Spitting

[Big Cat]

Where does the offence occur?
At the point at which the player spits, or the point at which the projectile (spit) makes contact or would have made contact? Can't seem to find the answer in the pamphlet (and even as a reasonably seasoned R, I can't determine how to search their Q&A's... typical!)
I recall that it's treated the same as a thrown object (point of contact), but no can find where I read that golden nugget

 

[IbrahimB]

I'd imagine when it has/would have made contact, or else spitting onto the grass would count as an offence, which sounds wrong.

 

[JamesL]

Law 13
"All free kicks are taken from the place where the offence occurred"

The offence is spitting at someone, so FK from where the spitting happened i.e. From where the offending player was located when they projected the goz. (imo).

 

[JamesL]

I'd imagine when it has/would have made contact, or else spitting onto the grass would count as an offence, which sounds wrong.

The offence is spitting at someone.

 

[Big Cat]

The offence is spitting at someone.

Im not in disagreement, but why is throwing treated differently?

 

[JamesL]

So why is throwing different?

Because the law specifies it.

 

[Big Cat]

Because the law specifies it.

But why? Inconsistent
If im in the PA and get gobbled on from elsewhere, I want a PK. It's another hole in the rules.

 

[JamesL]

But why? Inconsistent
If im in the PA and get gobbled on from elsewhere, I want a PK

Question for ifab. I can only tell you the laws as written. I'm not arguing for or against. Just what the law says.
Law 13 says its from where the offence occurs. Unless x y z or as other wise specified in law 3, 11 or 12. None of which relate to spitting.
So the answer is there - we've moved to you don't agree with it

 

[Big Cat]

Question for ifab. I can only tell you the laws as written. I'm not arguing for or against. Just what the law says.
Law 13 says its from where the offence occurs. Unless x y z or as other wise specified in law 3, 11 or 12. None of which relate to spitting.
So the answer is there - we've moved to you don't agree with it

Not really about what I think the outcome should be. Just that a question was asked and I had some recollection of a q&a on the subject. But the q&a's can't be searched! I agree spitting implies where the act takes place, but the throwing thing 'threw' me off. I'm very uncomfortable with using the word 'Law' for rules that are a mess. Law implies something far superior

If there is a q&a on the subject, maybe someone with a spade can dig it out.

 

[Anubis]

From where the spit happens

 

[one]

Not really about what I think the outcome should be. Just that a question was asked and I had some recollection of a q&a on the subject. But the q&a's can't be searched! I agree spitting implies where the act takes place, but the throwing thing 'threw' me off. I'm very uncomfortable with using the word 'Law' for rules that are a mess. Law implies something far superior

If there is a q&a on the subject, maybe someone with a spade can dig it out.

My thought would be to stop digging before the hole gets bigger

Let's say there is a Q&A that says the kick is at the position of the opponent. Q&As have been known to be contradictory and confusing. Would you go with that or with @JamesL?

I am with you, if I am standing the PA and spat on, I expect a pen. Many others would expect the same. In fact an argument on what football expects here as the law is not very clear. I'd go so far as to say if the laws were to make a clarification, my bet would be on the position similar to thrown objects. Untill then, make a decision one way and stick with it. You can sell this either way.

For me, I'd go with maximising the punishment for offences like this and it is usually what laws would do as well. This not only isn't a footballing act, it's something no one ever wants to see in a game.

 

[Goldfish]

Law 12 makes reference to thrown objects and the location of the restart. It states “ If a player who is on or off the field of play throws or kicks an object (other than the match ball) at an opposing player, or throws or kicks an object (including a ball) at an opposing substitute, substituted or sent-off player, team official, or a match official or the match ball, play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the object struck or would have struck the person or the ball. “
Extending that thinking to spitting it is perfectly acceptable that the restart is from where the spit struck or would have struck the opponent. In practice it is unlikely that spit will travel very far probably at most 2/4 yards. For me if a player spits at an opponent who is inside the penalty area it is a red card and a penalty kick for this serious offence.

 

[JamesL]

My thought would be to stop digging before the hole gets bigger

Let's say there is a Q&A that says the kick is at the position of the opponent. Q&As have been known to be contradictory and confusing. Would you go with that or with @JamesL?

I am with you, if I am standing the PA and spat on, I expect a pen. Many others would expect the same. In fact an argument on what football expects here as the law is not very clear. I'd go so far as to say if the laws were to make a clarification, my bet would be on the position similar to thrown objects. Untill then, make a decision one way and stick with it. You can sell this either way.

