Question Number: 33575

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/15/2019

RE: Competitive Under 19

Matt of Bristow, VA USA asks...

Was reviewing the new rules changes and have two questions:

1) Substitutions - If a player leaving the field on the side opposite the team verbally distracts an opponent as he returns to his bench, I assume that would be a caution? Also, at the lower levels where the field environment may not allow a player to go behind the goal to return, is it acceptable to have them still go off towards the bench, unless it's in the last bit of the match and there is an intentional delay? In other words, can the instruction change based on the game situation or should consistency rule?

2) A defender and attacker challenge for a lofted corner kick the defenders arms are justly raised for balance as he attempts to get a head on the ball. The attacker makes minimal contact while the defender is in the air, but as a result the defender's arm makes contact with the ball before it touches either player's head. The attackers contact would not be a free kick anywhere else on the field. The rules changes make it appear that this should be a PK; however, that seems unjust as does awarded the defense a free kick for the 'push.' I assume that common sense dictates a play simply continues uninterrupted?

BTW - Thanks for the outstanding website. I always learn something when visiting. Frequently, I am refereeing a match the next week and realize that I made a correct decision because of something from your site.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Matt
we appreciate the kind words. The LOTG are written to provide a framework but not every eventuality is covered . Referee discretion known as in the opinion of the referee must still be used in those iffy situations where you as the arbiter of justice look at it from the point of view of your match, your decision, your reputation. You make those difficult choices while appearing calm cool and completely at ease even if inside you are whirling like a dervish. lol

Like a justice of the peace we can choose to be lenient especially in cases where doubtful or trifling degrees are at play

The idea of HAVING to caution for what is said should be based on whether it IS offensive and impacting. How it is framed in context is more important that what words are used unless those words themselves ARE the insult or offensive.

One key in preventive referring is the ability to anticipate a problem and not let it get to that stage.

In a tough fought match I had a black player & a white player go in hard and both came away feeling the other was at fault. I felt the tension. saw the impact but it was a fairly even tackle yet both had a bit of blood to show for it So I jumped in hard and said that's a tough way to become blood brothers. How about we shake hands and get on with it? It worked perhaps because they both knew hard play sometimes gives out hard results without any bitterness involved


Unfortunately those same LOTG also ask us to award free kicks for inadvertent handling that is favorable to an attack or scoring a goal even if completely accidental. This is actually against the spirit of the laws but was decided by those in power to be necessary because they dislike goals that occur due to any sort of arm /hand motion.

!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Matt,
1. Cautions for verbal distraction are rare even for players who are on the pitch so I'd be surprised if a player who was off the pitch were to be found guilty of this (the logistics of it would certainly mitigate against the possibility) but if it were to occur, it would be a caution.

As to the second part of your question the law is quite clear that the referee can choose to override the general rule on the player leaving by the nearest boundary and if so:

''the referee indicates that the player may leave directly and immediately at the halfway line or another point (e.g. for safety/security or injury)''

2. I'm not 100% sure but I think your point centres on the fact that the player has their arms raised? If so, I think this is precisely the reason why the word 'usually' is in the law. It leaves the referee with the discretion to not award a handball offence even though the arms were raised. If you as a referee, judge that the handling was caused by the contact from the attacker (and/or the deflection from close range) you are entitled to decide there was no offence.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Matt
Thanks for the questions and your favorable comments
1. Yes that could be a caution. If play has to be stopped the substituted player is cautioned and the restart is an indirect free kick from where the ball was when play was stopped.
Generally it would be rare that verbal distraction requiring a stoppage would happen from OFF the field of play so play should continue until the next natural stoppage and then deal with it.
I once had two players who were dismissed in a game return to the sideline behind a goal area after showering and changing to shout at opponents. I waited until the next natural stoppage to remove them from the pitch area. It was further misconduct yet I could not see any way of verbal distraction that was going to affect play requiring play to be stopped immediately.
2. The unintentional contact with the hand only applies to attackers who score a goal or create a goal scoring opportunity. In this case the handling off the defenders arm is unintentional and as it is not deliberate it should NOT be punished as per normal. If it was off the attackers arm in a goal or a goal situation it is an offence.
Perfect example in the EPL Chelsea game at the weekend. From a corner VAR spotted that the ball came off a Chelsea player's arm unintentionally in a challenge for the ball and the ball then fell to a team mate who scored. It was not deliberate yet the law is clear that it must be called as DHB. Some debate that it came off a defenders arm as well yet that would not be called once deemed unintentional.
Also if the referee is of the view that the nudge by the attacker caused the opponent to make contact with the ball on the arm then that nudge should be penalised with a direct free kick to the defender. It can defuse a penalty claim with the decision that the push happened before any contact on the arm. The handling question then does not arise.

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

See Question: 33585