The Ref Stop

Verbal Unsporting Behaviour?

santa sangria said:
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"
Click to expand...
and "other verbal offences"

Because by your thinking and interpretation, I either have to ignore someone saying something offensive or give them a red card. Someone uses extreme offensive language to an opposition, red card. Someone uses a mild insult that needs to be stamped out to help control the game, I either need to ignore it or give a red card?! Or I could use the law, that clearly states other verbal offences are an IDFK but you don't always have to also caution them for it.
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
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.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't say physical contact is an offence, so you're point doesn't really make sense
 
TSHudson said:
and "other verbal offences"

Because by your thinking and interpretation, I either have to ignore someone saying something offensive or give them a red card. Someone uses extreme offensive language to an opposition, red card. Someone uses a mild insult that needs to be stamped out to help control the game, I either need to ignore it or give a red card?! Or I could use the law, that clearly states other verbal offences are an IDFK but you don't always have to also caution them for it.
Click to expand...
Refer to post #13 :)
 
one said:
Would I be correct to say "holding and other physical offends are DFK outside the penalty area"?
Click to expand...
Now you're definitely making stuff up! LOTG make absolutely no distinction about inside or outside the PA. Referees certainly apply the law differently whether inside or outside, but the LOTG make no such allowance.
 
I can understand @TSHudson 's interpretation, because without historic understanding of how the Law has evolved, the rest of us are left with a dreadful book to decrypt. That said, if it warrants stopping a game for a verbal offence, I'd say it's implicit to sanction also
 
"other verbal offences" is 3 words
"verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart" is 10 words

Are you saying they'd add all this confusion in, to save 7 words of space? Why would they not just repeat the distracting sentence instead of using a completely different phrase? I think they're making a clear distinction about what verbal offences carry a card (dissent, distracting, offensive insulting, abusive) and that other can be resolved with an IDFK and no card.
 
TSHudson said:
"other verbal offences" is 3 words
"verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart" is 10 words

Are you saying they'd add all this confusion in, to save 7 words of space? Why would they not just repeat the distracting sentence instead of using a completely different phrase? I think they're making a clear distinction about what verbal offences carry a card (dissent, distracting, offensive insulting, abusive) and that other can be resolved with an IDFK and no card.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your island.

I explained above why that language was added to the LOTG. And yes, IFAB is notorious for awkward writing that is hard to discern without understanding the history of some of the changes. (Heck, for decades if you parsed Law 11 literally it was virtually impossible for an OS offense to ever occur.)

But no one on here can stop you from making stuff up to suit your own purposes.
 
TSHudson said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can 100% NOT give a IDFK for other verbal offences not falling in the above and not have to show a card.
I would suggest you don't give an IDFK for a comment made to anyone without giving a card as well if you are being observed - it is wrong in Law. If it's not bad enough to caution for then it's not worth stopping play for - make a comment in passing, or else give a public warning so everyone knows you've heard it. As soon as you stop play and award a free kick you have to caution as well.

If you're being assessed by the players then you will get a great mark, but an observer will mark you down for it. The players don't understand the offence so just think it's good, sensible refereeing. Next week's ref who enforces the laws correctly will then get told "but last week's ref didn't book me!"

Making comments that require the game to be stopped to deal with them is definitely a caution. The restart is an indirect free kick. If you don't want to caution, don't stop the game. As soon as you blow the whistle you don't have any choice but to caution.
 
TSHudson said:
and "other verbal offences"

Because by your thinking and interpretation, I either have to ignore someone saying something offensive or give them a red card. Someone uses extreme offensive language to an opposition, red card. Someone uses a mild insult that needs to be stamped out to help control the game, I either need to ignore it or give a red card?! Or I could use the law, that clearly states other verbal offences are an IDFK but you don't always have to also caution them for it.
Click to expand...
Without getting caught up in the wider debate (where I think you've been given plenty of input, which I would endorse, as to why you are a 'lone voice), worth responding on this specific point.

Generally speaking, if someone uses a mild insult that you don't feel really ticks the box for OFFINABUS but needs properly dealing with, then I'd suggest cautioning for Unsporting Behaviour, more specifically adopting an aggressive attitude.
 
TSHudson said:
Now you're definitely making stuff up! LOTG make absolutely no distinction about inside or outside the PA. Referees certainly apply the law differently whether inside or outside, but the LOTG make no such allowance.
Click to expand...
You side stepped the question but I go with it. Yes the LOTG does. What would be DFK outside PA is PK inside PA. See the distinction or would you like quotes from LOTG?

So asking the question again. Would I be correct to say "holding and other physical offends are DFK outside the penalty area"?
 
Do IFAB ever give advice on the use of industrial language, one mans common parlance is another mans red line. It’s all gone downhill since Ken Aston was around to show us the £&@8 from the /£&@ 👍
 
one said:
See the distinction or would you like quotes from LOTG?
Click to expand...

Sure if you could point out where the LOTG state that offences are different inside than outside the PA that would be great. There are not DFK offences and PK offences, there are DFK offences, which result in a penalty if they happen inside the box
 
TSHudson said:
Sure if you could point out where the LOTG state that offences are different inside than outside the PA that would be great. There are not DFK offences and PK offences, there are DFK offences, which result in a penalty if they happen inside the box
Click to expand...
"offences are different inside than outside the PA" That is not what I said but I think you already knew that I was referring to the restart not the offence.

Nicely diverted the discussion to avoid answering the question again. I think I will cease on this one since I have a feeling you get the point now which is:
  • Assertion: "holding and other physical offends are DFK outside the penalty area" still means other physical offences should specifically be defined as DFK offences somewhere in law.
  • Assertion: "dissent and other verbal offences are IFK" still means other verbal offences should specifically be defined as IFK offences somewhere in law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top