Question Number: 16776

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/18/2007

RE: AYSO High School

Jonathan Gingerich of Los Angeles, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 16729

Just some comments on this situation [16729]:

I have never understood the logic of insisting that the miscreant get sent off immediately because, knowing he will be sent, he is liable to set upon another opponent. If you stop the game and RC him, what's to stop him from setting upon another opponent? Obviously you do not want to lose track of him, but...

The score is rather important to your decision. If the game has been decided, safety first. If not, you do not want to add the injury of DGF to the insult of VC.

A third option, which went unmentioned, would be to stop the game as soon as the ball was saved into the corner. You could restart either with a DFK or a drop ball depending whether advantage was realized or not.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Understand the logic? Might it be better to say you disagree with the logic? As a long time referee surely you have witnessed retaliation in full gear as those watching react to the violent attack? Or an upset player takes a whack and misses, then pursues the object of his desire with the intention of taking another whack? Do you not think it is a risk to allow play to continue when an opponent has created a red card incident of violence as opposed to say a second caution or a careless foul with or without DOGSO criteria? Where perhaps the reaction of the team or the afflicted player will not settle for your? I'll be back montage?? I am not a USA referee but I read within your ATR advice it specifically mentions this concept in detail? A red card shown and a ceremonial restart the culprit no longer is on the field to tempt a get back at you type shot or since the player knows he is likely done decides a freebie shot at some other opponent might be available.
I grant you the reality is stretched but the logic flawed or not is understandable even if not one you or I might follow!

Your excellent observation on the actual the score and safety could also factor into such decisions is one I heartily concur with.

That said, of course you can apply advantage knowing that you addressed the incident in a firm and obvious fashion! However,. I do find the DFK or drop ball as the restart simply to show a card as improper. The situation said a strong save so likely the shot was the advantage realized thus a dfk is a tough sell. An inadvertent whistle to show a red card seems not in keeping with the proceedings either. An INDFK for the misconduct not the foul would serve as a more reasoned restart in my opinion.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

What's to stop him from going after someone else? Surely you jest. He committed the sending-off offe3nce anonymously. He did what he did thinking he would not get caught. Just like most of the drivers in America or the rest of the world where limits only apply in front of the police.

What is to stop him is your authority, the fact everyone is looking right at him and his shame and the extended ban he is going to face if he steps out of line after being disciplined at the highest level possible. This assumes the referee understands how to write a match report.

Your third option has no basis in Law unless you are stopping to discipline alone and in that case Law 12 requires you restart with an indirect free kick at the point of the offence. [See the last of the indirect free kick offences.] This is going to create more trouble than it solves unless the players are most unsophisticated. Reason? They will know you are stretching things way too far and their confidence in you will be tested. Better a tiny breach up field, something you would not ordinarily intervene against, a phantom foul. This shows stretching as well but it is located in an area that is not a danger as your [should be] indirect free would be.

Regards,

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 16817