A&H

verbal distraction at penalty

H

happy whistler

Active Member
Level 7 Referee
Yesterday's game as penalty taker kicks ball defender on edge of area yells "Tommys ball " very loudly.
Goal is scored.
If it had been a miss would it have been a retake - laws refer to defender committing infringement results in retake or IFK as laws refer to verbal distraction as such.
Player admitted it was deliberate attempt to put opponent off and thought it was OK to do so.
 
The Referee Store
The goal was scored so a quick chat would be fine here. "Do it again, we'll have problems."

Had the ball not gone in, it's a retake and a caution for USB.
 
Depends on the temperature of the game for me. Idiot does that when it is hot and he gets the lemon regardless of the outcome of the penalty.

Especially if he was one of the idiots moaning when I pointed at the penalty spot shortly before.... :)

Other than that I agree with Ryan.
 
If we are all applying the laws properly ? I know we always don't and much depends on the temp of the game and so on ...

Its a yellow card .
 
Can someone please highlight to me which part of the LOTG specifies a temperature at which cautions apply/don't apply? Can't seem to find it........

Easy caution, regardless of where the ball ended up.
 
I was more interested in views of retake v indirect free kick. Laws do state verbal distraction punishable by caution and IDFK, so if it were a free kick outside box and player shouts something we would restart with IDFK.
Is everyones opinion that this is different if it occurs at penalty kick and we do not give IDFK but have a retake ?
 
The harshest offence has to be adhered to

Can you imagine the carnage if every missed pen when someone shouted something was downgraded to IFK :eek:
 
happy whistler said:
I was more interested in views of retake v indirect free kick. Laws do state verbal distraction punishable by caution and IDFK, so if it were a free kick outside box and player shouts something we would restart with IDFK.
Is everyones opinion that this is different if it occurs at penalty kick and we do not give IDFK but have a retake ?
Click to expand...
The simple answer is that you would stop the game and award an IDFK if the ball was in play. In this case the ball wasn't in play as the offence took place before the ball was kicked. Therefore you await the outcome of the kick before deciding what action to take.

If the goal is not scored, you caution the offender and order a retake.

If the goal is scored, you award the goal, caution the offender and restart with a kick off.
 
Beezer said:
If we are all applying the laws properly ? I know we always don't and much depends on the temp of the game and so on ...

Its a yellow card .
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The offence is verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart. If he goal has been scored then it can easily be argued that the no distraction took place and therefore a word with the shouter is perfectly acceptable and within the laws. If the taker misses then yellow all day long.
 
McTavish said:
Not necessarily. The offence is verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart. If he goal has been scored then it can easily be argued that the no distraction took place and therefore a word with the shouter is perfectly acceptable and within the laws. If the taker misses then yellow all day long.
Click to expand...
A penalty is a restart ? I Think Brian has nailed that one to the floor .
 
Beezer said:
A penalty is a restart ? I Think Brian has nailed that one to the floor .
Click to expand...
Don't understand your point...are you saying that a penalty isn't a restart?

My (minor) disagreement with Brian's post is that he says:
Brian Hamilton said:
If the goal is scored, you award the goal, caution the offender and restart with a kick off.
Click to expand...
What is the caution for? If for verbal distraction then it could easily be argued that no distraction has occurred. Could also equally be argued that distraction has occurred and the PK has been scored nonetheless; or you could caution for our old favourite: acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game. All I am saying is that failure to caution is not necessarily a failure to apply the laws correctly.
 
happy whistler said:
I was more interested in views of retake v indirect free kick. Laws do state verbal distraction punishable by caution and IDFK, so if it were a free kick outside box and player shouts something we would restart with IDFK.
Is everyones opinion that this is different if it occurs at penalty kick and we do not give IDFK but have a retake ?
Click to expand...
Yes, as the attacking team broke the laws before the kick was taken. So exactly the same as encroachment.
But, if you do a retake, you must caution, as the law that was broken is USB.
If a goal is scored, then the caution becomes discretionary.
 
The problem comes if you don't caution and lightning strikes twice, so to speak, and the same situation appears. Then you are in for problems :)
 
McTavish said:
Don't understand your point...are you saying that a penalty isn't a restart?

My (minor) disagreement with Brian's post is that he says:

What is the caution for? If for verbal distraction then it could easily be argued that no distraction has occurred. Could also equally be argued that distraction has occurred and the PK has been scored nonetheless; or you could caution for our old favourite: acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game. All I am saying is that failure to caution is not necessarily a failure to apply the laws correctly.
Click to expand...
Got you now !!!

I would still tend to get the book out whether it is scored or not ....you laying a marker for if and when it happens again !
That said ....sometimes its difficult to pinpoint the culprit
 
Beezer said:
Got you now !!!

I would still tend to get the book out whether it is scored or not ....you laying a marker for if and when it happens again !
That said ....sometimes its difficult to pinpoint the culprit
Click to expand...
Very true and this would depend on how you position yourself for the kick.

Do you move to a point on the edge of the penalty area to discourage encroachment, in which case you may not see the offender as he is blocked by other players?

Do you move to a point level or just past the penalty mark but face slightly towards the edge of the penalty area to check for encroachment and this may let you see the player offending, but not let you see the goalkeeper or the goal?

Do face straight across the goal/slightly towards goal to confirm whether there is a goalkeeper infringement/the ball enters/doesn't enter the goal in which case you cannot accurately manage encroachment/identify the offending player?

Like many other situations, when working on your own, where does your priority lie?
 
Think its more of a trailing eye thing to be honest Brian .....I tend to position myself just behind the penalty spot backing off to near the edge of the area then after the whistle its encroachment , kick, keeper , goal line all in the space of 2 seconds also looking for who is shouting "hes bottled it " as the taker starts his run .......No one said reffing was easy .:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top