The Ref Stop

What can't players shout?

I book every bloke that baulks a player by shouting 'HA' (or something similar) as they're about to take a shot, pass a ball or make a tackle. Stuff 'em. It's cheating and it's not happening on my watch.

Probably dish out these 3 or 4 times a season.
 
The Ref Stop
Had a player yell ‘man on’ at an opposing right winger from about 30 yards away. This caused the winger to check his run allowing another defender to get close enough to challenge. Easy IDFK and caution. The fact it was his second (first was C1(AA)) is not my problem.

The usual ones are players yelling ‘you can’t call mine, you’ve got to put a name on it’ when only one teams players are in the drop zone.
 
Y’all cursed me with this discussion. I have put been on the field for a few months, whistling a b19 game. Pass to Yellow forward, white defender 5hards away yells “leave it,” which the forward does. White player is bewildered by the caution. (And this happens when white has essentially already won the game.)
 
I had one on the weekend - striker beats defender who, when striker is 8 yards from goal, screams at him.
Striker fluffs kick and GK collects the scraps.

Whistle, IFK, yellow. All accepted with little question.

Couldn't bring myself to DOGSO as the striker seemed to be off balance anyway.
 
Redster said:
I had one on the weekend - striker beats defender who, when striker is 8 yards from goal, screams at him.
Striker fluffs kick and GK collects the scraps.

Whistle, IFK, yellow. All accepted with little question.

Couldn't bring myself to DOGSO as the striker seemed to be off balance anyway.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha. Awesome.
 
Redster said:
I had one on the weekend - striker beats defender who, when striker is 8 yards from goal, screams at him.
Striker fluffs kick and GK collects the scraps.

Whistle, IFK, yellow. All accepted with little question.

Couldn't bring myself to DOGSO as the striker seemed to be off balance anyway.
Click to expand...
Did you tell him how lucky he was for staying in the game?
 
Been reading this this thread with interest and would like some clarification please because I'm just a beginner ref (from Aus). I also understand that players communicating to their team mates via shouting 1 or 2 syllable words is quite common ( eg. "mine" or "Leave it")

At the start of this thread it seems that the obvious and clear determining factor for stopping play is that there had to be "Intent to deceive" an opponent . Like shouting ahhhh to put an opponent off. I actually agree with this because it's obvious that it's USB. IDFK and Yellow card should follow. Easily justified by saying to any aggrieved player - "I believe you intended to distract your opponent and that is USB"

Then I read this by @RyantheRef and @Kes and made everything more complicated for me.

Start quote
RyantheRef said:
I wouldn't say it's the intention of distracting your opponent that matters so much as the act of distracting your opponent.
Click to expand...

Yep. The laws don't actually mention intention. Moreover though, as with all things, it's down to ITOOTR since any player can claim to have been distracted. 😉🙂
End Quote

So here is the scenario that I believe can happen from time to time.

Ball comes long from defence and blue defender and red attacker both go to head the ball. Another red attacker behind them yells "Mine" or "Leave it" in a very loud and commanding voice. Now the INTENT is to communicate to his red team mate but the result or consequence is that the Blue defender gets OBVIOUSLY distracted and pulls out from the header as he might think it's HIS team mate making the call and in a better position. I going to assume that in this scenario and ITOOTR there was obvious distraction involved and the reason blue defender pulled out was because of the distraction from behind.

Just for arguments sake and to make things interesting the Red Attacker gets the ball (now that the Blue Defender has pulled out of the header) and scores. Blue defender goes up to the ref and says the immortal words "He can't say MINE ref because he distracted me" (added that last bit but I think you get the gist)

I know that some of you think that saying "Mine" is a myth but in this scenario is it?

According to the LOTG it states
  • verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart
How can the scenario above NOT be "Verbally distracts" considering intent is not mentioned in the LOTG. If pressed by the player how can the ref defend his actions by not giving a YC and IFK as he knows that the verbal shout DID "distract" the blue defender.

It seems this statement in the LOTG is more based on the consequence of the action (ie the reaction) rather than the intent of the action.

Having read my own post again I was just thinking maybe the answer in the definition of the word "Distracts". Is being distracted an involuntary reaction or can someone be distracted and then consciously make a decision to do something else solely because of the distraction.

Really interested in your views / opinions on this.
 
@rayb . Think you've hit on a helpful level of clarity here. In the scenario you have outlined, it is obviously not in the spirit of the game to allow the goal ... the defending player WAS distracted. Very much like a tackle where whilst the player's intent was to take the ball cleanly, he fails and it therefore becomes Careless and an offence. As such, players should only be shouting phrases which might run the risk of distracting an opponent when it is clear that there is no nearby opponent and therefore no risk.
 
