Referee’s Procedure in Case of a Mutual Altercation Between Players During the Match"

[ERRAJI ABDESSAMAD]

Is the referee allowed, when witnessing a mutual altercation between two players during play, to stop the match and caution both of them? And when restarting play, should the referee award a free kick to one of the teams, or restart with a dropped ball?

 

[es1]

Contested drop balls are not permitted. So must be a free kick to/for either team

 

[Russell Jones]

Is the referee allowed, when witnessing a mutual altercation between two players during play, to stop the match and caution both of them? And when restarting play, should the referee award a free kick to one of the teams, or restart with a dropped ball?

More than just allowed, if the altercation is serious, then it's absolutely recommended! If you (or your team) the witness the first offence, then restarting with a FK to the opposition is correct. If, on the other hand, you only see the altercation already underway, then cautioning both players and restarting with a dropped ball to the team in possession (from where the ball was when you stopped the game) is also fine.

 

[one]

If two players are cautioned then you or your team must have seen an offence from each player. A free kick makes a lot more sense and technically correct compared to a dropped ball (dropped ball is incorrect in law if a caution is issued unless the cautiinable offences are after you stopped play). Free kick should go against the first offence you have seen. Personally I'd give it in the direction that best helps me manage the situation. For example a penalty may be harsh if you haven't seen the actual first offence but going with the first offence you have seen.

 

[socal lurker]

More than just allowed, if the altercation is serious, then it's absolutely recommended! If you (or your team) the witness the first offence, then restarting with a FK to the opposition is correct. If, on the other hand, you only see the altercation already underway, then cautioning both players and restarting with a dropped ball to the team in possession (from where the ball was when you stopped the game) is also fine.

Please explain your basis in law for this conclusion. The Laws say that if there are simultaneous infractions by opponents, the R must give the GK for the more serious offense, and lists factors to consider. There is nothing g in the !aws that permits a DB for simultaneous offenses. (As @one says, if you can’t decide what is more serious, do what will help you manage the situation best.)

 

[Russell Jones]

Please explain your basis in law for this conclusion. The Laws say that if there are simultaneous infractions by opponents, the R must give the GK for the more serious offense, and lists factors to consider. There is nothing g in the !aws that permits a DB for simultaneous offenses. (As @one says, if you can’t decide what is more serious, do what will help you manage the situation best.)

That’s a very fair challenge and it certainly got me thinking! I’m not sure I can strictly justify my approach in a pure Laws way . Although, interestingly, I’m also aiming to get to the ‘what will help you manage the situation best’ outcome. Because a strict law interpretation could be highly problematic. I’ll give two examples to illustrate, one more powerful than the other …

1) The altercation is in one of the penalty areas. In that case, unless the actions of the attacker were clearly worse than that of the defender, you’d be obliged in law to give the penalty - we punish the ‘more serious offence in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity or tactical impact’
2) The altercation is close to the halfway line. Giving a FK to either team in this situation would allow for a long ball into the opposition area and the potential for a goal within seconds of your chosen restart.

Overall, stopping play swiftly in these situations is often important in terms of player safety. Having stopped it, we are then looking for the fairest restart and (other things being equal) a DB restart is designed to simply restore the situation that existed prior to the interruption. It may well be more spirit than letter of the law .. but that’s also true of instead choosing to give the FK to the team that suits you best.

 

[one]

That’s a very fair challenge and it certainly got me thinking! I’m not sure I can strictly justify my approach in a pure Laws way . Although, interestingly, I’m also aiming to get to the ‘what will help you manage the situation best’ outcome. Because a strict law interpretation could be highly problematic. I’ll give two examples to illustrate, one more powerful than the other …

1) The altercation is in one of the penalty areas. In that case, unless the actions of the attacker were clearly worse than that of the defender, you’d be obliged in law to give the penalty - we punish the ‘more serious offence in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity or tactical impact’
2) The altercation is close to the halfway line. Giving a FK to either team in this situation would allow for a long ball into the opposition area and the potential for a goal within seconds of your chosen restart.

