Question Number: 22621

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/7/2009

RE: Youth league Under 13

Andy Glidden of Edinburghj, Midlothian Scotland asks...

This question is a follow up to question 13388

During an u13s game, one of our players played a one-two, shouting 'and again'. The one two worked beautifully, putting the player clear through down the wing, but the referee stopped play, awarding a free kick to the defending team, saying the player should have used a name.

This seemed unreasonable and did not appear to put off the defending opponents, merely, a communication to a team mate.

Right or wrong? Certainly seemed petty.

Andy.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Andy
Very harsh decision by the referee and IMO an incorrect application of the law. The rule that the referee applied was 'verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart' which is a cautionable offence. The referee should have cautioned the player and the restart is an indirect free kick from where the shout took place. Without the caution the referee cannot award the IDFK
What annoys me is this myth that a name must be used with all calls. There is absolutely no mention of the use of a name in the laws. Players, aided by referees' incorrect application of the law, look for the IDFK with the call 'No name Ref' when an opponent calls an instruction to a team mate such as 'Mine', 'Leave It' 'And again' etc.
The referee has to ask the question whether the shout distracted or deceived an opponent and plainly on a one-two, the shout 'and again' is not a distraction. How it could possibly distract or deceive a defender is beyond me. The phrase has only one meaning and could only apply to the player in possession.

The occasions when this law should applied is when a player is about to play the ball and an opponent shouts 'ARGHHH' or 'MISS IT' or a player sneakily shouts to an opponent to 'leave it' so as to gain uncontested possession. The intention with these shouts is to decieve and distract an opponent and that is a cautionable offence with an IDFK restart.

Answer provided by Referee Tom Stagliano

Andy

Your question is similar to Question #13388, and I would refer you and others to the answers to that question.

Essentially, there is no foul for "verbal impeding". Indeed, there is a misconduct under USB that is: "Verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart". Therefore, it doesn't matter what the player yells, if the referee thinks the opponent was distracted by that yell and believes that the player intended to distract the opponent, the referee will stop play and caution the player for USB. The restart is then an IFK.

In your scenario, the referee must have believed that what your player yelled was loud enough and close enough to the opponent (most likely out of direct-sight of the opponent) to distract the opponent. However, the referee, at the U13 level decided to stop play and not caution but to merely restart with an IFK. That is not the correct procedure, but for instructional purposes was sufficient rather than adding the Caution for the USB of distracting the opponent. The correct procedure, if there is no Caution awarded, is to restart with a Drop Ball.

I hope that provides some clarity.

- Stag

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Players are permitted to communicate with teammates. They are not permitted to deceive their opponents with bogus communications. And example of that would be calling 'Mine' or 'Leave it' to an opponent, hoping you could steal the ball. Neither can you scream, yell, grunt, roar or make any other loud noise to try to distract your opponent or make him play badly.

There is a tradition that has escalted into a myth that 'you have to put a name on it' to avoid this deception. That doesn't solve the problems. As noted, screaming your name into an opponent's ear put a name on it, but still could cause the opponent to jump and misplay the ball. Also, suppose you have found out that there is another Andy playing on the opposite team. If you shout 'Andy's ball' at an opponent you might be trying to trick him into letting you have the ball.

The penalty for this is a caution for unsporting behavior. Because play would have been stopped solely for the caution, not for any other foul or infraction, the restart would be an indirect free kick at the site of the screamer.

If the referee doesn't feel the action is enough to warrant a caution, he can stop play to warn the player. In that case the restart would be a dropped ball. A better option would be for the referee to wait until the ball goes out of play for another reason, or have a word with the offender as play continues.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Please contact your local referee assignor with the information you have shared with us. It should generate a learning conversation between the assignor, the referee and hopefully will involve a senior official with some experience.

One of our slides in the entry level referee course says 'Referees are created perfect and expected to get better from there.' Of course we aren't perfect, but the slide does state the expectations of the players, coaches and fans. The vast majority of us work hard to get better every game. We will make mistakes, which are best corrected with re-education from our peers and time and experience. Help us out by contacting the appropriate authority.

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

The laws of the game do not always correct EVERY deficiency but they do try and of course we have a drop ball to bail us out of the truly dark holes!

Much of our efforts here on our volunteer educational website on the does and don'ts, while strong on personal opinion and experience we do try very hard to be correct in law so as not to steer you wrong with those that teach within their respective national associations. I suggest you follow REF Maloneys suggestion to make those aware who teach in your neck of the woods!

Verbal impeding is a myth born of deception but also out of concern for the cause and effect of an act which COULD be distracting but perhaps not deliberately so and the option of showing a yellow card does not sit well with OUR version of justice in deciding a careless remark versus a reckless over the top remark requires equal treatment.

To decide if an outcry is unsporting or simply a foul cannot be done under current written interpretation. Thus someone or the someones at IFAB and FIFA need to change the wording because to stop play award an INDFK for a verbal outcry requires a caution to accompany it. Yet in a recreational kick around cards are not the full meal deal as they are in organized competitive leagues. The use of the word MANDATORY has been revoked to absolute misconduct and the NEEDS of the match. Yet while we can choose to see a foul as trifling or doubtful and not stop play, just as we can here for this type of misconduct we are limited in what w can do if we stop play if it is not trifling or doubtful!

This is an IS or it ISN'T necessary to stop play.

Either it was done to deliberately put the opponent off or it is done without thinking but it had that same effect in putting the opponent off.

We judge not the intent anymore so much as the deliberate action so perhaps there is hope this laspect of law could be fine tuned to represent the reality of the situations instead of making a mockery of being too tough and stopping or refusing to stop for fear of appearing too foolish!

Be wise, be safe, be fair!

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

See Question: 22629