Thanks Russell. I agree with you 100% regarding the SOTG but are you saying that if a player does not intend to distracts a player but does so inadvertently (like your tackle example) then it's an IFK and YC??

Your last sentence seems quite "Greyish" in that it depends what and how they say the shouted words. I agree that if there is no team mate involved then the words are obviously directed at the opponent which, I believe, is how the founding fathers meant that offence to be interpreted. I'm mainly talking about if it's not obvious regarding WHO it was directed at and "distraction" still occurs.

I think my questions is if there is obvious distraction (as in my example) how can I justify playing on when, according to the LOTG, it focuses on the consequence of the action (similar to a mistimed tackle) and a distraction has occurred.

What makes things worse is that, unlike a mistimed tackle the ref can just award a FK knowing that it was just mistimed. It seems quite hard to YC a player when there was no intent whatsoever (which is why pretty much every ref doesn't call it)

BUT according to the LOTG how can the decision of "Play on - valid goal" be justified and argued.
 
There are plenty of scenarios where players now need to face the unintended consequences of their actions ... a mistimed tackle, arms unnaturally away from the body leading to handball, a high boot catching an opponent high up their body etc etc. So overall, players now need to (try and) play with an awareness of what's around them to avoid inadvertently offending. So, equally, where the verbal distraction is clear to everyone and caused by an ill chosen/timed phrase then the offending player will need to take their punishment (harsh as it seems). However, if my mind reading skills led me to believe that no malice had been intended (!), then the impact of the distraction would probably need to be a significant one (as in your scenario above) to justify calling it rather than having a word with the player instead.
 
That makes sense Russell but it still seems to come down to has "malice been intended" which is fair enough and what I actually believe should be the case but if the "Distracted" defender comes up and says "I was severely distracted by the opponents shout which is why I let the ball go" (I know, unlikely but maybe the defender is a ref as well :))

Should I say "I let play go because there wasn't any malice or intent to distract you"?? Am I right in law to say that?

I know I'm being devils advocate but would like to base my response to anyone that says "He can't say mine" so that it can be referred to the LOTG or at least a good interpretation. I think the answer "It's a myth" is not strictly true as there could be times when saying "mine" WILL distract an opponent

Thanks for your replies, this topic is very interesting to me as I try and interpret the LOTG with real world scenarios and discussing with players WHY I did or did not blow the whistle.

I'm sorry if I've hijacked the post - should I start another one?
 
@rayb you are looking for a black and white answer which doesn't exist in this case. Intent is a big factor but is not the only one. Consequence is another factor and a few other ones and as a referee you have to balance them all out. Sometimes you just have to go with the lesser of the two evils. And whatever you decide has to be within the laws of the game and justifyable based on ITOOTR. What you can't do is be incorrect in law. For example give an indirect free kick for verbal distraction but not caution.
 
THANKYOU @one, your answer has hit home. Your right, I am looking for a black and white answer so I can justify my decision if pressed - even if it includes an ITOOTR part to it. I just want to make sure I don't want to be contradicted by the LOTG - for example saying that intention is the reason when intension is not mentioned in the rule book.

So I assume you are saying that when circumstances like this happen it's a combination of intent, consequence, result (ie was a goal scored) and the refs opinion regarding the level of severity for each of those.

I think I can live with that but hopefully it won't happen with too much of an impact on the game. I can always say "It's a grey area that relies on the refs opinion of what is and what is not "Distraction" and weighing up all the factors I decided it was / wasn't an offence. And doing all this within 3 secs.

I wish there was an IFK only for verbal distraction - maybe refs would give it more often. I do feel players feels a sense of injustice or unfairness when "fooled" into believing the call came from their team mate even if it's wasn't intended to be so. I think when players feel like that they are more likely to seek their own vengeance which, if other team mates also think it wasn't fair could raise the temperature of the game.

Just thinking out loud :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I think your perception of what the myth actually is might differ from those of us in the UK where the myth is common - and that might be informing the slightly different attitudes and confusion.

Almost every UK ref will at some point have seen a ball going between two teammates, one of them shouts "mine" to his teammate, collects the ball comfortably and then some other random opponent 20+ yards from the ball will go mad yelling "he can't shout "Mine"!" over and over. When we're all wearily saying there's nothing banning the word "mine" in the law, that's what we're all thinking of.

The myth that we're all bored of is that there is a list of specific words that cannot be used, and any use of them in any context on a football pitch should be penalised. That doesn't of course mean the words are allowed to be used in every context and every way - there are still some conditions where certain words (or screams, yells, moans etc) can be distracting, and we should penalise those appropriately.

For example, what you're "supposed" to do instead of shouting "Mine" is to shout your name. Well if you yell your own name in an opponent's ear as he's about to take a shot, that's still verbal distraction and I'm still going to penalise if he missed the shot as a result. Just because shouting your own name probably wouldn't qualify as verbal distraction in one context (challenging for a header), it doesn't mean it can't in other contexts (opponent about to shoot) - the point is we don't really care too much what the words are, we care when and how they're used.
 