For me, I'd go with maximising the punishment for offences like this and it is usually what laws would do as well. This not only isn't a footballing act, it's something no one ever wants to see in a game.

What if the offender was stood in the PA and you were outside of it?

I think the vast majority of spitting incidents we detect usually happen with the ball out of play so the restart isn't relevant but for the 1 in a million it ought to be prescribed better.

I think I can get on board with spitting being, "throwing an object" but it would be so easy to just clarify it in law 12.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I have often wondered why the "throwing" restart is from where the object struck or would have struck.
My opinion is that the act of throwing in that way is the offence, irrespective of whether it hits the target, so the restart should reflect that.
IFAB meet soon . . .

 

[JamesL]

I have often wondered why the "throwing" restart is from where the object struck or would have struck.
My opinion is that the act of throwing in that way is the offence, irrespective of whether it hits the target, so the restart should reflect that.
IFAB meet soon . . .

I have been pondering this aspect too. Mostly, offences occur at the point of contact. A foul where the offender is mostly outside PA but the contact occurs on the line is a penalty kick so its reconcilable looking at it that way.

 

[one]

What if the offender was stood in the PA and you were outside of it?

I think the vast majority of spitting incidents we detect usually happen with the ball out of play so the restart isn't relevant but for the 1 in a million it ought to be prescribed better.

I think I can get on board with spitting being, "throwing an object" but it would be so easy to just clarify it in law 12.

It's always going to be easier to sell this for the point of restart of position of person who was spat on. As I mentioned, the laws haven't made this very clear and a very good question by @Big Cat . As long as you have a reason for you decision and that is the way you would always go, I don't have an issue with it.

I have often wondered why the "throwing" restart is from where the object struck or would have struck.
My opinion is that the act of throwing in that way is the offence, irrespective of whether it hits the target, so the restart should reflect that.
IFAB meet soon . . .

It does make sense to me though. Throwing an object is not an offence*, striking an opponent is. And when striking an opponent (or many other physical offences), point of contact has always been the position of restart.

*Throwing objects can be dissent or USB but that is a different context.

 

[JamesL]

It's always going to be easier to sell this for the point of restart of position of person who was spat on. As I mentioned, the laws haven't made this very clear and a very good question by @Big Cat . As long as you have a reason for you decision and that is the way you would always go, I don't have an issue with it.


It does make sense to me though. Throwing an object is not an offence*, striking an opponent is. And when striking an opponent (or many other physical offences), point of contact has always been the position of restart.

*Throwing objects can be dissent or USB but that is a different context.

I think the law is pretty clear up until the point "throwing an object" at someone is introduced to the equation.

It's all about if spitting at somone is considered as "throwing an object" and that's the bit that is missing.

 

[one]

I think the law is pretty clear up until the point "throwing an object" at someone is introduced to the equation.

It's all about if spitting at somone is considered as "throwing an object" and that's the bit that is missing.

Or considered striking an opponent?

I think given history and how some laws have been worded without foresight, you are giving way too much credit to law makers by connecting the dots to put clarity on the restart should be at the position of the spitter. I have no doubt this scenario was not thought of when making spitting an offence or when stating restart is position offence.

In other words I think your conclusion is a by product of what the wording say rather than what the meant.

 

[JamesL]

I think given history and how some laws have been worded without foresight, you are giving way too much credit to law makers by connecting the dots to put clarity on the restart should be at the position of the spitter. I have no doubt this scenario was not thought of when making spitting an offence or when stating restart is position offence.

The problem is you don't write the laws and your no doubt is actually an assumption that you've made.
I actually don't doubt you are wrong, but when you have a law book that says do X of Y happens, then we shouldn't, and shouldn't have to, stop, and think, "I wonder what the law makers really meant"
I've said a million times on here, my biggest gripe. With the law changes section and then the reason for the law change is that once that section goes you're left with what is written in law which can sometimes mean or be interpreted very differently. Sadly, most referees only learn the law (some.dont even bother with that) and we are never taught the history of them thus the meaning behind the changes are lost and you end up right here!!

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

It's always going to be easier to sell this for the point of restart of position of person who was spat on. As I mentioned, the laws haven't made this very clear and a very good question by @Big Cat . As long as you have a reason for you decision and that is the way you would always go, I don't have an issue with it.


It does make sense to me though. Throwing an object is not an offence*, striking an opponent is. And when striking an opponent (or many other physical offences), point of contact has always been the position of restart.

*Throwing objects can be dissent or USB but that is a different context.

That's why I stated "throwing in that way" - if the referee believes a player threw something at another person, whether or not it hits becomes immaterial. The offence is throwing something at someone.