Question Number: 31656

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/24/2017

RE: Competitive Adult

Jack of Sydney, New South Wales Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31623

I felt that the answers provided here extrapolated the provisions of Law 12, Section 4 a little too much (even though I didn't disagree in principle that the action of dissent off the field probably deserves a free kick rather than a dropped ball) so I followed it up with IFAB for confirmation and clarification.

I have forwarded the email on to Richard for confirmation - I haven't published it here in full, as I didn't seek permission from IFAB to republish it.

Original email:

> I seek clarification on the restarts (and their locations) after the following incidents, as they don't appear to be covered explicitly by Law 12, Section 4.
> - A substitute, standing off the field of play, commits violent conduct against an opposing substitute, while the ball is in play, and the referee stops play to deal with the offence.
> - A team official, standing off the field of play, commits violent conduct against an opposing substitute, while the ball is in play, and the referee stops play to deal with the offence.
> - A team official, standing off the field of play, commits violent conduct against a spectator, while the ball is in play, and the referee stops play to deal with the offence.
> - A substitute, standing off the field of play, uses offensive, insulting and/or abusive language against the referee or commits dissent against the referee (who is standing on the field of play) while the ball is in play, and the referee stops play to deal with the offence.
> - A team official, standing off the field of play, uses offensive, insulting and/or abusive language against the referee or commits dissent against the referee (who is standing on the field of play) while the ball is in play, and the referee stops play to deal with the offence.

IFAB response:

> In all cases the play is restarted with a dropped ball where the ball was when the referee stopped the game (if the referee stopped play to deal with the situation) " the award of a FK can only occur if the offence was committed BY or AGAINST one of the (22) players. See Law 8, 1st paragraph, last sentence.

I also sought clarification on whether the referee should simply wait until the ball is out of play to deal with incidents off the field. The suggestion that we should ignore cautionable conduct from a team's bench until the ball next went out of play even when that team had the ball and was on the attack seemed at odds with the spirit of the game to me.

Original email:

> As a supplementary question, should the referee use the advantage principle when deciding whether to stop play for offences committed off the field (as they would with offences committed on the field of play), or should they simply wait until the ball goes out of play to deal with these offences, even if the offending team has possession of the ball?

IFAB response:

> The spirit of the Laws and of play-fair would allow the referee to apply the advantage to the non-offending team if there was no risk to control etc...

I know that the indirect free kick on the touch line restart (which did seem entirely plausible and logical at the time) has been communicated both on this site and elsewhere (e.g. refchat) - if possible, are you able to communicate IFAB's view on the matter both in answers provided here and contributions you've made elsewhere?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jack
One of the unintended consequences of some of these law changes is that they have created confusion on the restart. In these situations we have the possibility of all three restarts depending on who, where , against whom and how the offence was committed. In addition the location of the restart can be on the sideline or where the ball was when play was stopped or the location of the offence That makes for the strong possibility of getting it wrong.
Now we have Law 12 stating that ** substitute, substituted or sent off player, or team official commits an offence against, or interferes with, an opposing player or match official outside the field of play, play is restarted with a free kick on the boundary line nearest to where the offence/interference occurred; a penalty kick is awarded if this is a direct free kick offence within the offender’s penalty area.**
That is at odds with the IFAB statement that ** the award of a FK can only occur if the offence was committed BY or AGAINST one of the (22) players. See Law 8, 1st paragraph, last sentence.**
Not sure what Law 8 1st para last sentence **If an infringement occurs when the ball is not in play this does not change how play is restarted.** has to do with it?
Does that mean that OFFINABUS against say an assistant referee or 4th official is not an IDFK offence with a restart on the boundary line and that the same offence against the referee on the FOP is also not an offence for which the game had to be stopped. In my opinion it is an offence under Law 12, it is off the FOP and it is against a match official so an IDFK is the correct restart not a dropped ball?
Can we have a situation where a player off the FOP say getting treatment shouts OFFINABUS at an AR about a decision, AR flags to the referee who stops play comes across, red cards the offender and we go with IDFK restart and a substitute in the exact same situation dealt with by the AR in the same way saying the exact same has a dropped ball restart where the ball was when play was stopped? IFAB has confirmed to me that an IDFK on the boundary line is the correct restart in such circumstances.
It certainly should never be some argument analysis as to what is meant or open to interpretation. We know when that happens there will be differing solutions depending on the individuals and their view of the world at that time.
For someone sitting in the world of IFAB who know this to expect the grass roots referee on his own to get this correct given all the permutations I think is untenable. It certainly needs to be tidied up to make it much more easily understood.
I feel the safe decision for many will be to wait until the next stoppage and then deal with it.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Jack,
Generalizations often cause confusion as there are unusual permutations where more than just the single infraction could be present.

I think the drop ball restarts for actions off the FOP are reasonable but if they come into the FOP say as a substitute that is an INDFK offence in of its self for entering the FOP illegally never mind his subsequent actions . If a player is held to an indfk for dissenting why is a substitute a drop ball??? I think they make it far too complicated?

Any REAL actionable event that causes real problems should be dealt with as needed. Advantage is always a consideration but I agree to give it to the team creating the fuss is not something I would encourage IF it really needed to be dealt with. Ignoring it as inconsequential is a bit different than not punishing it for the abuse that it truly was thus taking away ball possession.

Given how even elite officials are having difficulty interpreting solutions it is unwise to think the grassroots has it expertly mapped out.

It is so simple if they treated any offence by ANY one in the technical area as unacceptable, that it will result in a free kick from the near touchline if off the FOP or at point of contact on the FOP chances are no one acts like an idiot given the severity of the loss of possession and the possible scoring opportunity created.

I think the ONLY drop ball permitted scenario should be for a COMPLETE outside agent, solves the kundrums effectively
Cheers