socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think he says the second part at all. But I'm going to depart this conversation. Ultimately, it's your game and you'll do what you want.
Swearing
- Thread starter Viking
- Start date
I don't think he says the second part at all. But I'm going to depart this conversation. Ultimately, it's your game and you'll do what you want.
I've discussed this issue with my County Referees Development Officer (CRDO). This followed a mixed opinion of views last night at my Refs Association meet.
My CRDO is of the opinion that you can award an IDFK for loudly swearing, without issuing a sanction. This is because under Law 12. The ‘……or other verbal offences’ doesn’t come with a mandatory caution. If you were giving the IDFK for dissent it may be different but in this circumstance, the IDFK is awarded for other verbal offences.
This appears to contradict the email @one received from David Elleray at IFAB. So I asked David for further clarification.
From: andrew
Sent: 13 December 2019 10:18:34
To: Law Enquiries
Subject: RE: Foul Language IDFK
David
Thanks again for your response. In discussing this with colleagues last night, there were views that a referee must caution or red card a player if play is stopped for a verbal offence. Your response to me suggests that I may stop play for a verbal offence but do not have to issue a card. I would be grateful if you could clarify that to be the case (or not).
Regards
Andy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Law Enquiries <lawenquiries@theifab.com>
Sent: 13 December 2019 13:03
To: andrew
Subject: Re: Foul Language IDFK
Dear Andrew
Law 12 identifies a number of offences for which an indirect free kick is awarded but these are not mandatory cautions e.g. it is rare to see a YC for dangerous play, and we regularly see referees warning players who show 'dissent'.
Thus there is no requirement for the YC for the 'other verbal offences' and it would seem a perfectly sensible application (if appropriate) of the three-step approach that on the first occasion it is an IDFK and warning, then IDFK and YC etc..
Best wishes
David
David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB
This clearly states the opposite to the email received by @one but makes perfect sense to me.
Bearing in mind this would appear to be an option not previously recognised by assessors and experienced refs alike on this forum, I wonder if any evidence can be put forward, using the law, that asserts if you give an IDFK for swearing, you must caution/red card?
My CRDO is of the opinion that you can award an IDFK for loudly swearing, without issuing a sanction. This is because under Law 12. The ‘……or other verbal offences’ doesn’t come with a mandatory caution. If you were giving the IDFK for dissent it may be different but in this circumstance, the IDFK is awarded for other verbal offences.
This appears to contradict the email @one received from David Elleray at IFAB. So I asked David for further clarification.
From: andrew
Sent: 13 December 2019 10:18:34
To: Law Enquiries
Subject: RE: Foul Language IDFK
David
Thanks again for your response. In discussing this with colleagues last night, there were views that a referee must caution or red card a player if play is stopped for a verbal offence. Your response to me suggests that I may stop play for a verbal offence but do not have to issue a card. I would be grateful if you could clarify that to be the case (or not).
Regards
Andy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Law Enquiries <lawenquiries@theifab.com>
Sent: 13 December 2019 13:03
To: andrew
Subject: Re: Foul Language IDFK
Dear Andrew
Law 12 identifies a number of offences for which an indirect free kick is awarded but these are not mandatory cautions e.g. it is rare to see a YC for dangerous play, and we regularly see referees warning players who show 'dissent'.
Thus there is no requirement for the YC for the 'other verbal offences' and it would seem a perfectly sensible application (if appropriate) of the three-step approach that on the first occasion it is an IDFK and warning, then IDFK and YC etc..
Best wishes
David
David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB
This clearly states the opposite to the email received by @one but makes perfect sense to me.
Bearing in mind this would appear to be an option not previously recognised by assessors and experienced refs alike on this forum, I wonder if any evidence can be put forward, using the law, that asserts if you give an IDFK for swearing, you must caution/red card?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Good grief. We've gone from a system that relied on "things everyone knows" (that, well, not everyone knew), to a system of unclear drafting followed by back channel--but contradictory--advice from the IFAB oracle.
As to why the IFK without a caution or send off doesn't work as the Laws are actually drafted, it's really simple. The Laws say that verbal offenses result in IFKs. That sentence doesn't create offenses, it informs that they result in an IFK not a DFK. The only verbal offenses contained in Law 12 are contained in the lists of cautions (dissent, USB) and send offs (OFFINABUS). There simply are not any other verbal offenses. Saying that verbal offenses result in IFKs is not (or perhaps until DE flips again I need to say "should not in any rational world") an invitation for referees to make up their own list of verbal offenses that they are going to choose to sanction. This is simply insane: if the Laws are going to recognize IFK-only verbal offenses, so be it and I would have no objection--but they need to say what the offenses are. This is absolutely insane.
As to why the IFK without a caution or send off doesn't work as the Laws are actually drafted, it's really simple. The Laws say that verbal offenses result in IFKs. That sentence doesn't create offenses, it informs that they result in an IFK not a DFK. The only verbal offenses contained in Law 12 are contained in the lists of cautions (dissent, USB) and send offs (OFFINABUS). There simply are not any other verbal offenses. Saying that verbal offenses result in IFKs is not (or perhaps until DE flips again I need to say "should not in any rational world") an invitation for referees to make up their own list of verbal offenses that they are going to choose to sanction. This is simply insane: if the Laws are going to recognize IFK-only verbal offenses, so be it and I would have no objection--but they need to say what the offenses are. This is absolutely insane.
Distraction though but!
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
But what? The only places in the LOTG that distraction is mentioned as an issue for players is as a form of USB.
Indeed, my reading eyes ain't what they were
one
RefChat Addict
So we are saying "swearing which is not offensive" is a verbal offence? What other verbal offences do we have that are not in the laws of the game?
