Question Number: 31041

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/21/2016

RE: Competitive Under 19

Dave Bermingham of Herndon, Virginia USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31038

In the answer to question 31038, where a substitute makes an illegal entry during play and then handles the ball, Ref McHugh states these are 'two separate and distinct offences each punished by a caution. The restart will be the more serious offence which will be the handling.'
Is the second sentence true because handling is more serious than entering, or because it's the second cautionable offense? If the former, is that reasoning true in every case?
It seems to me that for sequential misconduct offenses that both carry a caution, if the more serious offense was first and you penalized it then the second offence might not exist because play would have actually be considered to have stopped after the first offence (... advantage not realized...)..
Say a substitute off the field trips an opponent who's just breaking behind the defense (opponent temporarily partially off the field), the opponent stumbles, regains his feet and then the substitute screams at him (not abuse) - verbally distracting him such that he takes a bad touch and puts the ball out of play. It seems like if you award the more serious offense (tripping to stop a promising attack) then the shout is no longer occurring 'during play or at a restart' and is no longer a cautionable offense.
Or would you say that the second cautionable offense is ALWAYS the more serious offense because the sanction (2nd caution) and tactical impact (loss of a substitute) are always greater?
Thanks as always for the edifying and thought-provoking Q&A.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Dave
In the case of simultaneous offences the more serious offence is ALWAYS punished. More serious IMO does include the award that is most advantageous to the fouled against team. As simultaneous offence are very rare the more likely approach is the use of advantage on two immediate sequential fouls. Referees should punish the one that provide more benefits to the fouled against team. In the entering one it could be an IDFK restart in certain circumstances whereas the handling will always be a DFK or penalty kick. An example would be a defender is off the field of play for treatment. He rushes back on without permission and he handles the ball away from an attacker. In that case the re-entry on its own would be a caution and an IDFK restart whereas the handling is direct free kick and a likely caution which is the more advantageous restart. In other cases it will always hold true as the referee can play advantage on the first offence or bring play back to that offence within the 3/4 seconds. So let us say that a defender shouts LEAVE IT to an opponent who obliges and then handles the ball. Rather than the IDFK restart after the USB caution for verbally distracting an opponent the more advantageous restart is the DFK or penalty kick.
Likewise in your example there are two offences. the trip happens first so the referee can and should go back to that DFK restart which could be a penalty. The 2nd offence of USB shouting can be treated as misconduct and as that has an IDFK restart would be less advantageous. So again the player could be sent off for two cautions and the restart is the DFK one.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Dave,
A simultaneous misconduct situation could be the substitute screaming exactly at the moment he tripped the opponent! We use the double touch/handling one as an example given it occurs exactly at the same time.
Take the foul of holding. We can see it occur outside the PA, apply advantage, then it continues inside the PA, it now moves from a DFK outside to a PK inside as the more serious offence and a logical better outcome for the aggrieved team. The fact that a player can commit additional misconduct during an advantage portion of play is just their poor decision making as there are consequences to any illegal actions. . If we have YET to stop play then we are looking for the best restart and best outcome for the aggrieved team based on the LOTG. Entering or exiting the FOP is at best a caution INDFK restart strictly for that action, Almost any direct player physical confrontation by a non player is likely viewed as VC as they cannot challenge legally. Given we now hold DFK restarts to the subbed players, subs and team officials this heightens the danger for them to interfere whereas the LOTG USED to let them off with INDFKS restarts or even drop balls.
Your example is interesting in that the substitute performs the trip off the field thus no entry but his actions can be judged as more than USB given the physical confrontation could be viewed as VC. But if we are signalling advantage given the attempt to stop play by the illegal physical action has FAILED that action carries with it a DFK restart whereas a stoppage for a verbal distraction is at best an INDFK caution for USB to stop play and show a yellow card. Lets take your example further say our tripped attacker recovers but gets inside the PA and the substitute who could be on the FOP or outside the FOP had followed him only to scream at him causing him to freak out and lose the ball inside the PA . Now we have gone from a possible caution only (could still be a direct red for VC) and a DFK along the touchline to an INDFK inside the goal area to likely a double caution if not a direct red and send off for sure. If there was a more serious aspect to this it could be the 2nd caution or DOGSO criteria met resulting in a send off which is of greater advantage with the INDFK inside the PA than DFK way back along the touchline, these are not simultaneous but rather sequential actions.
Cheers