Question Number: 18605

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/24/2008

RE: Adult

Al of Strathroy, ON CANADA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 18590

Thanks again for excellent input. When I considered my thinking, advantage did not really come to mind for this reason:;"'

Player A attempts to trip player B outside PA, player B evades attempt and referee begins giving advantage. Player A turns and kicks player B now inside PA. Two incidents with advantage "not realized". Do we award DFK for first offense or PK for second? If PK, which would be my decision, can same logic be used for 12th player entering field (first offence) and then kicking away ball (2nd offence)?

Keith, Law 12 does allow us to award IFK if player commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player. Let's say it is logical to Caution sub for entering FOP and then again for kicking away ball. If latter applies, IFK is awarded at second location. More serious offense is DOGSO 5 -- the Law does recognize this as a legitimate offence for subs -- hence Sending Off.

This leads me to next question. With change in 2007 (from 2006 and prior) from QA format to Advice, is FIFA recognizing that referees use common sense and wise application of the Law, rather than relying on specific scenarios (many of which are extremely rare) to determine best decision for that particular match?

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Al, your analogy of it being advantage-like falls apart when you want to give a caution for the 12th player kicking the ball. Kicking a ball is not in and of itself a foul or a cautionable event. I know we want to get this guy sent off if there's any reasonable circumstances in which it may be done. His actions effectively took away a goal, even though it's not DOGSO. The problem is that we have to be supported in Law and Advice in order to do so. Since FIFA/IFAB have specifically said that the player entering and kicking the ball is only a caution, that's what we have to go with. Surely we are going to be keeping a very close eye on this guy if he gets substituted into the game - he's gotten his first caution, and is going to have to be very careful not to earn a second.

Read other questions answered by Referee Gary Voshol

View Referee Gary Voshol profile

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Hello Al! Advantage wasn't realized because Player A committed a second offense. You award a PK. The kicking the ball away thing has nothing to do with logic which is on your side. I agree with you that the kicking the ball away to prevent a goal HAS to be misconduct and we should send this guy off. Unfortunately, the powers that be disagree and we must do as instructed. My statement was their rationale not mine. I have no idea what goes through the minds of those in charge. We in the US don't even get a copy of the complete LOTG so how do they expect us to follow policy?

Read other questions answered by Referee Keith Contarino

View Referee Keith Contarino profile

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Actually the PK is advantage, no? A PK is better than only a DFK anyday Yes?
While we toil under the delusion we got it fairly straight, FIFA still wants us to follow their lead, even if it goes where it bends!
If I see a sub come on to the field and he kicks the ball about to enter the goal I will get him for usb and dissent because if he comes onto the field solely do that and I see it as such I will be yelling, You do not touch that ball!!! Show the red and send him off. Now whether it stands up in discipinary hearing is another matter.
Cheers

Read other questions answered by Referee Richard Dawson

View Referee Richard Dawson profile