The Ref Stop

Restart for offence by substitute off the FOP

So blue sub calls red manager a **** while Red striker has the ball in the penalty area correct restart PK.
So blue sub calls red manager a **** while the ball is in the centre circle its still a direct freekick but on the touchline where blue sub was standing.
If it involves spectators it would be indirect.
If it was an indirect offence it would be on the touchline nearest to the offence.
From reading this thread is what I have written right? If not kindly point out my mistake.
 
The Ref Stop
Tino Best said:
So blue sub calls red manager a **** while Red striker has the ball in the penalty area correct restart PK.
So blue sub calls red manager a **** while the ball is in the centre circle its still a direct freekick but on the touchline where blue sub was standing.
If it involves spectators it would be indirect.
If it was an indirect offence it would be on the touchline nearest to the offence.
From reading this thread is what I have written right? If not kindly point out my mistake.
Click to expand...
Verbal offences are indirect restart. And the restart is at the location of the offence. If the offence is off the fop then this is from the boundary line closest to the offence.
 
So all of the above are IDFK.
But if violent conduct was involved then they would be direct? I have been following this thread and I am now confused and seeking clarification.
 
Tino Best said:
So all of the above are IDFK.
But if violent conduct was involved then they would be direct? I have been following this thread and I am now confused and seeking clarification.
Click to expand...
If you would punish with a dfk on fop then the restart would be dfk if offence off fop. Likewise idfk on fop same with offence off fop.
So, yes, if we replaced offinabus with VC in the OP then we would start with dfk, at the boundary line closest to the offence.
 
JamesL said:
If you would punish with a dfk on fop then the restart would be dfk if offence off fop. Likewise idfk on fop same with offence off fop.
So, yes, if we replaced offinabus with VC in the OP then we would start with dfk, at the boundary line closest to the offence.
Click to expand...
Again, while I agree with you, how do you justify this in law?

There is the bit in law 12 which says "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick." but it is clearly within the context of by players against opponents and applying it to a manager striking another manager is a very very long stretch (the same way it does not apply for offences against team mates).
 
one said:
Again, while I agree with you, how do you justify this in law?

There is the bit in law 12 which says "If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick." but it is clearly within the context of by players against opponents and applying it to a manager striking another manager is a very very long stretch (the same way it does not apply for offences against team mates).
Click to expand...
Its a bit of a quaqmire really as there are various, in some cases contradictory statements.

For example in between two sections reagrding objects throw it states
If an offence is committed outside the field of play against a player, substitute,
substituted player or team official of their own team, play is restarted
with an indirect free kick on the boundary line closest to where the offence
occurred.

However it is not clear on by whom or if this is relatable solely to throwing of objects or whether this is a catch all.

I think your scenario is not covered exactly in law but there is enough in there to suggest my interpretations are reasonable outcomes when we start introducing spirit of the game and what football expects. Although that is complicated by the halting of an attacking opportunity and relocating the restart to what could actually be the team offended againsts own half.

However with your scenario I think that it can only be idfk given that ifab released a faqs document after they inadvertently changed some verbal offences to dfk to state explicitly that all verbal offences are idfk. I'll try and find it somewhere.

Edit: q and a was relating to dissent.
 
Last edited:
JamesL said:
I think your scenario is not covered exactly in law but there is enough in there to suggest my interpretations are reasonable outcomes when we start introducing spirit of the game and what football expects.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
JamesL said:
Its a bit of a quaqmire really as there are various, in some cases contradictory statements.
Click to expand...
I have been looking at offences on/off the fop by someone who is not permitted on the FOP. Various and contradictory are some words to describe them. Incomplete, inconsistent and all over the place are others that come to mind.

To give you another example, if a player temporarily of the FOP enters the FOP without permission and doesn't interfere with play and the referee stops play, the restart is an IFK from where the ball was. However if play is stopped due to a goal for the said player's team, goal is disallowed and play is restarted with a DFK from the position of the said player. Presumably this would be a penalty kick against him if he was in his own PA. Go figure.
 
This is one of those situations I hope never happens as I can't make head or tails of the Law on this aspect... :wall:
 
Hi
Offinabus has an IDFK restart. It cannot be a DFK or penalty.
As to what is expected here in the OP the Law requires that the game should only be stopped if there is interference on the field of play. As there is no interference play should continue to the next stoppage.
Now the Law does not cover the situation of stopping play for such situations and the law is mute on it as play is not expected to be stopped. One could use the IDFK on the boundary line restart for offences that interfere with play or players or match officials. Also a dropped ball restart at the location of the ball at the stoppage would not be incorrect either in Law.
 
My thoughts are, as well, that you would do well to be able to identify the offender as one (not the poster) would imagine that your attention would be undividedly being given to play taking place in the penalty area.
 
JamesL said:
My thoughts are, as well, that you would do well to be able to identify the offender as one (not the poster) would imagine that your attention would be undividedly being given to play taking place in the penalty area.
Click to expand...
If there is a 4O or the far side AR is paying attention and letting you know then that shouldn't be a problem.
 
Goldfish said:
Offinabus has an IDFK restart. It cannot be a DFK or penalty.
Click to expand...
I am not saying its not an IFK. Just saying IFK is only supported by the LOTG if OFFINABUSS is done by a player. One could argue it is DFK because the law supports DFK for a sub interfering with opponents when entering the FOP or throwing an object (none requires contact). OFFINABUS can be considered a kind of interference with opponent.

