Correct decision

[NWH70]

I was at a game at the weekend and am unsure about a decision. I can't quite work it out.

In added time, there was a challenge on the keeper, but no foul given. Defender rushes in to remonstrate with the attacker, raising his hands to the attacker and pushing him twice.

All the time, the keeper is standing with the ball in his hands ready to play.

Now the referee stops play, and orders the defender off, red card for his part in pushing the attacker twice.

How should the game restart?

 

[Kent Ref]

Penalty.

 

[NWH70]

Penalty.

I thought so too.

Ref gave an indirect free kick to the attacking team.

Can you think of any reason why?

 

[one]

red card for his part in pushing the attacker twice

Are you sure this is the reason the attacker was sent off?

 

[Dan56]

The referee could assume he stopped play as he ran in and players were arguing. The pushing then happened while ball was technically dead. Since he stopped play to deal with this an IFK is given when a player: "commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player"

 

[JamesL]

The referee could assume he stopped play as he ran in and players were arguing. The pushing then happened while ball was technically dead. Since he stopped play to deal with this an IFK is given when a player: "commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player"

We've had this recently and the end result was that the referee has to blow the whistle to stop play.
I think the only exception to that would be if his whistle was broken

 

[NWH70]

Are you sure this is the reason the attacker was sent off?

Yes, that was confirmed by the player

 

[NWH70]

The referee could assume he stopped play as he ran in and players were arguing. The pushing then happened while ball was technically dead. Since he stopped play to deal with this an IFK is given when a player: "commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player"

The player confirmed the red card was for pushing. The melee started with the push, the player ran towards the attacker and that was the first act.

The whistle was blown after the pushes, and the immediate signal to the player was to come away from the group, to the ref, who was waiting for him red card in hand.

I can't think of anything the, 'any other offence' could possibly be.

 

[GraemeS]

The referee could assume he stopped play as he ran in and players were arguing. The pushing then happened while ball was technically dead. Since he stopped play to deal with this an IFK is given when a player: "commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player"

I think this is close, but still not technically allowed. If the ref saw the player running in and pre-emptively blew the whistle to stop play before any offence actually occurred, I think you can just about justify a non-penalty restart. But that restart should then be a drop ball - to the GK in this case given he had it in his arms (presumably) in the PA.

But by giving the IFK to the attacking team, the referee is admitting that he stopped play in response to a defensive offence. Pushing to the extent that it becomes VC is clearly a DFK offence, not IFK. I'm struggling to see anything in the description of the events that is both cautionable and happened before the pushes.

Maybe there's an argument that he was intending to caution for AA so stopped the play and the defender then pushed the attacker? I'd say that's pretty unusual to caution for AA with no contact and the window to react to that sounds small, but if they "squared up" without making contact for a few seconds before the pushes came in, it might be justifiable.

I think it's obvious he just didn't want to give a penalty along with the red card. I actually think the most justifiable get out here would have been to say that you saw the contact with the keeper as a foul but attempted to play advantage because he had control and wasn't put off by the contact. When the defender then immediately commits a penalty+VC offence, the advantage obviously didn't accrue and you can go back to the original soft defensive FK to restart.

I might be overthinking this....

 

[Kent Ref]

I think this is close, but still not technically allowed. If the ref saw the player running in and pre-emptively blew the whistle to stop play before any offence actually occurred, I think you can just about justify a non-penalty restart. But that restart should then be a drop ball - to the GK in this case given he had it in his arms (presumably) in the PA.

But by giving the IFK to the attacking team, the referee is admitting that he stopped play in response to a defensive offence. Pushing to the extent that it becomes VC is clearly a DFK offence, not IFK. I'm struggling to see anything in the description of the events that is both cautionable and happened before the pushes.

Maybe there's an argument that he was intending to caution for AA so stopped the play and the defender then pushed the attacker? I'd say that's pretty unusual to caution for AA with no contact and the window to react to that sounds small, but if they "squared up" without making contact for a few seconds before the pushes came in, it might be justifiable.

I think it's obvious he just didn't want to give a penalty along with the red card. I actually think the most justifiable get out here would have been to say that you saw the contact with the keeper as a foul but attempted to play advantage because he had control and wasn't put off by the contact. When the defender then immediately commits a penalty+VC offence, the advantage obviously didn't accrue and you can go back to the original soft defensive FK to restart.

I might be overthinking this....

Good get-out.