Can I gave An IFK for a player saying "mine" to his own team mate? He hasn't distracted an opponent. I'm sure DE wouldn't approve of it but given his advice above he can't dispute it either. It is a huge can of worms he is opening up here. As if the LOTG wasn't confusing and non-clear already. I thought he was meant to clarify the lotg but it seems like by giving contradictory advice he is making it even more unclear.
As for spirit of the law, I have more to say in it but I don't have the material I need now so I'll get back to it later.
Can I gave An IFK for a player saying "mine" to his own team mate? He hasn't distracted an opponent. I'm sure DE wouldn't approve of it but given his advice above he can't dispute it either. It is a huge can of worms he is opening up here. As if the LOTG wasn't confusing and non-clear already. I thought he was meant to clarify the lotg but it seems like by giving contradictory advice he is making it even more unclear.
As for spirit of the law, I have more to say in it but I don't have the material I need now so I'll get back to it later.
one
RefChat Addict
Ok, why is the 'spirit of the game' phrased mentioned in law and when/how should it be used (within the context of this subject)? It is there so when the laws are not clear, we look into the reason they were put in the book and apply them within the framework of that context/reason. It certainly is not there so that we can do what we (as individuals) think is right and justify it by 'spirit of the game'. The latter leads to many inconsistencies as it creates contradictory decisions because people think differently in different circumstances. That is one of the reasons behind LWR syndrome 
Back to the OP, the "...or other verbal offences" clause was introduced to laws in 2017 to ensure everyone knows the restart for 'all existing' verbal offences if IFK and not to allow referees to introduce their own verbal offences. In true form instead of making it as simple as "is guilty of a verbal offence", IFAB made it open to all sorts of interpretations. Here is the reason the was give for the clause.
Law 12.4 and many other occasions in law also says if "...a player commits a physical offence..." its a FK restart. Does that mean we can invent our own offences for physical contact? No it only apples to physical offences that are already in law. Similar for "verbal offences". It only applies to those already mentioned in law.
Back to the OP, the "...or other verbal offences" clause was introduced to laws in 2017 to ensure everyone knows the restart for 'all existing' verbal offences if IFK and not to allow referees to introduce their own verbal offences. In true form instead of making it as simple as "is guilty of a verbal offence", IFAB made it open to all sorts of interpretations. Here is the reason the was give for the clause.
Law 12.4 and many other occasions in law also says if "...a player commits a physical offence..." its a FK restart. Does that mean we can invent our own offences for physical contact? No it only apples to physical offences that are already in law. Similar for "verbal offences". It only applies to those already mentioned in law.
Maybe, Ghouls Just Wanna Have Fun with spreading the confusion!
@one. Many thanks for taking the time to strip back the law to its basics. I found myself searching a previous thread on the subject and the final position was exactly as you have stated above.
I understand what you mean with the written law and purpose/spirit surrounding that law. I suppose my underlying annoyance boils down to the way the law is worded. Taking law 12.2:
IFAB has then compounded this view by using the fact that you can have a 3 step process for dissent, whereas the caution is absolute in carding for those guilty of dissent.
However, as you’ve stated, the verbal part was only brought in to clarify the IDFK restart. I’d like to get this right so it’s odd to receive clarification from IFAB and CRDO to say the opposite to what you’ve set out. However, I agree with you.
I understand what you mean with the written law and purpose/spirit surrounding that law. I suppose my underlying annoyance boils down to the way the law is worded. Taking law 12.2:
- Is guilty of dissent, using OFFINABUS and/or gestures or other verbal offences.
IFAB has then compounded this view by using the fact that you can have a 3 step process for dissent, whereas the caution is absolute in carding for those guilty of dissent.
However, as you’ve stated, the verbal part was only brought in to clarify the IDFK restart. I’d like to get this right so it’s odd to receive clarification from IFAB and CRDO to say the opposite to what you’ve set out. However, I agree with you.
Haven’t we been here before with verbal offences?!
As for swearing, I make it clear what I will tolerate before the game. If I’m in a very public place or have junior matches going on next to the game, I’ll make it clear I won’t tolerate any outbursts and remind them on the first offence. If we’re in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere, I’ll only clamp down on swearing at others.
As for swearing, I make it clear what I will tolerate before the game. If I’m in a very public place or have junior matches going on next to the game, I’ll make it clear I won’t tolerate any outbursts and remind them on the first offence. If we’re in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere, I’ll only clamp down on swearing at others.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
What 3 step process?
You might have some local ”guidance” but does IFAB have a 3 step in the book?
(Not disputing this needs fixing)
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
How to make something really simple really complicated in one thread.
The sanction for a player guilty of dissent is a caution.
The sanction for a player guilty of using offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures in a red card.
It is possible to use the stepped approach when dealing with a player who is on the verge of dissent, but this is not official and is not mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game.
Surely is a players says or does something serious enough for you to be stopping play then you surely must have reached the stage for the mandatory sanction.
This sounds like people trying to find any reason they can to justify not cautioning, but why? Either to avoid sin bins or to preserve club marks?
The sanction for a player guilty of dissent is a caution.
The sanction for a player guilty of using offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures in a red card.
It is possible to use the stepped approach when dealing with a player who is on the verge of dissent, but this is not official and is not mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game.
Surely is a players says or does something serious enough for you to be stopping play then you surely must have reached the stage for the mandatory sanction.
This sounds like people trying to find any reason they can to justify not cautioning, but why? Either to avoid sin bins or to preserve club marks?
one
RefChat Addict
I think he is referring to the email from DE from his earlier post.
It is important to distinguish between a clarification from IFAB (which is an official circular from an organisation) and one from Mr Elleray which is more of an opinion, one that is comming from an important position within the organisation but not the absolute authority.