Verbal Unsporting Behaviour?

[Mond2806]

Hi,

Had an incident today where a player shouted to his teammate “go through him!”, encouraging his teammate to put in a forceful tackle on an opponent.

I had a word with him when the ball next went out of play to stop it and there wasn’t anymore for the rest of the game.

I just wondered if anyone has any experience of effectively a player encouraging another player to play dangerously? If so, is there a threshold as to when it goes too far and what disciplinary action you should take?

As you can probably guess I’m a fairly new referee so any advice would be appreciated.

 

[afronaut81]

When I was playing in a match about 5 seasons ago the opposition made a substitution. The player coming on had one of those knee braces on. Our centre half yells out "He's got a weak right knee lads go for his leg".
Ref quite rightly carded him (yellow in that case)

 

[RobOda]

Argument to be made for a red card there?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Had a very stern word with a Junior manager once who told a player to ‘snap him’. These days he’d of gone but he explained it want meant in the literal sense but I didn’t care and read him the last chance saloon warning!

 

[afronaut81]

Argument to be made for a red card there?

Oh very much. I don't think the player was thinking (his dad played with a leg brace for years as well !!).
The match itself had been well natured to that point so it was random and out of character.

 

[TSHudson]

I actually think this is a massively underused part of the law that I use frequently and it helps manage the game in my opinion. Players and most staff don't understand that LOTG 12.2 clearly states "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player.....is guilty of...other verbal offences"
So if a player is being a bit of a prat, but perhaps a yellow or red seems over the top for the offence, then this can be used for "other verbal offences". I once had a game, it was being played in a brilliant spirit, then out of nowhere a player shouted very loudly "I'll mark the lanky pr*ck" and I stopped play, gave an IDFK and both teams actually applauded the decision, even his own team. He also apologised and said it was the right decision.

So in your case above, I think you used the step approach well, having a quiet word, maybe call the captain over as well to explain that what they're saying is actually an offence and IDFK. Then if it happened again definitely award the IDFK. If it carries on or is more serious on a first offence or trying to put the opposition off it's an IDFK and caution (I once had a defender shouting "you're offside mate, lino has his flag up" when the assistant definitely didn't). If it is severe, then it's a possible red for offensive, insulting or abusive language.

Important thing is to manage the match situation and understand how the game is developing and if a warning, an IDFK alone or an IDFK with a card is appropriate.

 

[santa sangria]

I actually think this is a massively underused part of the law that I use frequently and it helps manage the game in my opinion. Players and most staff don't understand that LOTG 12.2 clearly states "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player.....is guilty of...other verbal offences"
So if a player is being a bit of a prat, but perhaps a yellow or red seems over the top for the offence, then this can be used for "other verbal offences". I once had a game, it was being played in a brilliant spirit, then out of nowhere a player shouted very loudly "I'll mark the lanky pr*ck" and I stopped play, gave an IDFK and both teams actually applauded the decision, even his own team. He also apologised and said it was the right decision.

So in your case above, I think you used the step approach well, having a quiet word, maybe call the captain over as well to explain that what they're saying is actually an offence and IDFK. Then if it happened again definitely award the IDFK. If it carries on or is more serious on a first offence or trying to put the opposition off it's an IDFK and caution (I once had a defender shouting "you're offside mate, lino has his flag up" when the assistant definitely didn't). If it is severe, then it's a possible red for offensive, insulting or abusive language.

Important thing is to manage the match situation and understand how the game is developing and if a warning, an IDFK alone or an IDFK with a card is appropriate.

My understanding is that if you give the IDFK then based on whether the offence was "dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal offences" then you are either giving a yellow or red card.

I also have to ask, if you are penalising someone for "lanky pr*ik", on what planet is that not a red card? That is (beautifully prosaic) offensive, insulting and abusive language.

 

[one]

Encouraging violence is at least a yellow if said seriously, could be red depending on context. Sometimes it is just said to intimidate opponents knowing no one would actually act on it. You get a feel for those times. But even then at least a public warning is warranted.

 

[TSHudson]

My understanding is that if you give the IDFK then based on whether the offence was "dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal offences" then you are either giving a yellow or red card.

A yellow card is only for unsporting behaviour, which would be verbally distracting an opponent or lack of respect for the game. Red card for offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures. You can 100% give a IDFK for other verbal offences not falling in the above and not have to show a card.