Overall, stopping play swiftly in these situations is often important in terms of player safety. Having stopped it, we are then looking for the fairest restart and (other things being equal) a DB restart is designed to simply restore the situation that existed prior to the interruption. It may well be more spirit than letter of the law .. but that’s also true of instead choosing to give the FK to the team that suits you best.

If you have stopped play quickly then cautioning and starting with dropped ball is not just unjustified in law but very much incorrect in law. Any caution means an offence(s) has been committed (USB) and the restart can only be a FK.

On your no. 1 example I'll add a bit to make it even more 'powerful'. As you turn you see the defender being aggressive (say reckless push) twards attacker before attacker retaliating. You stop play and caution both Going by what you have seen first you have to give a penalty. However everyone is saying the attacker started it all but you didn't see it. A defensive FK is the only senseable outcome here.

 

[Russell Jones]

On your no. 1 example I'll add a bit to make it even more 'powerful'. As you turn you see the defender being aggressive (say reckless push) twards attacker before attacker retaliating. You stop play and caution both Going by what you have seen first you have to give a penalty. However everyone is saying the attacker started it all but you didn't see it. A defensive FK is the only senseable outcome here.

So, based on what you have actually observed, the correct outcome in law is a penalty. But you knowingly choose a defensive free kick instead. In part, because of ‘what everyone is saying’! Really?!

More constructively, I don’t think this is an easy situation with a straightforward solution that’s both fair to both teams and strictly in accordance with law. On reflection, one important overall learning point (for me!) is that if you can reasonably manage the situation without cards then that’s helpful .. shows you proactively prioritising player safety but also allows clear licence for a drop ball restart. If a pair of cautions is unavoidable, then can you legitimately claim that the first offence you observed was by the Attacker? If so, happy days, just give the defensive free kick. If it’s genuinely simultaneous offences of similar severity, then I’d still advocate a DB restart .. given that the technically correct restart in law would unavoidably be an attacking free kick or penalty kick. As an observer, I’d support a range of restarts, if coherently argued, but would have little sympathy if the game then went to s**t after a ‘rogue’ goal subsequently scored by the team given a promising attacking opportunity

 

[one]

So, based on what you have actually observed, the correct outcome in law is a penalty. But you knowingly choose a defensive free kick instead. In part, because of ‘what everyone is saying’! Really?!

Absolutely not. See my post 4 with an example which is similar to yours.

I am choosing the free kick direction because I don't actually know what the first offence was. So rather than just going with what I have seen, I go with what helps me manage the game and not cause a riot. Same outcome but completely different reason.

 

[Russell Jones]

Absolutely not. See my post 4 with an example which is similar to yours.

I am choosing the free kick direction because I don't actually know what the first offence was. So rather than just going with what I have seen, I go with what helps me manage the game and not cause a riot. Same outcome but completely different reason.

That makes sense, thank you. And actually, going back to your Post 4 provides another helpful way of often justifying a DB restart .. you simply say that the cautionable offences took place after you had decided to stop play .. which may or may not be slightly before you actually blew the whistle.

At the end of the day, I think we are all trying to achieve the same outcomes here. Firstly, keep players safe and then manage the restart in as fair a way as possible. In the majority of cases, there’s two good ways of doing this (DB or Defensive FK) both of which can be justified to players, clubs or observers if explained correctly.

 

[lukewilson]

I had an interesting one yesterday…
Ball going back to the goalkeeper with defender shielding and attacker just behind. Ball goes back to goalkeeper safely after a little nudge from the attacker on the defender (just about a foul). I gave advantage as keeper had ball in his hands and to keep the game going - but the defender then got upset with the attacker nudging him and grabbed him by the shirt at chest height and they had a little argument that calmed down in 10 seconds.
I had to blow for the handbags, and the ball was in the keepers hands at the time (because of my advantage).
The options in my head that I had were:
1) signal for the initial free kick for the nudge - can I justifiably say there was no advantage because the defender has squared up and grabbed the striker?
2) free kick to the attacking team for being on the receiving end of the grabbing?
3) drop ball to the keeper and move on.

