Question Number: 31243

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/9/2017

RE: Rec Adult

Russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31240

Have the panel got the restart right.

in the scenario posed by Saul of Chicago, he states '...a defender purposely goes off the field past the goal line and trips the attacker off the field (about 2 yards from the goal line).'

The LOTG state: if the player leaves the field of play to commit the offence, play is restarted with an indirect free kick from the position of the ball when play was
stopped.

The actions by the defender do not appear to fit the LOTG that would provide a DFK restart " '...if a player leaves the field of play as part of play and commits an offence'...

As described by Saul, the defender purposely goes off the field to commit the offence. That does not sound like 'part of play and commits an offence'.

Or have I read / comprehended this all wrong (certainly possible).

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
When questions are asked we try to understand the context of same. I took it that the defenders actions were connected with play as why else would the defender go off to trip foul the attacker. It was described as a trip and one would assume to prevent the attacker playing the ball although I did mention that the defender is more likely to go to the ball. That was the qualification when I said * So in this case we can assume the action by the defender was part of play*
If the offence was not connected with play and the player leaves the field of play to commit the offence, play is restarted with an indirect free kick from the position of the ball when play was stopped.
I would interpret that as situations say where, unconnected with play, a player goes off the field of play to commit misconduct we go with the IDFK. An example would be a player taking exception to a substitute and with the ball and play elsewhere the player goes off the FOP to commit misconduct.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Russell,
as the LOTG point out we punish the more serious if it is at all possible. The INDFK aspect has more to do with something NOT connected to playing the ball.or engaging in a challenge or directly affecting the match as in this case denying a scoring opportunity Given we can award a DFK I would look for every excuse to do so rather than a partial escape clause ..
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Russell,
I'm sorry but I think you are indeed reading this part of the law incorrectly.

As far as I can tell, the change to the Law that allows such offenses to be a direct free kick or a penalty was brought in for exactly this kind of situation.

When a player goes off the field to stop a player from coming back on to play the ball, in my opinion this is an example of what is meant by ''part of play'' or ''part of normal action.''

The other scenario, which you quote in your question stands in contrast to this and, as far as I am concerned, although not explicitly stated as such, refers to the situation where a player leaves the field in a situation that has nothing to do with the play and then commits an offence. For example, the ball is over on the opposite side of the field when the player goes off the field to commit an offence that is totally unrelated to what is going on with the ball at the time.

The explanation given in the Laws document is as follows:

''Law is changed as football would expect that if 2 players leave the field as part of normal action and one fouls the other off the field, a free kick should be awarded. No one would understand if the referee [...] then restarted with a dropped ball (or IDFK). The FK is awarded on the touchline/goal line nearest to where the foul occurred; if this is on the goal line in the offender's penalty area a penalty is awarded.''

For me, the example we are talking about is covered by this part of the law, not the part you refer to, especially given all the talk in the current laws about what 'football would expect,' applying the 'spirit of the game', punishing more severely what is 'clearly unfair' etc.

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

See Question: 31247