The Ref Stop

Verbal Abuse - Restart Question

Thanks for all your contributions folks! I certainly don't have the definitive answer, which is why I thought I'd consult this sometimes learned and always opinionated group!

IMO, in the OP, as there's no promising attack, think we are stopping play immediately to show the sanction. As for DB vs IFK, I think, based on the laws, you can argue this either way, as the discussion has indicated. On the one hand, if we consider the offence to simply occur when the words are uttered (irrespective of the intended target) which makes sense as Law 12 makes no mention of who the words are directed towards, then an IFK makes sense. On the other, it does seem counter intuitive to penalise OFFINABUS aimed at a spectator more harshly (IFK) than eg throwing a water bottle at a spectator (Drop Ball). Equally, in the OP, if you give a DB then (because it's in the penalty area) you're turning over the ball from Whites to Blues which also seems a bit weird. For this reason, spirit of the game suggests to me that IFK is the least worst answer.
 
The Ref Stop
Russell Jones said:
Equally, in the OP, if you give a DB then (because it's in the penalty area) you're turning over the ball from Whites to Blues which also seems a bit weird.
Click to expand...
No. The DB is at the place the ball was last touched before play was stopped. So in the OP, the DB goes to white. The oddity of loss of possession only happens if the ball is or was last touched in the PA—which would be a time the R would likely wait to issue the card.
 
@Russell Jones thanks for your own analysis.

In addition to what socal says - no one doubts that if the GK for example throws a water bottle at an outside agent without leaving the field and play was stopped then it would have to be a dropped ball restart, which would include turning over possession if the ball was in or last touched by the attacker in their penalty area. So that is not only a potential issue for verbal offences.

The laws do acknowledge the concept of a 'target' for verbal offences, under the team official sending off offences which include:
deliberately leaving the technical area to:
• show dissent towards, or remonstrate with, a match official

In this year's book in the law changes page 153 there is further reiteration of the principle that a free kick can't be given for any offence against an outside agent. Overall I find it very difficult to justify that offinabus directed at an individual(s) is not an offence against them.
The Law is clear that a free kick cannot be given for an offence against an outside agent. However, if a player leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission and then commits such an offence while the ball is in play, an indirect free kick is awarded for the offence of leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission at the point on the boundary line where the player left the field of play.
 
Max2 said:
Not sure I clearly heard it tbh
Click to expand...
Agree with use of common sense but have to be very carefull here. Ignoring offensive stuff can very well lead to problems down the track.

CaptainsPlease said:
The laws do acknowledge the concept of a 'target' for verbal offences, under the team official sending off offences which include:
deliberately leaving the technical area to:
• show dissent towards, or remonstrate with, a match official
Click to expand...
Not sure having a target is the intent of the law here. Dissent by definition has a target and the bit I bolded from your quote is redundant and can be removed without any impact ("show dissent" basically includes all those ).


Russell Jones said:
For this reason, spirit of the game suggests to me that IFK is the least worst answer.
Click to expand...
Agree with your analysis but this. Sending the keeper off and giving IDFK right in front of goal is punishing the keeper and the team and very harsh. For me, depending on the specific scenario, either can be a worse option. I do wish though this is clarified in law so we are all consistent.

Nice hypothetical by the way 😊
 
What are the chances after IFAB saying it's DB in response to an email, the laws will have a clarification next year or later saying it's IDFK? And it won't be the first time. I still think it won't be wrong in law to give IDFK. Having it in law means everyone knows, not just this forum.
 
one said:
What are the chances after IFAB saying it's DB in response to an email, the laws will have a clarification next year or later saying it's IDFK? And it won't be the first time. I still think it won't be wrong in law to give IDFK. Having it in law means everyone knows, not just this forum.
Click to expand...
Not sure. They seem to think "This Law covers all situations and is very clear."

😆
 
I am not surprised. Simeone should tell them, so does the one that requires IDFK for verbal offences 🤣
 
Last edited:
JamesL said:
Not sure. They seem to think "This Law covers all situations and is very clear."

😆
Click to expand...
Do you mind clarifying the wording of the question? Once presented with "verbal offences =IFK", regardless of which side you land on, I don't know how anyone can argue it's clear!
 
GraemeS said:
Do you mind clarifying the wording of the question? Once presented with "verbal offences =IFK", regardless of which side you land on, I don't know how anyone can argue it's clear!
Click to expand...
Dear Mr @JamesL

Thank you very much for your e mail and question.

The restart is a dropped ball.

The part of the Law which applies is, as you point out: "A free kick/penalty kick can only be awarded for an offence committed against someone on the team lists (players, substitutes, substituted players, sent-off players and team officials) or a match official. If play is stopped because of an incident involving any other person, animal, object etc. (outside agent), play restarts with a dropped ball, except where a free kick is awarded for leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission."

This Law covers all situations and is very clear.

Best wishes

The IFAB

From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 3:27 PM
To: lawenquiries IFAB <lawenquiries@theifab.com>
Subject: Verbal offences against Outside Agent


Dear IFAB

If a player commits a verbal offence against an outside agent, what is the restart?