Yes some people might see calling someone a lanky pr*ck as a red, but sadly in saturday football, if you applied the laws that strictly you'd abandon every game after 10 mins for not meeting the required number of players! It's all about match control and in that scenario, an IDFK with no card managed the game better than a red would've.

 

[one]

A yellow card is only for unsporting behaviour, which would be verbally distracting an opponent or lack of respect for the game. Red card for offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures. You can 100% give a IDFK for other verbal offences not falling in the above and not have to show a card.

Yes some people might see calling someone a lanky pr*ck as a red, but sadly in saturday football, if you applied the laws that strictly you'd abandon every game after 10 mins for not meeting the required number of players! It's all about match control and in that scenario, an IDFK with no card managed the game better than a red would've.

Surly you missed dissent. Can you name a verbal offence (withing the laws of the game) that doesn't required a card?

 

[TSHudson]

Surly you missed dissent. Can you name a verbal offence (withing the laws of the game) that doesn't required a card?

Well we were talking about non dissent offences, that's why I didn't mention it.
I can think of lots of offences yea where I would not issue a card, once you go with a yellow or go nuclear with a red, you have set a very high bar for yourself in the game and will likely get yourself into massive trouble and lose control for consistency. You should be using a step approach, warning, IDFK, yellow then red if possible. If you go to yellow or red for a first minor offences, you leave yourself nowhere to go. So in the initial example, yes saying "go through him" could be deemed insulting and technically a straight red, but you'll immediately lose control of the game and respect of both teams if you show a red for that (with no prior step management). Better is to verbally warn or give an IDFK the first time it happens and then if it happens again yellow and then red. I would imagine there would be no complaints and massive respect from both teams in most games if you gave an IDFK and no card for shouting "go through him" If you gave a straight red for that, I'd imagine you'd lose control of both teams very quickly!

 

[santa sangria]

Well we were talking about non dissent offences, that's why I didn't mention it.
I can think of lots of offences yea where I would not issue a card, once you go with a yellow or go nuclear with a red, you have set a very high bar for yourself in the game and will likely get yourself into massive trouble and lose control for consistency. You should be using a step approach, warning, IDFK, yellow then red if possible. If you go to yellow or red for a first minor offences, you leave yourself nowhere to go. So in the initial example, yes saying "go through him" could be deemed insulting and technically a straight red, but you'll immediately lose control of the game and respect of both teams if you show a red for that (with no prior step management). Better is to verbally warn or give an IDFK the first time it happens and then if it happens again yellow and then red. I would imagine there would be no complaints and massive respect from both teams in most games if you gave an IDFK and no card for shouting "go through him" If you gave a straight red for that, I'd imagine you'd lose control of both teams very quickly!

I don't think you are correct in law to give IDFK for a verbal offence without a card. If you are not going to card, then you wait and warn on the run or at the next stoppage. With someone shouting "wah" loudly but innocently to put someone off in a grassroots game, or shouting "eff off" in someone's general direction... depending on the context you warn on the run or at the next stoppage. If you stop the game for these offences my understanding there is not a get out of jail no card here.

 

[one]

Well we were talking about non dissent offences, that's why I didn't mention it.
I can think of lots of offences yea where I would not issue a card, once you go with a yellow or go nuclear with a red, you have set a very high bar for yourself in the game and will likely get yourself into massive trouble and lose control for consistency. You should be using a step approach, warning, IDFK, yellow then red if possible. If you go to yellow or red for a first minor offences, you leave yourself nowhere to go. So in the initial example, yes saying "go through him" could be deemed insulting and technically a straight red, but you'll immediately lose control of the game and respect of both teams if you show a red for that (with no prior step management). Better is to verbally warn or give an IDFK the first time it happens and then if it happens again yellow and then red. I would imagine there would be no complaints and massive respect from both teams in most games if you gave an IDFK and no card for shouting "go through him" If you gave a straight red for that, I'd imagine you'd lose control of both teams very quickly!

One can't make up laws because it helps control the game.
Stepped approach doesn't have IFK as one of the steps (like it does for a warning to be used as a tool for game management).
The are no verbal offences in the laws of the game that don't require a caution or a send off.

