific. So you need to find another offence to stop play.

This is a clear play on situation and award a goal.
 
Law 12 is particularly higgledy-piggledy. Are we saying that when an offense is against a team mate and the offending team has an opportunity to score, we don't stop play? The 'restart if play after fouls and misconduct' section implies that the game should be stopped, the implication stemming from the instruction to restart with a DFK. Perhaps, because a team mate can't be fouled, an offense must be a YC or RC. On this basis, if the push warranted disciplinary action, surely the game must be stopped
 
Can I throw in....what if the push on team mate was intentional to create the strike at goal. At first glance, am saying, so what
However, we would not let team mate climb up on team mate to say, header a cross?
 
It's a YHTBT. The words "falling awkwardly" worry me.

The way I read the law, the only time you can award a DFK to opponents here without a sanction is if you deem it is careless PIADM. This would be the hardest to sell.

1525393888249.png
1525394082557.png

The PIDAM push can warrant a yellow card (not as hard to sell) or deemed a VC red card (easier to sell).
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
Law 12 is particularly higgledy-piggledy. Are we saying that when an offense is against a team mate and the offending team has an opportunity to score, we don't stop play? The 'restart if play after fouls and misconduct' section implies that the game should be stopped, the implication stemming from the instruction to restart with a DFK. Perhaps, because a team mate can't be fouled, an offense must be a YC or RC. On this basis, if the push warranted disciplinary action, surely the game must be stopped
Click to expand...
Law 12 has got itself into a bit of a tangle after the recent changes.

On the one hand offences involving contact are DFKs. Does this include anything against team mates?

Offences against a team-mate, substitute, substituted or sent off player, team official or a match official are all DFKs. But it never mentions what these offences are. Things like push and trip are only offences if done against opponents.

And, its a IFK if a player commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player. Can you apply that clause if the restart is DFK? Or against a team mate (which is mentioned in the law)?
 
Last edited:
You're correct that it isn't very clear what these "offenses" are. We can safely assume that violent conduct against a teammate or match official would be one such offense. Is it only for violent conduct? Practically, I'd lean towards yes, however if two teammates shoved each other in the chest a couple of times during an argument, I guess I could see two yellows + the DFK/PK restart to the opponents. I'm certainly never giving a yellow or red for mistiming a tackle or header and going studs up into a teammate's leg or bringing an elbow into a teammates head on a header.
 
cwyeary said:
I'm certainly never giving a yellow or red for mistiming a tackle or header and going studs up into a teammate's leg or bringing an elbow into a teammates head on a header.
Click to expand...
For me "Studs into a leg" and "elbow into a head" must be punished no matter who the victim is.
Both of these are at the very least PIDAM but likely VC. I'd stop play immediately and its a DFK/pen to the opponents. If VC, red is out. If PIDAM a yellow. Form your description VC is the most likely but YHTBT.
This is what the law wants us to do under the definition of PIDAM and VC and I believe it is within the spirit of it too. It may be unexpected because it is uncommon and most ppl haven't seen it before.
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
Law 12 is particularly higgledy-piggledy. Are we saying that when an offense is against a team mate and the offending team has an opportunity to score, we don't stop play? The 'restart if play after fouls and misconduct' section implies that the game should be stopped, the implication stemming from the instruction to restart with a DFK. Perhaps, because a team mate can't be fouled, an offense must be a YC or RC. On this basis, if the push warranted disciplinary action, surely the game must be stopped
Click to expand...
one said:
For me "Studs into a leg" and "elbow into a head" must be punished no matter who the victim is.
Both of these are at the very least PIDAM but likely VC. I'd stop play immediately and its a DFK/pen to the opponents. If VC, red is out. If PIDAM a yellow. Form your description VC is the most likely but YHTBT.
This is what the law wants us to do under the definition of PIDAM and VC and I believe it is within the spirit of it too. It may be unexpected because it is uncommon and most ppl haven't seen it before.
Click to expand...

Depends on circumstances though surely?

Would it be a RC if defender is trying to block a 30 yard piledriver from 15 yards away by sidestepping or running sideways and then he out stretches his leg knee height to try and block the incoming shot but at the same time another defending is trying to block the shot and get's a stud into the shin/knee. Would that warrant a red card team-mate on team-mate?
 
The Law, needs a coherent structure like branches of a tree. Back to the OP which (I think) is referring to an act which is not an offence (because a push on a team mate is not explicitly defined as an offence). However, if the act was Violent Conduct against a team mate, it would be an offence inside the FOP with the restart being a DFK from the point at which the offence occurred (not where the ball is at the time the offence was committed). Although the OP has stimulated this in-depth discussion, in reality it would be folly to disallow the goal for anything other than a dismissal, because to do so would cause chaos
 
I'd allow the goal personally.

Another thing to consider (in a somewhat perverse way) might be that even if you considered the push/shove on a team mate to be VC, could you not deem yourself to be playing "advantage" so that the goal is scored - and then dismiss the miscreant after the fact? The "advantage" law is surely designed to benefit the team in immediate possession with a clear attacking opportunity even if you consider that the "offence" merits a card.

I'm probably wrong but just throwing it out there .... :hmmm: :D
 
I'd allow it.

Let's be honest he's done nothing violently - he's getting a teammate out the way so he can score.

@Kes So you'd be allowing an advantage to a team who have (hypothetically - not in this situation) committed an offence worthy of violent conduct? If he'd drop kicked him over the crossbar, I'd be stopping play immediately. If they've got a problem, blame old dopey ******** who's cost them a goal
 
NorthLondonRef said:
Depends on circumstances though surely?
Click to expand...
I did say YHTBT which basically means Depends on circumstances.:)


Kes said:
I'd allow the goal personally.

Another thing to consider (in a somewhat perverse way) might be that even if you considered the push/shove on a team mate to be VC, could you not deem yourself to be playing "advantage" so that the goal is scored - and then dismiss the miscreant after the fact? The "advantage" law is surely designed to benefit the team in immediate possession with a clear attacking opportunity even if you consider that the "offence" merits a card.

I'm probably wrong but just throwing it out there .... :hmmm: :D
Click to expand...

I cant find anything to support advantage for "benefit the team in immediate possession". But i can find something to support "I'm probably wrong but just throwing it out there" ;)

1525443543964.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top