Law 12 states "All verbal offences are penalised with an indirect free kick." This was added in 2019/20 version.

Answer to my question is IDFK at this point.

In 2020/21 the following text was added proceeding the above statement:
"If the referee stops play for an offence committed by a player, inside or outside the field of play, against an outside agent, play is restarted with a dropped ball, unless a free kick is awarded for leaving the field of play without the referee's permission."

And the reason given as:
"A free kick/penalty kick can only be awarded for an offence committed against someone on the team lists (players, substitutes, substituted players, sent-off players and team officials) or a match official. If play is stopped because of an incident involving any other person, animal, object etc. (outside agent), play restarts with a dropped ball, except where a free kick is awarded for leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission."

Answer to my question now becomes dropped ball.
On 7th Sept 21 the following q&a was posted on the ifabs official Facebook account:

"Practical advice for match officials: verbal offences

The Laws of the Game identify two main verbal offences: ➡ DISSENT – public protest or disagreement with a match official’s decision
➡ OFFENSIVE, INSULTING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE – behaviour which is rude, hurtful, disrespectful What is the appropriate sanction and how is play restarted after these verbal offences?

SANCTIONS
If a player:
➡ shows dissent from a match official’s decision – CAUTION (yellow card)
➡ uses offensive, insulting or abusive language – SENDING-OFF (red card)

RESTART OF PLAY
If a player commits a verbal offence when:
➡ the ball is in play – it is an indirect free kick to the opposing team
➡ the ball is out of play – play is restarted according to the previous decision (e.g. free kick, goal kick etc.)

This conflicts with the laws, as currently written and published in the season prior and as exists today..

The issue we have here is that the modification made in 2020/2021 version of law means that verbal offence, such as offinabus, committed against a spectator(e.g. of outside agent) could be a dropped ball because the law states a free kick can never be given for an offence against an outside agent unless the player elves without permission and this statement proceeds verbal offences that proceeds the bit about physical offences.

But your q&a then goes against what the law says.

If the answer is indirect free kick, which I suspect it is this could easily be cleared up with adding the physical into the modification in 20/21, changing the order of the text or adding verbal offence are idfk whoever is committed against.

If it is dropped ball then the q&a needs to be deleted and revised and the words verbal offences against a player, substitute, team official need to be added to the verbal offences are idfk statement.

I hope you can understand the confusion the law currently creates amongst referees, of whom I am in contsct with who have differing views on this particular scenario
 
All I can say is "tipical".

You went through the trouble of explaining why it's confusing by pointing out conflicting areas. They only see the part they want and say it's clear, completely ignoring the part that conflicts the "clear" part.

I don't know which is worse (actually I do), IFAB making changes to one law conflicting another law or IFAB refusing to acknowledge the conflict.
 
Last edited:
one said:
All I can say is "topical".

You went through the trouble of explaining why it's confusing by pointing out conflicting areas. They only see the part they want and say it's clear, completely ignoring the part that conflicts the "clear" part.

I don't know which is worse (actually I do), IFAB making changes to one law conflicting another law or IFAB refusing to acknowledge the conflict.
Click to expand...
Yes and their reply with the text used to justify the answer actually no longer appears in the laws it was the explanation for the change.

So it might have been clear but no longer is because explanation ceased to exist from 21/22.
 
JamesL said:
Yes and their reply with the text used to justify the answer actually no longer appears in the laws it was the explanation for the change.

So it might have been clear but no longer is because explanation ceased to exist from 21/22.
Click to expand...
I have responded with:

Thank you for your reply.

The part of law that you quoted no longer exists in the current version and requires research into a version two editions prior to find that explanation. It also means that the q&a published in Sept 2021 (after the law change cited below) was incorrect, or at best missing the dropped ball as a potential restart for offences against an outside agent.

A new referee, reading the current version of the laws for the first time would only see the two statements.

"All verbal offences are penalised with an indirect free kick.

"If the referee stops play for an offence committed by a player, inside or outside the field of play, against an outside agent, play is restarted with a dropped ball, unless a free kick is awarded for leaving the field of play without the referee's permission"

Which when read one after the other, as they appear in law 12, is conflicting. If statement 2 is true then statement 1 (All verbal offences...) cannot be, as some verbal offences (against an outside agent) could result in a dropped ball restart.

As pointed out this can be easily solved by adding "All verbal offences committed against a player, substitute, team official, or match official, are penalised by an indirect free kick."

This would remove any ambiguity and support the principle that a free kick can only be awarded for offences against a participant.

_______

If i get a response I will share it.
 
JamesL said:
As pointed out this can be easily solved by adding "All verbal offences committed against a player, substitute, team official, or match official, are penalised by an indirect free kick."
Click to expand...
This got me thinking. The list should include substituted players and possibly sent off players which could be inclusive in the word "player". But say a player uses offensive language against themselves (or an act which is not against anyone) and the referee deems is offensive enough to stop play and send player off. What's the restart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top