GraemeS said:
Almost every UK ref will at some point have seen a ball going between two teammates, one of them shouts "mine" to his teammate, collects the ball comfortably and then some other random opponent 20+ yards from the ball will go mad yelling "he can't shout "Mine"!" over and over. When we're all wearily saying there's nothing banning the word "mine" in the law, that's what we're all thinking of.
Click to expand...
Yes, I hear what you are saying @GraemeS but isn't when the aggrieved player shouting angry at you "He can't say mine", isn't he just expressing the unfairness in the fact that the opponents now have the ball because of what he sees as deception. He just shouts out what he believes the rules to be but actually means "I believe my team mate was verbally distracted by his opponent and I think you should blow the whistle as that is in the LOTG ref sir" (I'm sure that's what he's really saying but then again I am new to all of this :)). If they actually said this would your response be different?

I don't think they are specifically talking about the word "Mine" they are expressing the injustice about the deception / distraction.

On the other hand if there was no distraction as a consequence ITOOTR then that is another matter - I'm only talking about those situations when the player WAS distracted or made a different decision (eg let the ball go) because of the verbal shout etc.
 
rayb said:
Yes, I hear what you are saying @GraemeS but isn't when the aggrieved player shouting angry at you "He can't say mine", isn't he just expressing the unfairness in the fact that the opponents now have the ball because of what he sees as deception. He just shouts out what he believes the rules to be but actually means "I believe my team mate was verbally distracted by his opponent and I think you should blow the whistle as that is in the LOTG ref sir" (I'm sure that's what he's really saying but then again I am new to all of this :)). If they actually said this would your response be different?

I don't think they are specifically talking about the word "Mine" they are expressing the injustice about the deception / distraction.

On the other hand if there was no distraction as a consequence ITOOTR then that is another matter - I'm only talking about those situations when the player WAS distracted or made a different decision (eg let the ball go) because of the verbal shout etc.
Click to expand...
What deception? If two teammates are using "mine" to decide which of them should get the ball and the nearest opponent isn't challenging, where is the deception?

This is what I'm saying - you're underestimating the extent to which players in the UK think "mine" is banned anywhere on a football pitch, regardless of context. And yes, they 100% think it is a specific prohibition against that specific word. Players aren't appealing for verbal distraction, they're literally appealing because a word was used they understood to be banned.
 
rayb said:
Yes, I hear what you are saying @GraemeS but isn't when the aggrieved player shouting angry at you "He can't say mine", isn't he just expressing the unfairness in the fact that the opponents now have the ball because of what he sees as deception. He just shouts out what he believes the rules to be but actually means "I believe my team mate was verbally distracted by his opponent and I think you should blow the whistle as that is in the LOTG ref sir" (I'm sure that's what he's really saying but then again I am new to all of this :)). If they actually said this would your response be different?

I don't think they are specifically talking about the word "Mine" they are expressing the injustice about the deception / distraction.

On the other hand if there was no distraction as a consequence ITOOTR then that is another matter - I'm only talking about those situations when the player WAS distracted or made a different decision (eg let the ball go) because of the verbal shout etc.
Click to expand...
Nope, that's not what happens. They genuinely believe that you can't say mine or leave it. Pedalled by qualified refs whom believe the same.
 
Ahh. OK. I didn't realise that and then yes, a misunderstanding has occurred on my part.

I've only observed the "They can't say MINE" response in Aus which, amongst other similar situations, a perceived deception / distraction has also occurred which is why I said what I said.

Thanks for the clarification though.
 
rayb said:
Ahh. OK. I didn't realise that and then yes, a misunderstanding has occurred on my part.

I've only observed the "They can't say MINE" response in Aus which, amongst other similar situations, a perceived deception / distraction has also occurred which is why I said what I said.

Thanks for the clarification though.
Click to expand...
I suggest that like many parts of the LOTG there is a danger of intelligent referees over-thinking a set of words or the meaning behind them.
In the UK if a player shouts in such a way that the referee believes they have gained an advantage for their team, award the indirect free kick (a caution is not usually needed) and move into position for the restart.
There is no need to explain to players why the ifk has been awarded, but if challenged a finger to the lips and a shrug suffice.
My favourite ever on this point was half a century ago when Peter Osgood played up front for Chelsea at Crystal Palace.
As a cross came in (I was a spectator behind tbe goal) Osgood shouted "Mine, John"
Four Crystal Palace defenders, including goalkeeper John Jackson and three other John's, stood and watched as Osgood nodded the winning goal.
He disappeared to the halfway line wbile the inquest began - "Who called for it?" 🤔
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top