The Ref Stop

Verbal Unsporting Behaviour?

santa sangria said:
Good creative challenge.

How about: a large bird, Canada goose, has landed on the field just behind the red #10 as she prepares to shoot from outside the box... the bird is between blue #6 and the chance to block the shot, so blue #6 screams at the bird with a deafening shriek. The bird flaps off at pace, with the giant avian’s ellipticals crowding red #10 who scuffs the shot.

Your decision, referee?
Click to expand...
I would 'play on next...' on that occasion. But I would have my trained falcon which I have brought with me sit on a tree nearby just in case if this incident happens. Next time blue #6 has the ball I get the falcon to attack her just enough for her to lose the ball to even up the game. Job done.
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
I would 'play on next...' on that occasion. But I would have my trained falcon which I have brought with me sit on a tree nearby just in case if this incident happens. Next time blue #6 has the ball I get the falcon to attack her just enough for her to lose the ball to even up the game. Job done.
Click to expand...
This may go over you head @one but rather than a Falcon could it be a @Kes tral 😎
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Brian Hamilton said:
So @TSHudson tell us some examples, other than those which you have already alluded to, each of which could be showing a lack of respect for the game.
Click to expand...
Well yes, you can interpret anything as showing a lack of respect for the game and award an IDFK and yellow card. But you'd end up booking everyone with that low bar. And anything can be deemed as offensive and so it's red cards all round.
Or, as per the way the LOTG are actually written, there is room for an IDFK with no card. So if someone is slightly overstepping the mark with the verbals, but I don't want to set the low bar, that I then have to referee the game to, with a yellow, I read that the laws allows an IDFK for "other".

Incidentally, I've only done this once in 5 years, so this is now a far bigger deal than it warrants, of which I'm the most guilty party. But without the history of how the law developed, I read that there is an allowance for that, even if it is poorly written. Without official clarification from IFAB, that's where I'm leaving it.
 
Is this convincing enough for you @TSHudson ? :)


1572598437181.png

If this explanation is not clear then note it is only a clarification meaning nothing has changed in law. Prior to this addition there were no 'other' verbal offences and after this clarification there are still no 'other' verbal offences.
 
one said:
Is this convincing enough for you @TSHudson ? :)
Click to expand...
Errr, no....it says offences are punished with an IDFK even IF there is a caution, I read that as further clarification that there can be an IDFK without a caution. :confused:
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Let's have some examples of "other verbal offences" for which the game would be stopped solely to award an indirect free kick. I'm fairly certain these can be classified as falling into one of the recognised categories which warrant the issue of a caution.
Click to expand...

Tough ask.

Two players squaring up with each other getting up to fisitcuffs and you blow to stop it from escalating?

Though I guess that would be two cautions for AA.
 
RobOda said:
Tough ask.

Two players squaring up with each other getting up to fisitcuffs and you blow to stop it from escalating?

Though I guess that would be two cautions for AA.
Click to expand...
The scenario you have mentioned isn't verbal though. If you blow up for that, it would be a drop ball I'd imagine..
 
The only thing I could possibly suggest is a player shouting 'mine'. I know this has been covered elsewhere so not wanting to start a discussion on that BUT a lot of players would expect a whistle but wouldn't expect a YC. I've seen several refs blow for this to have good game management but that is at grassroots level admittedly.

In short it reinforces that 'mine' isn't an offence unless it aims to deceive an opponent. :-)
 
one said:
Short of changing the laws of the game, I think i have done everything I can to convince you. Its up to you now to open to the fact that your understanding may be incorrect.
Click to expand...
I think I said earlier without official clarification, the LOTG in the way they are written, clearly give room for an IDFK with no sanction. With an official (thanks for having contacts in high places to clarify) clarification, all ambiguity over the poorly written laws is removed. So case closed.
Since you have his email, could you ask him how he feels about the ethics of giving phantom fouls? :)
 
@TSHudson has been like Jeremy Corbyn stood at the bar down the Con Club... Friendless
However, i agree with his literal interpretation of the bog role of a book and that we shouldn't need to be historians to be in the club.
That said, i was aware that the Law Men mandated a sanction for all verbal offences, only because of my zealous forum bashing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top