Question Number: 23593

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/1/2010

RE: Recreational, Competitive Adult

Warren of Sydney, Australia asks...

Hello Panel, a question about the correct restart in an unusual situation.

U15 Boys. Breakaway attack moving towards top edge of penalty area - single attacker, closely pursuing defender. Goalkeeper comes out and successfully collects bouncing ball and removes danger of attack. Dispossessed attacker IMO deliberately continues on path to charge goalkeeper although could easily have diverted course slightly to avoid keeper.

Goalkeeper sees imminent impact and steps slightly aside and lesser (but not insignificant) impact occurs. Attacker falls down, keeper retains stance and hold of ball. I am less than 5 yards away, and having been in similar situations before where calling the foul has resulted in less advantage to the defending team who do better with keeper punt than place kick, I announce advantage to the defending team and that 'I will speak to you at next stoppage number 9' (with the intention of giving caution).

There is a momentary pause. Keeper stands holding ball. I encourage him to release the ball back up field. Now defender who had been pursuing attacker and attacker square off as defender obviously considers attacker's charge on keeper more serious.

I consider further intervention a necessity to prevent escalation of potentially explosive situation. I blow whistle and issue a caution to attacker for the original reckless charge on keeper.

As I have previously announced advantage I first consider that I technically I am cautioning the player 'at the next stoppage in play' - it's just that I have caused the next stoppage by stopping play 'for any other reason' and thus that the correct restart is a drop ball.

Then in a moment of confusion or clarification (not sure which!), I consider that the restart should be an IFK to the defenders, because the player has committed 'any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player.'

I realize that I have probably 'overthunk' the situation, and that I could maybe also sell the IFK restart upon the basis of a caution for USB by the attacker during the square-off, but technically what is the correct restart in this situation ?

Thanks as always for your insights !

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Warren
First off a foul has been committed by the No 9 forward which you have decided was reckless deserving of a caution. The 1st bit of advice is in these situations, in the defending half on a cautionable offence, is not to play advantage but to stop play, caution the attacker and restart with the DFK. The reason is that the ball could stay in play for a long period plus the ball could go out for a corner at the other end with the forward then some 60/70 yards away. In this case the player was beside you, the offence is immediate, any advantage is questionable and it shows everyone including our rash defender that you are taking action. By all means on a trifling push on the GK let play continue with advantage but not on a caution.
Now secondly you announced clearly that you are playing advantage. If advantage does not ensue then the referee goes back and penalise the original offence within 2/3 seconds. In this case did you decide that it did not ensue and if so the correct decision is to award the DFK for the foul on the GK and caution the forward for the reckless challenge. Your decision to do that was influenced by a game control factor which goes back to my first point. Perhaps another referee would simply allow the situation to develop as nothing has changed on the advantage and deal with the consequences. IMO you made the correct decision to do what you did.
If the referee decided to allow play to continue on the advantage and he then stopped play for another reason such as a cautionable non penal offence then the restart is an IDFK from where that technical offence took place. If it is a penal offence the restart is a DFK, after the caution, from where the offence took place. I'm not sure that there was a 2nd offence in there and if there was it should have been a dismissal ie 1st caution for the challenge on the GK and the 2nd caution for the reason to stop play. I don't believe that was your intention or what happened.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Warren,

I would typically consider advantage in this situation like you, but in my experience this usually causes further problems.

Keepers are in a particularly vulnerable position, and they tend to suffer from more of these deliberate and late charges than any other player on the park - and, understandably, they really hate it.

They also really hate when the referee doesn't do anything about it.

While we understand the intricacies of advantage and that it's best for the keeper to retain possession, all the keeper and his players know is that a player has tried to put a cheap shot on without immediate consequence. That's why in some situations it's best to ignore advantage, and just blow the whistle to make sure everybody realises that you're not happy with what occurred.

This will also help to prevent retaliation - not just at that moment, but the next time the keeper comes up against the attacker.

Sure, if it's reasonably minor you can still consider advantage (normally, I follow with a loud shout of 'leave the keeper alone! You've got the ball keeper, keep playing'), but if it's clearly deliberate than I think your match control will certainly benefit from stopping play - and really, there isn't a huge difference between a free kick and a keeper's punt; both are going to end up being a 50-50 ball in the middle of the park somewhere anyway.

The free kick should have been a direct free kick for charging an attacker. While you weren't going to stop play, you did the right thing by stopping play when it escalated.

Keep it simple - just say you're stopping play for the original charge (and you were, in a roundabout sort of way) and be done with it. If you make it an indirect free kick, then the players aren't going to understand the finer points of not going back after you've applied advantage thus not stopping play for the charge but for the card - in their eyes, they'll just see that you've awarded an indirect free kick for the charge.

Also, I fear you may have appeared uncertain in the way you've handled the situation. While I appreciate your intentions (and I may well have done the same thing), the end result was that you saw a charge, told the keeper to get on with it, told the attacker you'd speak to him later (how does anybody know you're going to card him?), then you were forced to change your mind as the players started to take matters into their own hands. At this point it's the players that are governing the match and the decisions, not you - and I fear that as a result you may have appeared a little indecisive in this situation, or that you weren't sure how to control the situation.

I'm not accusing you of such, merely suggesting how it may have appeared.

There is one final case for stopping play immediately as you were intending on cautioning. When a cautionable offence has been committed, you should only consider advantage when it's a massive advantage - say, a big and clear attacking run. The difference between possession and a free kick in the defending third of the park is fairly minimal - so if you want to caution the player for a tackle here and there isn't a huge and clear advantage, just stop play.

There's a few reasons for this. First, I find that when you intend on cautioning a player at the next stoppage, the ball has a nasty habit of staying in play for the next 5 minutes. Also, if that player commits another cautionable offence - or a sending off offence - in this period, you'll have to show both cards, which won't look good at all. Similarly, if that player ends up scoring a goal the players aren't going to like you cautioning him. Perhaps the worst thing that could occur is if you have to make a controversial decision against that player's team - say, award a tough penalty agaisnt them, or deny one that they've appealed for, then caution a player for an offence nobody remembers when the team is already furious.

These are all good possibilities - and that's why, if you're going to apply advantage from a cautionable offence, you better make sure you have a really good reason that's worth the risk.