Question Number: 18042

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/1/2007

RE: High School

Patrick Chambers of 96734, Hi USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 18027

Thank you both for the well-reasoned responses. Your continuing patience and dedication in responding to us is much appreciated.

My "question" was more a response to an issue raised by the answers to question # 18012 rather than the question itself. My goal was to suggest to referees at large that 1) UB can be any action they deem to be unsporting, 2) advantage can always be applied to this misconduct (Law12), if ITOOTR the conditions of advantage are present (see point #11 in Law 5). The Spirit of the Law is at least as important as the LOTG. If ITOOTR a player deliberately infringes a law outside Law 12 in order to deny an opponent an opportunity greater than that posed by the punishment for that infringement, then his behavior has been unsporting. I was merely suggesting a path that leads to preservation of both the LOTG and the Spirit of the Game.

Keeper "passbacks", TIs to keeper, 6 second keeper offenses, and Law 3 violations are all offenses of Law 12 (three fouls and one UB misconduct respectively) => advantage can come into play, as was stated in your response. Another example of possible advantage unassociated with a foul might be FRD. Defender is slowly withdrawing from the location of a FK. Attacker takes a quick free kick, but the defender (still within 10 yards) moves aggressively toward the kicker and the ball, deflecting it to an opponent in an "advantageous" position to score. Better that referees be aware of these options.

What we are discussing here is gray zone and subject to the referee's opinion. IMHO any second touch after any r/s in which the ball has been properly put into play can be subject to both advantage and even DOGSO (S5), if UB has occurred. On a GK if the keeper were to second touch the ball by handling it outside the PA, then the Law 16 infringement should be subordinated to the simultaneous Law 12 handling offense (Law 5, point #12) and advantage and DOGSO would be possibilities. And similarly for the original question (Law 16 infringement simultaneous with misconduct ITOOTR). Such instances are rarely encountered, but... The scenario described by Referee Dawson (second touch after TI/FK but ball goes to attacker in on goal) seems to me a perfect situation for possible application of advantage. Referee Voshol may be of a similar opinion, given his comments in response to question # 18012.

IMHO when the second touch is not by handling, DOGSO-F (S5) can also rarely apply for the same reason that advantage can (Law 12 offense ITOOTR), assuming the 4 D's are also present and obvious.

Apologies in advance for any offense taken on the difference of opinion. I have nothing but the utmost admiration for you all.

Mahalo

P.S. A response is neither necessary nor expected.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

A reasonable exchange on what was a good question for clarification is not the same as discussion board where we heap the table with opinions. We welcome your queries and can abide with divergence of opinion by agreeing to disagree if needed and move on.

In the EPL I have seen the advantage signal shown in waving off an offside to allow the keeper to punt the ball out. We can quibble if there was offside ignored or offside not realized but the effect is the same. We have play continue!

As you seem to be aware it is not permitted to score AGAINST yourself on any free kick or throw in which is why DOGSO will not apply on a second touch violation of a free kick or throw in regardless if the hands or feet are used.

The fact we can upgrade the indfk for a second consecutive touch into a DFK decision for a deliberate handling (if the hands are used) is credible to apply advantage and certainly is within the spirit of the laws in my opinion to allow play to continue if the attempt to delay the play has failed whether the ball was kicked or deliberately handled.
Cheers