The Ref Stop

Verbal Abuse - Restart Question

Russell Jones

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
With the White team in possession (in a non promising manner), you clearly hear the Blue goalkeeper use obviously Offensive language towards a spectator. Assuming you see this a Red card offence, when do you stop play and what's the restart?
 
The Ref Stop
Depends on which paragraph you pay attention to, which I imagine is what you are alluding to.

On one hand Law 12 says all verbal offenses are penalized with an IFK, and on the other it says that an offense against an outside agent (here the spectator) is a DB.

I would like the answer to be an IFK to the opponent. But I think IFAB intends this to be a DB, as my recollection is that the verbal = IFK language was specifically intended to undo a year or two of confusion that had been created regarding offenses against officials that led some to believe that dissent and OFFINABUS were punished for a DFK. (Here where the ball was in possession of the other team, the restarts are essentially the same, but would be quite different if the GK was holding the ball when he disparaged the spectator.)

As for timing, for a send off offense, I think you stop play immediately (unless there is an immediate goal scoring opportunity for the other team).
 
I agree with socal. The laws clearly intend for offences against an outside agent to restart with a dropped ball (except the IFK for leaving without permission). And play should normally be stopped immediately for a sending off.
 
Personally think @Redster interpretation is the correct one.

Backed up by "all verbal offences are penalised with an idfk."

And I would hazard a guess a quick email to IFAB would confirm it.
 
Russell Jones said:
With the White team in possession (in a non promising manner), you clearly hear the Blue goalkeeper use obviously Offensive language towards a spectator. Assuming you see this a Red card offence, when do you stop play and what's the restart?
Click to expand...

Red card and IDFK from the position of the goalkeeper.

Reminds me of the time I sin-binned an attacker when he was VERY unhappy with me for waving away his penalty appeal.

Ball had been taken away from the penalty area by the opposite team but no attack so stopped the game, gave the SB and restarted (incorrectly) from where the ball was (which in fairness should really be part of law as an advantage as I had to bring it back 20 yards).

I looked up the law afterwards as it was my first one (4th season) and made sure I remembered the position from them on.

I've since given 2 more verbal offences in play that I can recall (both very recently actually, and on the same weekend but different games), even one when being observed but I don't recall it getting mentioned.

Am I right? 😂
 
Another vote for @Redster & @JamesL 's interpretation - the offence occurred when and where the words are said, not where they are heard. Otherwise OFFINABUS restarts would always come from the referee's position! Therefore the verbal offence = IFK trumps any other aspect about spectators involvement.

In terms of when to stop play, with the ball in possession of the non-offending team, it's essentially an advantage question. Your choices are to stop play immediately, issue the card and restart with an IFK in the PA, or allow the non-offending team to continue their attack. It should be pretty much an obvious goal scoring opportunity if you're going to choose the second option.

If you choose option B, the card can be issued when the ball goes out of play (in which case, continue with the relevant restart) or when the GK makes a touch of the ball/interfered with an opponent. In the latter case, you would then stop play, send him off and restart with an IFK from the point he became active, rather than the point where the OFFINABUS occurred.
 
JamesL said:
Personally think @Redster interpretation is the correct one.

Backed up by "all verbal offences are penalised with an idfk."

And I would hazard a guess a quick email to IFAB would confirm it.
Click to expand...
'All verbal offences are penalised with an indirect free kick.'
Needs to be read in conjunction and associated with the previous paragraph which is discussing the restarts for physical offences against participants. This statement is meant to apply to verbal offences against participants, not outside agents.
The following paragraph about offences against outside agents does not distinguish between physical and verbal offences.
 
GraemeS said:
If you choose option B, the card can be issued when the ball goes out of play (in which case, continue with the relevant restart) or when the GK makes a touch of the ball/interfered with an opponent. In the latter case, you would then stop play, send him off and restart with an IFK from the point he became active, rather than the point where the OFFINABUS occurred.
Click to expand...
Some good points there if you decide not to halt play. Allows play to keep going if benefitting the team. Carnage if a GK and he makes a save
 
CaptainsPlease said:
'All verbal offences are penalised with an indirect free kick.'
Needs to be read in conjunction and associated with the previous paragraph which is discussing the restarts for physical offences against participants. This statement is meant to apply to verbal offences against participants, not outside agents.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree based on this q&a:

Screenshot_20221123-114418.png

Add to that when the law was changed:
Screenshot_20221123-120239.png

The restarts differing are for physical offences and the ALL verbal offences are idfk. That's pretty explicit here.
 
Last edited:
JamesL said:
Some good points there if you decide not to halt play. Allows play to keep going if benefitting the team. Carnage if a GK and he makes a save
Click to expand...
I think if this whole incident starts with "GK getting sent off for comments at a spectator", you're in for carnage regardless! Might as well let white team finish their attack and then get another go with the IFK anyway, how much worse can it get?!
 
@JamesL but there is the later amendment that clearly states that free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences against participants. I would say that the Facebook post is simplified not to include offences against an outside agent. If they had meant this to only apply to physical offences, they would have included the word 'physical' in the new paragraph.

1669205804588.png
 
CaptainsPlease said:
@JamesL but there is the later amendment that clearly states that free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences against participants. I would say that the Facebook post is simplified not to include offences against an outside agent. If they had meant this to only apply to physical offences, they would have included the word 'physical' in the new paragraph.

View attachment 6167
Click to expand...
So what about offinabus directed at no one... ? The use of offinabus language is not against anyone in particular. In fact it could be said to someone who is not offended and another person/group of persons could be offended by it. What then?
Let's keep it simple and as per law. Using offensive insulting and abusive language or gestures is a verbal offence and all of those are punished by idfk.

You are punishing the use of, not the intended recipient.
 
JamesL said:
So what about offinabus directed at no one... ? The use of offinabus language is not against anyone in particular. In fact it could be said to someone who is not offended and another person/group of persons could be offended by it. What then?
Let's keep it simple and as per law. Using offensive insulting and abusive language or gestures is a verbal offence and all of those are punished by idfk.

You are punishing the use of, not the intended recipient.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem simple or sensible to me for the restart for a verbal offence against an outside agent be more significant to the play (indirect free kick) than the restart for a physical offence against an outside agent (dropped ball). It makes more sense that the restarts would be the same especially when the paragraph specifically added to deal with offences against outside agents does not distinguish between physical/verbal.

If we are sanctioning an incident of 'offinabus directed at no one' then presumably we are considering the language to have the potential to affect the participants who hear it.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
It doesn't seem simple or sensible to me for the restart for a verbal offence against an outside agent be more significant to the play (indirect free kick) than the restart for a physical offence against an outside agent (dropped ball). It makes more sense that the restarts would be the same especially when the paragraph specifically added to deal with offences against outside agents does not distinguish between physical/verbal.

If we are sanctioning an incident of 'offinabus directed at no one' then presumably we are considering the language to have the potential to affect the participants who hear it.
Click to expand...
The offence is the use of O/I/A language; the restart for that is an indirect free kick if the ball was in play at the time.
The physical offence you are comparing it with is most likely to take place off the f. o. p., hence no free kick.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
The offence is the use of O/I/A language; the restart for that is an indirect free kick if the ball was in play at the time.
The physical offence you are comparing it with is most likely to take place off the f. o. p., hence no free kick.
Click to expand...
If the physical offence takes place off the FoP then the laws specifically allow for an indirect free kick for leaving without permission.
The offence could easily take place on the FoP e.g. spectator comes on to confront the player and player commits an offence either physical/verbal against them, again it doesn't make sense for the restart to be a dropped ball if it's physical and indirect free kick if it's verbal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top