Question Number: 31172

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/12/2017

RE: Select College

Aviinandaan Dutta of Kolkata, West Bengal India asks...

Hey there,
My query pertains to Law-12 (fouls and misconduct). I am aware of the various actions that can be considered as foul (punishable or not) on the opponent team. That which confuses me is what should happen when multiple actions (from either side obviously) that qualifies as a foul occurs in parallel and moreover each attracts varying levels of penalty. Which of the actions should be taken into account? Is there any rule regarding this? what if one of the actions turns into a score?
For an example let a player of team A be found guilty of a high foot challenge while the one from team B commits a reckless tackle (shove with the hand).

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hello there Aviinandaan ,

The referee must punish the more serious offence .

When a single player commits more than one offence at the same time we always punish the more severe infringement!



An example would be a correctly done throw in by a defender or a deliberately controlled kick towards his keeper . The keeper is restricted in he can not use his hands or else an INDFK is awarded ! However that applies ONLY inside his OWN penalty area. If the keeper was to be careless and perhaps initially play the ball with his feet thinking to dribble it out. However he miscalculates and is put under pressure by an opponent who looks likely to steal the ball forcing the keeper to use his hands to keep the ball away from the opponent. The location of this is OUTSIDE his PA thereby that DFK foul takes precedence over the INDFK non use of hands violation that would have been the right restart ONLY if it was INSIDE his PA!


If there are simultaneous actions committed by players from different teams play should be restarted according to the most serious offence committed

ONLY if they occur precisely at the same time and are of the same level of foul and misconduct could we have a possible drop ball. I point out though this would be EXTREMELY rare! USUALLY we can ascertain one party initiates and thus is more culpable and punish that as the restart point .

I have turned around to see two players engaged in rolling about locked in some form of struggle , unable to decide who did what to who first because I was working as single official I did a drop ball restart and cautioned the two players who were then substituted as per the revised substitution laws for youth in the school league. This is a rarity as usually have ARS or 4th officials who can give us the facts.



No team can score if they have infringed upon the LOTG! IF both teams have infringed neither can score! You can permit advantage if just the opposing team infringes and the goal is scored upon them. There is precedent in the LOTG and in former FIFA circulars as to guidelines but common sense tells us you punish ONLY what you KNOW to be true .



I find your created scenario to be difficult to imagine. First off there is no foul of high foot. It COULD be seen as PIADM if no contact and an opponent was endangered by the action. It would be upgraded to a DFK if there is contact as well as the misconduct itself worthy of yellow but likely red card and send off! The pushing of course is a DFK offence but it is far more likely the INDFK foul of PIADM from a high foot would occur first then the subsequent pushing by the opponent. That said the DFK offence of pushing would take precedent over the possible PIADM INDFK for the high foot UNLESS the high foot made contact



If we consider the very real possibility of allowing advantage then upon seeing the retaliatory strike which nullifies the advantage to create the conundrum of going back to the 1st foul and classify the retaliatory one only as misconduct OR deciding that advantage WAS realized and lost by the deliberate action and award the second foul as the restart with possibly carding the 1st instigator for misconduct. OH the choices and decisions to be made! lol

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Aviinandaan
The referee punishes the foul that occurs first. If say a Player from Team A commits playing in a dangerous manner the referee can allow advantage to Team B. If then immediately a player from Team B commits another foul then one can argue that there is no advantage so the referee goes back to the first foul and awards the IDFK to Team B. If the second foul by the player from team B merited a card as reckless the referee can still do that yet the restart does not change.
If there are two simultaneous fouls which is rare the referee will punish the more serious one. For example if player A takes a free kick and then doubles touches the ball using his hand the restart is a direct free kick for handling not the IDFK for a double touch.
Now there has been a recent change to the Laws in that the referee now punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time. So let us say that if the double touch offence happened at the exact same time as a reckless foul on the player the new laws require that the more serious offence that is the reckless foul is the one that is punished. Generally offences do not happen at the exact same time and there can be an appreciable difference in time between the two offences in which case the ref will go with the first foul. If both happen together the more serious foul is called.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Aviinandaan,
Thanks for your question.
True simultaneous offences are fairly rare, especially as you described. In almost every case, one occurred first.

If the defender pushes an attacker and the attacker plays in a dangerous manner, usually one has occurred first, even if by a fraction of a second. Penalise that one.

In the very unlikely scenario where both do truly occur at the exact same moment, you penalise the more serious one. A push is a direct free kick, playing in a dangerous manner is indirect. So the push is more serious.

If both are of equal severity - say, one is a push and one is a trip, and neither need a card, then the restart is a drop ball. This would be extremely rare - I've never actually see this happen in any of my games. If, say, the push was worth a yellow card and the trip wasn't, then the push is more severe - so punish that one.

The most common scenario for simultaneous offences is when both players are pushing or holding each other. Then, you have 3 options:-

1) Simply allow it to continue. This is often the best option if it isn't escalating
2) Penalise whoever is doing it the most. Sometimes if 2 players are pushing each other, one will get frustrated and start pushing hard. Penalise that one
3) Penalise whoever started it. Usually one player started with minor pushing that wasn't worth a foul, then the other player pushes back, then they both keep escalating. Sometimes you may wish to penalise whoever started it.

Usually it's one of the first 2 options.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

As my colleagues have indicated, it is actually very rare for two offences by different players to be truly simultaneous. In almost all cases, one occurs fractionally before the other. If it were to happen though, the Laws tell us that the referee:

''punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time.''

The FAQ to Law 5 (available on the IFAB website) clarifies and expands on this as follows:

''Football would expect and it is common sense that when several offences occur at the same time, the most serious is penalised. Deciding which offence is the most serious will depend on:

Disciplinary sanction - e.g. sending-off offence (RC) is more serious than a cautionable (YC) offence
Restart - a direct free kick offence is more serious than an indirect free kick offence
Nature of the foul - a foul tackle is more serious than handball or shirt pulling
Tactical impact - an offence which stops an opponent's attack is more important than one which ends a player's own team attack''

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

See Question: 32040