Question Number: 23446

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/9/2010

RE: Select Other

Octavian Iliuta of Saskatoon, SK Canada asks...

Team A attacks and a cross comes in the penalty box. The attacker is in pole position to head the ball in the goal. Defender behind him whispers'Let it go, i got it' To my surprise, the attacker let it pass him( I later found out they go to high school together). Obviously, defender kicks the ball away. At this point, the attacker is very frustrated as he got robbed of a chance to score. I stopped the play and cautioned the defender right away with a yellow card for verbally distracting an opponent-misconduct. The restart was from the point the attacker could have hit the ball (around 10 yards),IDFK from inside the penalty area. Please let me know if I took the wrong decision(Q1). I can't award a PK as it was not a foul and I would see this as misconduct(same as bringing the game into disrepute-classic goalie hanging from the crossbar etc). What kind of action would you take if one player barks (I've seen that too at U12) or screams from the top of his lungs(Q2)? I would think the same IDFK or should you let the play continue as the distraction was not major and caution the player at next stoppage? The difference between Q1 an Q2 is that in the first case defender gets the ball, second he doesn't but still verbally distracts.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Your decision was mostly correct - the caution, stopping of play and indirect free kick restart were all correct, as were your reasons for your actions.

Well done on being able to pick up on the defender doing this - they can be hard to hear, or to spot who it was that spoke.

However, when you stop play to issue a caution the restart is an IFK from where the offence occurred - in this case, the restart should have been where the defender was, not the attacker.

Chances are there was little difference here, but it's a distinction that could be important when they're further apart.

Any verbalisation which you believe is deliberately done to distract or deceive an opponent is cautionable. Sometimes they can be difficult to tell - is the player yelling as he chases or tackles to put the player off, or simply from exertion or in response to a cramping calf muscle?

If you think the intent was to deceive or distract the opponent but the opponent isn't affected, then you could consider that the offence was merely trifling thus take no action - though it may be wise to call the player over and have a word at the next stoppage to prevent him or somebody else from repeating the action.

If it's really blatant then, even if there's minimal noticeable effect on play, it could still be wise to caution. You simply need to use your judgement on what the match needs and how best to handle the individual situation. If the attempt to put the opponent off was successful, then you have little choice.

Bear in mind that sometimes it isn't apparent if the player has been put off, so consider this if determining whether the offence was trifling or not.

Of course, even if the player has been distracted you may still consider advantage and caution at the next stoppage.

I would have no problem cautioning a player at U/12 if their actions are deliberate and an opponent is put off.

Incidentally, my first ever caution was to an U/10 player. Every time he went into a tackle he shouted 'ooglie booglie' at the player to try and put them off. I warned him several times (I wasn't too sure how to handle a caution back then!), and eventually cautioned him.

I'm not sure if any of his opponents were put off by it - but it was deliberate, his intent was clear, and he ignored my warnings. He left me with no choice but to caution (although perhaps I could've had a word with the coach, ask him to intervene).

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Iliuta
It is a cautionable offence to verbally distract or deceive an opponent. Play is stopped, the player is cautioned and the restart is an indirect free kick from where the offence took place.
Over the years some referees chose not to caution the offender for this offence but instead awarded an IDFK only which is totally wrong in Law. This then created the myth of 'No Name Ref' with players looking for an IDFK when opponents did not use a name when shouting legitimately for the ball.
Communication is part of the game and as long as the shout does not deceive or distract an opponent there is no offence. I believe that if the deception/distraction does not effect play with play continuing unaffected then it is unlikely that it was indeed an offence and play should continue with no caution. The player could be warned about his calling at the next stoppage.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

When defenders use nefarious means to distract an opponent, and verbal harassment like this counts, it is misconduct. Misconduct is punishable by an IDFK, as no DFK offense was committed. That IDFK will take place where the defender was when he uttered the phrase which distracted his opponent and unfairly dispossessed him of the ball.

Given that the defender was successful in his ploy, and given that the attacker had a chance at a goal scoring opportunity, the possibility exists that the defender should be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by an offense punishable by a free kick. Only you know if those circumstances were met, as we don't know how far away from goal the attacker was, how many defenders there were between him and the goal, etc.

If the send off for DOGSO doesn't match the requirements, the very least that should happen is a caution for this behavior. The restart is the same here, whether or not the defender is cautioned or sent off. Depending on the age group and the skill level, a referee might choose to warn once (ONLY ONCE) but then must follow through to make sure the lesson is learned.

As for U12's, or for that matter, any age group, who are barking and screaming, please hand them a dog biscuit along with the caution they have so richly earned. Perhaps it will make an lasting impression on them and their coach, whom I'm sure has had something to do with this behavior?