The actual incident that made me come up with the OP question is somewhat less dramatic. It happened in my game a couple of weeks ago and it made me look up the lotg and realise not only it was not covered but other similar incidents are not covered or inconsistent.

A home team sub was antagonising the away team winger every time he went past the benches. I had noticed this and warned the sub at a stoppage and asked my AR to keep an eye on it. Some time later when the ball was in play around midfield I noticed the beginning of a verbal confrontation with the winger walking towards the home bench saying something with his finger pointed. I knew if I didn't take care of it immediately I would have physical mass con on my hand. I stooped the game calmed it down and after talking to my AR, I decided to caution the home sub for USB. At the time I went for a IFK from the touchline near the TA, it was an easy sell as no one really knew or cared what the restart is.
 
Hi
This is what IFAB Q&A says
""
Q6 Why is an offence against someone who is not an opponent now a direct free kick? Does this include dissent/offensive language?
If, for example, a player strikes a team-‐mate, substitute, team official or, perhaps even worse, a match official this is serious but only restarting with an IDFK suggested that the offence was not serious so it is now a direct free kick for any offence (directly) against anyone (except an opponent). This does not include dissent/offensive language etc. as this is not a direct/physical offence against a person (see below).
Q7: What is the restart of the referee stops play for dissent/offensive language etc.? If the referee stops play to penalise a player for dissent/offensive language etc. the restart is an IDFK.

I suppose the Law is saying not to stop the game yet wait for a stoppage and then deal with. The restart then does not matter.
 
Goldfish said:
Hi
This is what IFAB Q&A says
""
Q6 Why is an offence against someone who is not an opponent now a direct free kick? Does this include dissent/offensive language?
If, for example, a player strikes a team-‐mate, substitute, team official or, perhaps even worse, a match official this is serious but only restarting with an IDFK suggested that the offence was not serious so it is now a direct free kick for any offence (directly) against anyone (except an opponent). This does not include dissent/offensive language etc. as this is not a direct/physical offence against a person (see below).
Q7: What is the restart of the referee stops play for dissent/offensive language etc.? If the referee stops play to penalise a player for dissent/offensive language etc. the restart is an IDFK.

I suppose the Law is saying not to stop the game yet wait for a stoppage and then deal with. The restart then does not matter.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have explained this better.

I see you bolded "the restart is an IDFK" from Q&A. However if you look a few words back you will see ..."to penalise a player"... . Similarly law 12.2 says "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:". Unlike everyday football speak, a reference to players in the LOTG does not include substitutes. In football speak, anyone on the teamsheet who is allowed to play at anytime is a player. In LOTG anyone on the teamsheet permitted on the field of play at the time of a specific play is a player. LOTG are very distinct for offences that apply to players compared to those applying to substitutes. Cautionabe offences for example have two different sections, one for players and the other for substitutes etc. Another example is the standard DFK offences (push, jump, trip...). They only apply to players. If a substitute does any of them, the resulting DFK is for interfering (semantics really but nonetheless). There are a lot more example I can use.

Why am I saying this? Quoting the Q&A which applies to players only does not address my concern of laws not covering offences by substitutes (not involving interference). And one can justify any restart for that very reason. As I said earlier one can justify a DFK in comparison to a no contact interference offence by a sub.

And surly the laws do not expect referees to allow play to continue while a fight is taking place in the TA. Or even allowing play to continue as the fight is about to start in the first place. OP or the incident in my game are perfect examples of this.
 
Last edited:
Well, after thinking of all these scenarios that are not covered in the LOTG, I emailed David Elleray a longish email and I must say I am pleasantly surprised and impressed to receive a response relatively quickly. Not happy with all the answers but at least I have answers.

The restart to the OP scenario is a dropped ball (from where the ball was when play stopped). The reason given is that the law only allows a free kick if an offence is by a player or against a player/match official ('player' as in lotg definition which is one of the 11).

The restart to the incident in my game in post 33 is IFK (from the touchline). Happy to have got that right in my game :)

There are also a few other scenarios not discussed here. More than happy to post the entire email if anyone is interested.
 
Great stuff. Two things jump out for me;

First, i/b suggests a different meaning/threshold for “interferes with” for sub/team official entering FoP compared to the meaning in the offside law. Here, if you have to stop the game, it means they’ve interfered. That’s common sense but confusing in terms if the LotG.

My second learning: OMG this is confusing. I have been trying to cement my knowledge of this and I am more confused. It’s gonna be worse when futsal starts again with different laws!
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
santa sangria said:
Great stuff. Two things jump out for me;

First, i/b suggests a different meaning/threshold for “interferes with” for sub/team official entering FoP compared to the meaning in the offside law. Here, if you have to stop the game, it means they’ve interfered. That’s common sense but confusing in terms if the LotG.

My second learning: OMG this is confusing. I have been trying to cement my knowledge of this and I am more confused. It’s gonna be worse when futsal starts again with different laws!
Click to expand...
Agreed. IFK for non-physical offences/DFK for physical offences on the touchline nearest the incident seems like it would be a sensible "catch-all" situation for anything that occurs off the pitch. Trying to work out what the role is of the person who has committed the offence, what the role is of the person who they have committed it against and if anyone stepped onto the FOP at any point all seems to be adding unnecessary complexity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top