Self Reflection

[Degnann]

Great question. If say from a game management point of view, anything that requires a warning should be left to a stoppage. This would avoid further revelations (e.g. OP). This wouldn't be a hard and fast rule though.

Stop game for sanctioning if no advantage.

Happy to be convinced otherwise.

Would be happy to agree. Had I waited for stoppage in play, wouldn’t have had to restart with the free kick, probably no red for him.

 

[JamesL]

Would be happy to agree. Had I waited for stoppage in play, wouldn’t have had to restart with the free kick, probably no red for him.

Some can't help themselves lol. There is always a risk that 1) the ball stays in play for a longtime so it can so etimes look fussy going back 5 mins and 2) he could have escalated all the same whilst play continues.

The point I am making is you've looked and said can I do this differently, which is the best we can do. Some folks are walking cards anyway and no matte rhwat approach we take they get themselves binned

 

[AlexF]

I don't think this is by design. It's just typical IFAB not thinking about the consequences of the wordings they use.

I think that this is absolutely by design.

If you look at the coach sanctions, the majority are higher than for a player, because the expectation (not reality obviously) is that coaches are held to a higher standard than players.

 

[JamesL]

I think that this is absolutely by design.

If you look at the coach sanctions, the majority are higher than for a player, because the expectation (not reality obviously) is that coaches are held to a higher standard than players.

If agree with this, further backed up for the coach taking the rap for any unidentifiable misconduct within the TA.

 

[Mr Dean]

If it is by design, it's a silly design. If I was a coach, I'd list myself on the team sheet as a substitute. This way, I'd receive more lenient sanctions for misconduct.

Example:
For delaying the opponent's restart, team officials receive red cards whereas players and substitutes receive yellow cards.

 

[ARF]

If it is by design, it's a silly design. If I was a coach, I'd list myself on the team sheet as a substitute. This way, I'd receive more lenient sanctions for misconduct.

Example:
For delaying the opponent's restart, team officials receive red cards whereas players and substitutes receive yellow cards.

Except you'd still be dealt with as a team official, so you'd still be sent off.

 

[JamesL]

If it is by design, it's a silly design. If I was a coach, I'd list myself on the team sheet as a substitute. This way, I'd receive more lenient sanctions for misconduct.

Example:
For delaying the opponent's restart, team officials receive red cards whereas players and substitutes receive yellow cards.

1)coaches are unlikely to be aware of this.
2) secs normally fill in team sheets(step 7 and above granted)
3) even if listed as a sub, they will still aslo be listed as manager / coach so you can still treat them in that capacity.
4) the laws have always been a bit iffy about player/managers example a manager that was sent off could bring himself back on to the FOP as a sub.

 

[one]

I think that this is absolutely by design.

If you look at the coach sanctions, the majority are higher than for a player, because the expectation (not reality obviously) is that coaches are held to a higher standard than players.

I was refereeing to the use of the word 'offence' for something they are warned for. Warnings have never been offences. You stop game, you warn coach but you start with a FK. I don't think this was intended. Indiscretion would be a much better word.

 

[Gamespoiler]

Just to clarify please (apologies).

Ball is in play, substitute or team official committing verbal offences to a level you can’t ignore.
Like the opening post, I have stopped play, issued caution, then restarted with idfk

Is this incorrect in law?

 

[JamesL]

Just to clarify please (apologies).

Ball is in play, substitute or team official committing verbal offences to a level you can’t ignore.
Like the opening post, I have stopped play, issued caution, then restarted with idfk

Is this incorrect in law?

Correct. On the boundary line closest to where the offence took place.

 

[one]

Just to clarify please (apologies).

Ball is in play, substitute or team official committing verbal offences to a level you can’t ignore.
Like the opening post, I have stopped play, issued caution, then restarted with idfk

Is this incorrect in law?

Correct restart if "offences to a level you can’t ignore". But the sanction is not always caution. Depending on the level, you can also send off. Or for team officials you can just warn (which was the case in opening post).

 

[GraemeS]

Correct restart if "offences to a level you can’t ignore". But the sanction is not always caution. Depending on the level, you can also send off. Or for team officials you can just warn (which was the case in opening post).

But again, I broadly disagree with the concept that there can be a verbal offence that is so serious that you feel you must stop the game, but is also so minor that it's only worth a warning. You wouldn't stop the game in order to warn a player that he's approaching a dissent caution and I don't see anything in the laws quoted so far in this thread that opens up that window for a team official on the side of the pitch.

Yes, I agree there is technically a loophole that a referee can use if he decides between blowing the whistle and reaching the coach that it's not actually worthy of a yellow. But that's a getout if you stop the game when you shouldn't have, not a refereeing choice that we should be actively encouraging.

 

[JamesL]

But again, I broadly disagree with the concept that there can be a verbal offence that is so serious that you feel you must stop the game, but is also so minor that it's only worth a warning. You wouldn't stop the game in order to warn a player that he's approaching a dissent caution and I don't see anything in the laws quoted so far in this thread that opens up that window for a team official on the side of the pitch.

Yes, I agree there is technically a loophole that a referee can use if he decides between blowing the whistle and reaching the coach that it's not actually worthy of a yellow. But that's a getout if you stop the game when you shouldn't have, not a refereeing choice that we should be actively encouraging.

Law 5 states:
• takes action against team officials who fail to act in a responsible manner
and warns or shows a yellow card for a caution or a red card for a
sending-off from the field of play and its immediate surrounds,

You know I agree with you in terms of the reality but the laws DO allow you to take action specifically in regards to a team official. Eg stop play, warn and award oppo an idfk.

 

[socal lurker]

Law 5 states:
• takes action against team officials who fail to act in a responsible manner
and warns or shows a yellow card for a caution or a red card for a
sending-off from the field of play and its immediate surrounds,

You know I agree with you in terms of the reality but the laws DO allow you to take action specifically in regards to a team official. Eg stop play, warn and award oppo an idfk.

I agree that you can tease that out of the way it is written. Sadly, with IFAB, we can tease a lot of things out of language that aren't intended. IMHO, IFAB does not intend to have the game stopped in order to give a verbal warning to the bench in our world where cards can be shown to them. (I also don't think play has to be stopped for the R to issue a warning to a team official.)

 

[bester]

Did anybody initially think this was an IDFK due to it coming under coach "warning offences"?

I suspect most thought it was an IDFK if play was stopped under the perception 'all verbal offences are IDFKs'.

 

[JamesL]

Did anybody initially think this was an IDFK due to it coming under coach "warning offences"?

I suspect most thought it was an IDFK if play was stopped under the perception 'all verbal offences are IDFKs'.

It's not a perception. The laws literally say it.

 

[one]

It's not a perception. The laws literally say it.

Only for players.

 

[one]

Team officials "occasionally leaving the confines of the technical area without committing another offence""

This is an offence. It is not a verbal offence. If you stop play for it (I wouldn't) how do you restart.

Ifab just didn't know the consequences of naming these indiscretions offences.

 

[JamesL]

Only for players.

It applies to everyone. It is under restart of play after fouls and misconduct which doesn't specify just players.

 

[JamesL]

A team officials "occasionally leaving the confines of the technical area without committing another offence""

This is an offence. It is not a verbal offence. If you stop play for it (I wouldn't) how do you restart.

Ifab just didn't know the conveniences of naming these indiscretions offences.

I too would not. But if I did, indirect.
My reasoning being its not a physical offence committed against anyone, its a technical offence.
Although would you ai be right, who knows, laws just say offence by team official outside field of play is a free kick without spedifiy indirect or direct