one
RefChat Addict
This is exactly what I meant by other factors. You must consider this as one of many factors in your decision.
What can't players shout?
- Thread starter Josh the referee
- Start date
rayb
Aus Learner
Haha. That's a great story and funnily enough that exactly what I used to say when I used to play - "Mine, John" when in this situation because, in the heat of the moment, I could never remember my team mates name and they were all "John" to me when I wanted the ball.
Can you clarify this statement please;
"... award the indirect free kick (a caution is not usually needed)"
As I have been told by others in this forum, and I believe the LOTG states that a caution is mandatory.
And yes, I have a bad habit of overthinking things but just like to push certain topics as far as I can take it.
Can you clarify this statement please;
"... award the indirect free kick (a caution is not usually needed)"
As I have been told by others in this forum, and I believe the LOTG states that a caution is mandatory.
And yes, I have a bad habit of overthinking things but just like to push certain topics as far as I can take it.
Last edited:
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
There are occasions when a caution is obviously appropriate, as in intentionally deceiving an opponent by a verbal distraction, but context is the deciding factor.
For example, should we be cautioning a yoing player who shouts "Mine" as his team-mate and an opponent challenge for a high ball? Not mandatory and not really necessary IMHO.
A caution is not usually needed? If you are giving verbal distraction a caution is warranted. 1) it's listed a cautionable offence, and 2) it also sells the decision and demonstrates that the behaviour is unacceptable.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?"
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Absolutely. But I think @ChasObserverRefDeveloper 's post shows why it is a pervasive myth in England that it can be just a FK. Chas is clearly knowledgeable and experienced from his posts, yet he endorses the wrong-in-law IFK as something to do in the UK. If good refs are doing it, the myth will never go away--it's almost a regional acceptance of ignoring this aspect of the LOTG as much as being a myth.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
So you would all always caution in the example I have given?
The caution would be for unsporting behaviour. Is the example worthy of a caution?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
As @one points out, there is no basis in the LOTG to give an IFK without giving a caution. I'm either giving nothing or a caution and IFK. (And I don't think there is any expectation on this side of the pond to do anything different.)
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
In the example you have given then, if needed by game context / outcome of verbal distraction, I would follow law and give IFK / YC. Otherwise I would play on and then warn the player (either publicly or privately). Giving an IFK and no YC is (unfortunately), simply not supportable in Law.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Interesting early responses, thanks.
In the example I gave, let's say with a 13-year-old player, I wonder how many would actually caution? In a game at Contrib or similar level, a caution for the deliberate act would be expected.
I think with tbe current wording of Law 12 there is space for an ifk with no caution if the referee thinks it was not a shout designed to put the opponent off.
I compare this with (e. g.) the player who sees that the ball has gone out for a throw and rolls it a further two metres, delaying the throw briefly. Caution? Every time?
So for what reason would you have stopped play?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I completely disagree with this statement.
I presume you are referring to the language in Law 12.4 that says "All verbal offences are penalised with an indirect free kick." But that provision has nothing to do with allowing the R to make up "verbal offenses" that are not set out in Law 12. That was added after the language about DFKs for offenses against officials to make it clear that dissent or OFFINABIS against an official remained an IFK rather than a DFK, as the language IFAB had used was a bit sloppy.
I thought someone on here had contacted Elleray on this point several years ago and he confirmed that the only verbal offenses would be those set out in Law 12 (i.e. the misconduct offenses that are verbal).
I stand by the idea that in the LOTG shouting is nothing or a caution. (Just like the delay of the restart is nothing or a caution.)
rayb
Aus Learner
This is a very interesting topic as I am acutely aware of the different styles or approaches a ref can decide to take. Do you focus more on common sense approach and let context and other non-tangible factors into the "Foul / Caution equation" or do you ref more to the letter of the law.
Is it RIGHT one way or the other, or just different styles of refereeing?
Do we penalise the keeper precisely on the 6 sec rule (to quote a popular argument) and is it wrong not to do so?