 

[santa sangria]

Yes some people might see calling someone a lanky pr*ck as a red, but sadly in saturday football...

I think you have to be more creative than that to stay with the law book. If you acknowledge pejorative abusive language then the law is clear. If you don't want to card for it, then don't acknowledge it. "I don't know what's been said... but..." etc.

And there have been plenty of discussions about tolerance on here before. Yes, it is very, very hard to send someone off for insulting and abusive language. Again, if you acknowledge that is what has been said though, you are failing to follow the clear instructions in the law book.

(I'm not the most experienced and I don't go looking for game disrupting red cards but I have given reds for "poison dwarf" (insulting) and "make me a pizza" (racial), as well as "I'll have you in the car park" (abusive I guess).

 

[santa sangria]

One can't make up laws because it helps control the game.
Stepped approach doesn't have IFK as one of the steps (like it does for a warning to be used as a tool for game management).
The are no verbal offences in the laws of the game that don't require a caution or a send off.

What he said!

 

[TSHudson]

I don't think you are correct in law to give IDFK for a verbal offence without a card

I think I'm completely correct. LOTG 12.2 clearly states "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player: is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and / or gestures or other verbal offences" so that is clear, "other verbal offences" is an IDFK. What you now need to decide is the disciplinary action (if any) for the IDFK. 12.3 clearly states that a the only cautionable offence that would come under verbal is dissent or unsporting behaviour. Unsporting behaviour for verbal offences is only "verbally distracts an opponent" or "lack of respect for the game." A red card for verbal offences is "using offensive, insulting or abusive language."
So if it's not dissent, distracting an opponent or offensive, insulting or abusive then you can give an IDFK without a card.

 

[TSHudson]

The are no verbal offences in the laws of the game that don't require a caution or a send off.

Then why does 12.2 say "other verbal offences" there is clearly other things that can be said on the football pitch that are not dissent, distracting or offensive, insulting, abusive and so do not warrant a card. Taking the approach you're talking about, EVERYTHING said to the opposition is offensive and therefore worthy of a red card

 

[one]

Then why does 12.2 say "other verbal offences" there is clearly other things that can be said on the football pitch that are not dissent, distracting or offensive, insulting, abusive and so do not warrant a card. Taking the approach you're talking about, EVERYTHING said to the opposition is offensive and therefore worthy of a red card

You are misreading/ misinterpreting this law.
If the law said physical (contact) offences are DFK, it means those offences have to be listed somewhere else in law as an offence. You can't say (for example) touching an opponent's elbow is contact therefore an offence.
Similarly saying other verbal offences are IFK, still requires that verbal offence to be listed somewhere in law.

Not everything said is an offence. But if you stop the game for it (meaning you decided it is an offence) then it must be a yellow or red card.

 

[santa sangria]

Then why does 12.2 say "other verbal offences" there is clearly other things that can be said on the football pitch that are not dissent, distracting or offensive, insulting, abusive and so do not warrant a card. Taking the approach you're talking about, EVERYTHING said to the opposition is offensive and therefore worthy of a red card

Other verbal offences = verbally distracts an opponent during play

It's not brilliantly written:
IDFK includes: "is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal offences"

Then under the sanctions the verball offences are all spread out in different sections:
"dissent by word or action"
"verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart"
"using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures"


My understanding is that there are no "other verbal offences" that are not YC/RC.
I don't think anyone is saying everything said to the opposition is offensive

 

[socal lurker]

Then why does 12.2 say "other verbal offences" there is clearly other things that can be said on the football pitch that are not dissent, distracting or offensive, insulting, abusive and so do not warrant a card. Taking the approach you're talking about, EVERYTHING said to the opposition is offensive and therefore worthy of a red card

The answer to your "why" question is history. When they started adding direct free kicks for offenses against officials, there was ambiguity about whether dissent would an offense against officials warranting a DFK. (Wanna sell that PK?!) The language you reference was added to make it clear that the verbal offenses would always be an IFK, not a DFK, not to create discretion for refs to award IFKs at whim for perceived offenses not warranting cautions.

That said, USB is a very broad category. IMHO, things that are said to an opponent that do not rise to the level of OFFINABUS can still be USB. But what you can't do is just give an IFK because you don't like what someone said.