What would be correct in law here? I think I know but probably the least popular outcome!

 

[one]

1 won't be incorrect in law a subjective decision.
2 is clearly correct in law but not an outcome we want.
3 is correct in law if you don't caution either player.

More important question, what was the learning out of this incident?

 

[lukewilson]

Thanks for all that!
For 3) if I stop the game for the pushing and shoving and there is at least one offence in there (the grabbing/shoving), is it correct to go drop ball?
learning would either be as I see the conflict about to start blow for the free kick (so no confusion like this afterwards) or get closer and try and diffuse before it even gets to that point!

 

[lukewilson]

Thanks for all that!
For 3) if I stop the game for the pushing and shoving and there is at least one offence in there (the grabbing/shoving), is it correct to go drop ball?
learning would either be as I see the conflict about to start blow for the free kick (so no confusion like this afterwards) or get closer and try and diffuse before it even gets to that point!

 

[one]

For 3, it is about how you justify a decision and not about what's in your head . So you are justifying by advantage didn't ensue so you stopped play to give the free kick for the first offence.

Good learning points and agree. Some referees with a lot of experienced can see when there is a chance of retaliation and just give the free kick and wont take a chance. Or sometimes prevent it with good vocal communication. Something like "I saw that nudge, keeper has the ball, let's move on".

 

[Gabriel]

I had an interesting one yesterday…
Ball going back to the goalkeeper with defender shielding and attacker just behind. Ball goes back to goalkeeper safely after a little nudge from the attacker on the defender (just about a foul). I gave advantage as keeper had ball in his hands and to keep the game going - but the defender then got upset with the attacker nudging him and grabbed him by the shirt at chest height and they had a little argument that calmed down in 10 seconds.
I had to blow for the handbags, and the ball was in the keepers hands at the time (because of my advantage).
The options in my head that I had were:
1) signal for the initial free kick for the nudge - can I justifiably say there was no advantage because the defender has squared up and grabbed the striker?
2) free kick to the attacking team for being on the receiving end of the grabbing?
3) drop ball to the keeper and move on.

What would be correct in law here? I think I know but probably the least popular outcome!

Obviously @one has got you thinking here, and rightly so. One thing I'd add - I'm presuming you are at grassroots level? If so, was an advantage really necessary here in the first place?
Considering the ball is in the PA, with the GK, would the safe option regardless of handbags just be give the FK and get on with it? I suggest this purely out of interest, as I doubt a GK at grassroots can do much with the advantage that they couldn't do with the FK...
Also saves the possibility of an attacker coming in for the ball, going over the keeper (who might release the ball and/or be a bit clumsy), and then you having to explain why you've given a FK and not a penalty if there are shouts for one

 

[lukewilson]

Obviously @one has got you thinking here, and rightly so. One thing I'd add - I'm presuming you are at grassroots level? If so, was an advantage really necessary here in the first place?
Considering the ball is in the PA, with the GK, would the safe option regardless of handbags just be give the FK and get on with it? I suggest this purely out of interest, as I doubt a GK at grassroots can do much with the advantage that they couldn't do with the FK...
Also saves the possibility of an attacker coming in for the ball, going over the keeper (who might release the ball and/or be a bit clumsy), and then you having to explain why you've given a FK and not a penalty if there are shouts for one

I should have been clearer! The ball was travelling quickly so they ended up being a good 15/20 yards away from the ball and the keeper - so keeper had an easy roll out either side of him as an option to start an attack the other way! There was no pressure on the keeper per se, which is why I thought the game could carry on! As you say, any closer I’d probably just blow anyway