Simultaneous offence - restart of play?

[Mr Dean]

When two simultaneous offence occur, the referee punishes the most serious. I know red card offences are more serious than yellow card offences; and, I know direct free kick offences are more serious than indirect free kick offences. But, this can't always be true.

What is the correct restart of play for the following scenarios?

1. While the ball is in play, a player uses offensive language. At the exact same time, an opponent deliberately handles the ball, stopping a promising attack.

2. While the ball is in play, a player uses offensive language. At the exact same time, a teammate deliberately handles the ball, stopping a promising attack.

 

[one]

Punish both offences in both cases. The simultaneous offence does not apply here. Offensive language is a red card even if ball is out of player.

Think of it this way. When not at the same time you punish the first offence. So if there is DOGSO or SPA first and then offensive language, do you only punish the first offence and ignore the offensive language?

Edit: in terms of restart, the restart is for DOGSO or SPA.

 

[GraemeS]

"Simultaneous offenses" only really applies when a single act can fall into multiple categories. So for example, a reckless (YC) tackle that also happens to be DOGSO (RC). One tackle, one action, but 2 offenses - so red card for the DOGSO, and the recklessness of the tackle just gets lost.

In your examples? Both the shouting and handballing players should receive a sanction - RC and YC respectively. The concept of simultaneous doesn't come into it.

But how do you restart? Depends which of the offenses caused you to stop play. In reality, that would usually be the handball - that's an obvious foul that requires a whistle, OFFINABUS and the exact timing of when you choose to stop play to deal with it is usually a touch more nebulous. But it's a ITOOTR situation - if you as the referee in the moment felt that you'd made the decision to stop play to send that player off before the HB occurred, then you restart with an IFK back where he shouted. There's an argument that makes the SPA irrelevant.....but we're again getting into unusual hypothetical here

 

[Mr Dean]

Looks like my own confusion has caused others to be confused (I'll rename the thread). Didn't this situation used to be a dropped ball - can't find it in the laws?

 

[one]

What makes you think others are confused? You asked a question, we answered it.

 

[socal lurker]

"Simultaneous offenses" only really applies when a single act can fall into multiple categories.

Not so. (Unless you mean that the OP never really happens in the real world.)

Law 5 used to say that the more serious offense was punished when a player committed two offenses at the same time. That was changed, in the big re-write a few years ago. IFAB explained the change: " It should not matter if it is one or several players or from which team(s) as the most serious offence should be penalised. Same change included in Law 14. " @Mr Dean is correct that, prior to the big rewrite, if there were simultaneous offenses by opponents, regardless of severity, the result was a DB. (It was in the I&G, not the main laws.)

To go back to the OP, I *believe* there was official guidance that the list in current Law 5 is intended to be sequential--but I can't recall where that was from or if it was subsequently replaced. But in the real world "exact same time" of offenses on differnt parts of the field is almost impossible*--I've never seen it. Which, ITOOTR, came first--sanction that. But I think the test answer to the OP would be that if the handling was SPAA, the restart is based on the send off, not the handling, but if the handling was DOGSO, the restart would be based on the handling. (On the field, I am most likely to periceive that the handling SPAA occurred first.

____________
*As opposed to simultaneous offenses by opponents such as simultaneous elbows. The irony being that if a defender and attacker simultaneously through equally physical elbows, the result under the 2015/17 revision is a PK, as that is a more serious restart. I've never been a fan of that result.

 

[one]

But I think the test answer to the OP would be that if the handling was SPAA, the restart is based on the send off, not the handling, but if the handling was DOGSO, the restart would be based on the handling. (On the field, I am most likely to periceive that the handling SPAA occurred first.

For the test answer, do you sanction both. If you do then you are not really applying that law so why would you use it for for restart? Note that clause is under section "disciplinary action".

If you don't sanction both then do you think that law ever intended for OFINABUS to be ignored.

I don't believe that law was intended for OP. Or for other cases where separate actions (at the same time) must be sanctioned, such as OFINABUS, VC, spitting, SFP.

 

[socal lurker]

I don’t know why you think IFAB wouldn’t think it would apply as they explained that they were making the change because it shouldn’t matter if it is one player or multiple players and simultaneously got rid of the DB restart for simultaneous offenses by opponents.

While poorly written (shocking, I know), i think the context is pretty clear that “punish” is intended to refer to the restart, not to whether players are cautioned or sent off. So if VC and OFFINABUS occur at the same time, both are sent off, but the restart is for the VC.

So in the scenarios here, yes, I think the test answer still has the SPAA caution being given, but the restart is based on the send off. (In the real world, I’m pretty sure the SPAA happened first....)

 

[one]

I think that is because there is a big gap between what you are saying and the actually law. This would be beyond just poorly written. Here it is in law 5.


And what you are interpreting.

Restart of play
Restarts according the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time.

Disciplinary action
If offence occur at the same time, sanctions the more serious offence if cause by the same act, or sanctions all offences if by different acts.

This makes more sense but not what the law says. Either way the current law is neither here nor there. By the way, if I were to rewrite this law I would do it as above but cross out "sanction" in the restart section.

 

[socal lurker]

And I think you are simply ignoring it in you answer. I think it unambiguously applies: two simultaneous offenses occurred, and IFAB expressly said the purpose of the change in language was because it should apply when offenses are by different players. That’s not me saying it, IFAB officially explained that was the reason for the change, which was supported by the removal of DB for simultaneous offenses by opponents. There is simply no basis in Law for choosing the SPAA restart over the OFFINABUS restart—each is an offense with a designated restart.

But i’ll stop now—this is far more hypothetical than real. One offense is going to be perceived as happening first in the real world.