Do we verbally warn players privately when we are well aware that the letter of the law demands we blow the whistle for a foul?
Do we let play flow as the game is better off when we do or do we get involved in every tackle that even has a small hint of a foul which leaves everyone frustrated.
For me personally, the first time I read Law 5.2 I knew that I wanted to become a ref because it synchronised perfectly with how I see the game.
Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.
The key words here are "Spirit of the Game" and "Within the framework of the LOTG". To me this allows some scope and discretion to affect our decisions. It doesn't say the laws have be followed exactly or without context. "Best of the Ref ability", "Opinion", "Framework" are all a bit subjective to me
I think, in the context of this conversation there might not be right and wrong but just two ways to interpret Law 5.2 and the spirit of the game.
The downside to this, of course, is that different refs appear to be inconsistent based their own style,
Is it RIGHT one way or the other, or just different styles of refereeing?
Do we penalise the keeper precisely on the 6 sec rule (to quote a popular argument) and is it wrong not to do so?
Do we verbally warn players privately when we are well aware that the letter of the law demands we blow the whistle for a foul?
Do we let play flow as the game is better off when we do or do we get involved in every tackle that even has a small hint of a foul which leaves everyone frustrated.
For me personally, the first time I read Law 5.2 I knew that I wanted to become a ref because it synchronised perfectly with how I see the game.
Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.
The key words here are "Spirit of the Game" and "Within the framework of the LOTG". To me this allows some scope and discretion to affect our decisions. It doesn't say the laws have be followed exactly or without context. "Best of the Ref ability", "Opinion", "Framework" are all a bit subjective to me
I think, in the context of this conversation there might not be right and wrong but just two ways to interpret Law 5.2 and the spirit of the game.
The downside to this, of course, is that different refs appear to be inconsistent based their own style,
One of my big gug bears this. If you penalise it you MUST caution, anything else is completely incorrect in law. The reason being that you are stopping play for a cautionable offence, there is absolutely no other reason to support stopping the play and giving an IDFK.
rayb
Aus Learner
Being the devil's advocate and I believe was also mentioned somewhere in this post - but isn't there some scope in law 12.2
". . . or other verbal offences" to just award an IFK.
Yes, I know the history of how that statement got there and that it implies it has to do with descent to officials etc. but if we are going by the letter of the law the words themselves doesn't say any of that - in fact it doesn't say officials at all - maybe because we are allowed to stop play for an IFK when a player abuses or offends another player??. If that is the case then why can't we just award an IFK for ". . .or other verbal offences"
Of course I have no idea if this is even a thing but maybe IFAB left it open ended on purpose to encompass any verbal communication that ITOOTR seems to warrant an IFK. Does IFAB have hard rulings that contradicts that point of view?
". . . or other verbal offences" to just award an IFK.
Yes, I know the history of how that statement got there and that it implies it has to do with descent to officials etc. but if we are going by the letter of the law the words themselves doesn't say any of that - in fact it doesn't say officials at all - maybe because we are allowed to stop play for an IFK when a player abuses or offends another player??. If that is the case then why can't we just award an IFK for ". . .or other verbal offences"
Of course I have no idea if this is even a thing but maybe IFAB left it open ended on purpose to encompass any verbal communication that ITOOTR seems to warrant an IFK. Does IFAB have hard rulings that contradicts that point of view?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
No.
The “verbal offenses“ are the ones set forth in Law 12 (dissent, OFFINABUS, some USB such as verbal distraction), not whatever the R feels like making up. If you give an IFK without a caution, you are just making things up. The “spirit of the game” language is not a license to do anything you feel like.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It doesn't matter whether a referee thinks it's "worthy of a caution," the law lists it as a mandatory caution. If you're going to penalise it, you must caution the player.
The law on this is perfectly clear, as follows:
(Emphasis mine).
I'm sorry, but as @one, @socal lurker and @RustyRef have all stated, there is just no option in law to give an IFK without a caution.
Last edited: