The Ref Stop

shouting leave it

Different means of getting to exactly the same outcome but I agree with @JamesL on this.

Prior to 17/18 verbal distraction was listed as misconduct with no restart listed for it. So if you stop the game for it, you used the ‘catch all’ restart of IFK for stopping game to caution. So:
  • Offence caused caution
  • Caution caused IFK restart

17/18 listed a verbal offence as IFK restart. So
  • Offence caused caution
  • Offence caused IFK

A slight technical difference. Pre 17/18 IFK was dependent on the caution which in turn was dependent on the offence. Post 17/18 both the caution and the IFK are dependent on the offence. In both cases it means either all three (offence, caution, IFK) or none.

The only thing that changes is the standard assessor/observer comment for awarding an IFK without cautioning. It was “unless you are cautioning, you can’t stop game for an IFK restart’. It should change to “The same offence you gave an IFK for requires a caution. You must punish with both”.
 
The Ref Stop
OK, I'm not 100% sure but if you're agreeing with JamesL's contention that verbal distraction can be considered as an IFK offence because of the line referring to "other verbal offences" then once again, I have to disagree. Yes, "other verbal offences" is listed - along with dissent and OFFINABUS - as an indirect free kick offence. However, if the simple fact that it is only included along with those two other offences was not enough (and as I already mentioned) the explanation which accompanies this underlined change makes it absolutely clear that the only reason for this change in wording was because:
some have wrongly interpreted the direct free kick for ‘offences against a match official’ to include dissent etc. but it only applies to physical offences.
Click to expand...

So just to reiterate, the "other verbal offences" in question are only being considered in the context of offences against a match official and cannot be applied to verbal distraction unless you are going to completely ignore the IFAB's explanation of why the wording is there.
 
I am not going to spend too long on this one as the outcome is the same irrelevant of personal interpretations.

My final points that have lead me to arrive at my interpretation are that firstly I do struggle to think of another verbal offence that wouldnt be offinabus or dissent paticularly towards a match official. Maybe I have just been lucky and not seen or heard in this case anything beyond those two offences which leads me to think why write it like that if it isnt intended as a catch all for verbals. It could easily be worded as only against a match official if that was its true intent.

The reason for the law change is given
Clarifies that verbal/gesture offences are punished with an indirect free kick even
if there is a caution (YC) or sending-off (RC);
some have wrongly interpreted the
direct free kick for a ‘offences against a match official’ to include dissent etc. but it
only applies to physical offences. It does say the bit about a match official used to make the point but for it is there in black and white -
verbal/gesture offences are punished with an indirect free kick even
if there is a caution.
The context of the sentence is not lost whether you read the whole sentence or just the above.
Finally, I might be way off the mark here but how can you stop play for an offence not mentioned in law when we all agree verbal distraction is clearly in law listed under cautionable offences.
At the end of the day we are all coming to the correct decision of ifk and a caution which is what I meant when I said pedantry at its worst. I dont think its plain wrong as suggested as ultimately I am giving the correct decision on the day.
 
I've given them, I've cautioned for them too, I've also got sick to death of numpties perpetuation the myth that 'Leave it' is an instant IDFK!
Surely on a reputable referee forum we can agree on this one... can we???
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I've given them, I've cautioned for them too, I've also got sick to death of numpties perpetuation the myth that 'Leave it' is an instant IDFK!
Surely on a reputable referee forum we can agree on this one... can we???
Click to expand...
Fat chance........
Where were you when I desperately needed some LEV advice? I rang but you were swanning off on holiday, the one where you ignored my offer to act as unpaid but all found bag carrier!
Had to bite the bullet and look a numpty by asking the LEV contractor!
Embarrassing or what!
 
For those of you using law 12, point 2, can I point out that the words "other verbal offences" follows the words "is guilty of dissent". Shouting to put an opponent off isn't dissent, so this isn't valid.
 
RustyRef said:
For those of you using law 12, point 2, can I point out that the words "other verbal offences" follows the words "is guilty of dissent". Shouting to put an opponent off isn't dissent, so this isn't valid.
Click to expand...
Its actually given as a list of offences: dissent, offinabus or other verbal offence. To say that because it succeeds dissent in the list means that it can't be refererring to verbal distraction I find quite odd. What other verbal offences are there?
 
Last edited:
Shouting to put an opponent off, to me, means BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO or, whatever regional variation you have where you are based. And it be done in such a manner that even his own team look at him going "what a ******"
And this I would caution for unsporting, or actions deemed to be inflammatory, again, whatever your league or association caution sheet allows.
Its an old myth that "you have to shout a name" Clearly, you don't And if you did, do you have to shout your name? or can you shout anyones name, or a made up name? And even then, is it "Franks ball" or "FRANKIES! " at top of voice.
Any player on a park who pulls out, say a jump for a high ball because someone behind them who they cant see, goes "leave it" does so on their own free will.
"BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" is am quite sure nobodys name, its not an instruction to leave a bouncing ball, I think its safe to assume its a verbal distraction.
"leave it" or whatever, is nothing like the same. Again though, if on your park, someone has committed this most heinous of offences, in the 90th min after you have controlled a game of full blooded tackles expertly, then , hey, take your IDFK and YC, because, afterall, being able to dissect the meaning off every LOTG to atom perfection, is far more important than having a feel for the game.......
 
Boo is a verbal distraction but deceiving an opponent into thinking you're a teammate providing instructions isn't???
Also, I don't have the foggiest what your last paragraph is about...
 
The key factors of a footballer. A willingness to play. A willingness to improve. A fitness level. A competitive edge. An enjoyment of the game. AWARENESS. Very similar to that of the referee. Does the left back intercept the ball, hear a shout of "down the line" (notice, no name used) then blindly kick the ball up the line without looking to see if its aimed for a team mate? How many times in a game is there "man on" and it could be coming from anywhere ? (again, no name)

A general shout you must surely here is "keepers !!! " when say a cross comes in, nobody is ever going to raise an eyebrow (or in this case ear lobe) so what can be wrong with "defenders!! " or "strikers " !!! Just because the keeper shouts "keepers" does not obviously mean you stand back and let him get the ball !!

If you as a player are really not going to go for a ball because you here someone say "leave it" then you are not aware of your team mates, your surroundings and your own ability

So the balls in the air, you, have centre half from your team, and centre forward from the other team behind you, i.e you cant see them

You think about going to jump for the ball, but then you hear " Billys ball" so you leave it, and Billy happens to be the striker, not the centre half you thought was your team mate, and he goes on to score,. you cannot legislate for every possible outcome and I don't see the difference here between this, and leave it, in both cases you have been effectively deceived.
Chances of Billy being name of centre half of your team and centre forward of the other? Slim. but principle is the same....
 
Ciley Myrus said:
The key factors of a footballer. A willingness to play. A willingness to improve. A fitness level. A competitive edge. An enjoyment of the game. AWARENESS. Very similar to that of the referee. Does the left back intercept the ball, hear a shout of "down the line" (notice, no name used) then blindly kick the ball up the line without looking to see if its aimed for a team mate? How many times in a game is there "man on" and it could be coming from anywhere ? (again, no name)

A general shout you must surely here is "keepers !!! " when say a cross comes in, nobody is ever going to raise an eyebrow (or in this case ear lobe) so what can be wrong with "defenders!! " or "strikers " !!! Just because the keeper shouts "keepers" does not obviously mean you stand back and let him get the ball !!

If you as a player are really not going to go for a ball because you here someone say "leave it" then you are not aware of your team mates, your surroundings and your own ability

So the balls in the air, you, have centre half from your team, and centre forward from the other team behind you, i.e you cant see them

You think about going to jump for the ball, but then you hear " Billys ball" so you leave it, and Billy happens to be the striker, not the centre half you thought was your team mate, and he goes on to score,. you cannot legislate for every possible outcome and I don't see the difference here between this, and leave it, in both cases you have been effectively deceived.
Chances of Billy being name of centre half of your team and centre forward of the other? Slim. but principle is the same....
Click to expand...
All of which is an excellent summary of why just shouting "Leave it" is not against the LOTG.

In order to penalise this, we should be considering the intent of the player doing the shouting. If you think he's trying to deceive the opponent into thinking he doesn't have to act quickly or surprise/rush him into miskicking, you penalise. If you think he's done a genuine shout to try and inform another nearby teammate, you don't.

It's not that difficult and on the one occasion I have had to penalise for it, it helped diffuse a situation where the other team were feeling VERY aggrieved at what they considered to be the opponent cheating.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
You think about going to jump for the ball, but then you hear " Billys ball" so you leave it, and Billy happens to be the striker, not the centre half you thought was your team mate, and he goes on to score,. you cannot legislate for every possible outcome and I don't see the difference here between this, and leave it, in both cases you have been effectively deceived.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. If a player has been "effectively deceived" by words uttered by an opponent then the exact offence we are talking about (verbally distracting an opponent) has been committed. It's nothing to do with the actual words that are used, it's the effect it has.
 
He has not been deceived by the opponent if he chooses to leave a ball off his own free will based on the shout of "Billys ball"
What would you rather then opponent shouted ? "hello, by the way, am not your centre half, am your opposing striker and if you kindly duck out of the way I will get this ball and have a run in on the goalie"/
 
:wall: thats the whole point. He isnt meant to say anything in an attempt to verbally deceive/distract his opponent. If heis challenging with his opponent I have no problem. Instruction to team mate, no problem. Trying to trick his opponent, no no.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
He has not been deceived by the opponent if he chooses to leave a ball off his own free will based on the shout of "Billys ball"
What would you rather then opponent shouted ? "hello, by the way, am not your centre half, am your opposing striker and if you kindly duck out of the way I will get this ball and have a run in on the goalie"/
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea who Billy is or why he matters. If you can't tell when a player is shouting to try and distract vs when a player is shouting instruction to a teammate, then that's your failing. Not a failing of the laws or anyone else on here trying to politely explain to you what the laws require you to do.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
He has not been deceived by the opponent if he chooses to leave a ball off his own free will based on the shout of "Billys ball"
What would you rather then opponent shouted ? "hello, by the way, am not your centre half, am your opposing striker and if you kindly duck out of the way I will get this ball and have a run in on the goalie"/
Click to expand...
I think it's more that it's a stretch to think there's deception when a name has been put to it. Saying 'leave it' to an opponent sounds like a teammate's tactical instruction so is clear deception, and is cautionable. In certain (rare) situations)
 
Peter Grove said:
It's not just pedantry, its a misinterpretation of the law. The verbal offences being referred to, as is made clear in the "Details of all Law changes" section, come under the category of "offences against a match official."
Click to expand...
If you are referring to p147 I don't get that at all. I think the clarification is partly about making sure physical offences against refs are DFK/PK - but it also covers other verbal offences.
This line actually suggests IDFK and no YC is possible with no restriction to actions only against referees:
"Clarifies that verbal/gesture offences are punished with an indirect free kick even if there is a caution (YC) or sending-off (RC);"
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top