A "Farting" noise

[Paul_Jones]

Can anyone tell me if I was right or wrong to do this...

A lad goes to take a shot from about 20-22 yards and as he does a defending player who is behind him makes a farting noise with his mouth really loud in his ear. the shot goes nowhere so I blow for an indirect free kick. both teams players, managers and parents are bewildered by my decision.

Was I wrong to do that?

 

[Tom Knight]

IMHO from 20-22 yards its gonna be hard to score whatever, but if it were say edge of the goal area then possibly a USB but still depends on was it a clear shot or not...

 

[SM]

It's unsporting behaviour - distracting a player during play or at a restart and earns a caution. Distance from goal is irrelevant.

Restart is as you did - idfk. If you blow for it, the caution mandatory.

 

[Paul_Jones]

he was running towards goal for a 1 on 1with the keeper but the opponent who made the noise was faster and catching him up from behind which is why i didnt understand why he done it. another two steps and he wins the ball

 

[Paul_Jones]

and i'll be honest... i didn't caution him... sorry folks

 

[bester]

DOGSO

 

[SM]

Haha! Oh oh, here we go again!

 

[Tom Knight]

Ok, 1 on 1 definitely USB

 

[ref craig]

Haha! Oh oh, here we go again!

People like to add sarcasm lol

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Just to be clear, there's on IFK offence for this. The final IFK offence in Law 12 is 'any reason not previously specified in the LOTG for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player'. So that means if you stop play, you're doing it for the card, and IFK is the restart. No card, no IFK. Same for 'mine' and all that other stuff. That's also the clause that provides for the IFK if you stop play to book a player for dissent.

 

[black_dog]

It's definitely a USB caution for verbally distracting an opponent. But presumably the shot went out for a goal kick and play was not stopped to caution the player. So wouldn't it be a goal kick restart?

 

[SM]

The offence happened before the shot went out of play, idfk.

 

[xPositor]

Out of interest, what age group, as you mention parents were bewildered as well?

 

[Matthew]

Out of interest, what age group, as you mention parents were bewildered as well?

To be fair, @xPositor, parents are "bewildered" by every decision!

I would've done the same in this situation, though worth noting that once you stop the game, you have to caution really.

 

[xPositor]

To be fair, @xPositor, parents are "bewildered" by every decision!

How true Something similar a couple of years ago in a game of mine led to a misconduct report on the manager. Fifth minute of the game, middle of the field, Blue player jumping for a header, red player comes in from behind him and essentially screams as loudly as he could. I blow for it, at which point the red manager comes rushing up the line screaming his head off about being allowed to "put a name on it". Had stern words about his language and he (sort of) calms down, no report at that point... then at the end of the game he comes over and calls me a cheat. Bang. Oh, and that was U13's...

 

[Jacko]

If the players were bewildered could you have just given a GK and had a word in passing with the offender?

If the players didn't have a clue, the spectators didn't have a clue. Then I don't see the benefit in giving the FK if it wasn't that loud.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

A player's gone out of his way to distract a player and the shot went wide (giving pretty good evidence to suggest the tactic worked)?
there are plenty of potential scenarios under the LOTG where the only person on the field who would know what's happening is the referee. Especially at this age. How often have you even seen an incident like the above? I'd imagine very rarely. So of course nobody on the field understood what was happening - it was one of those 'blue moon' scenarios. That doesn't justify not addressing a blatant offence.

 

[Paul_Jones]

Just to be clear, there's on IFK offence for this. The final IFK offence in Law 12 is 'any reason not previously specified in the LOTG for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player'. So that means if you stop play, you're doing it for the card, and IFK is the restart. No card, no IFK. Same for 'mine' and all that other stuff. That's also the clause that provides for the IFK if you stop play to book a player for dissent.

Is there actually a Law for mine though? i looked through the LOTG and can't find where it says a player can't say mine?

The tutor on our course also said there is no law which stops a player from saying mine?

I know i sound thick... actually... I am thick!

 

[SM]

If the players were bewildered could you have just given a GK and had a word in passing with the offender?

If the players didn't have a clue, the spectators didn't have a clue. Then I don't see the benefit in giving the FK if it wasn't that loud.

If we are not giving decisions based on players not understanding, does that mean we stop giving offside?

 

[Paul_Jones]

It's definitely a USB caution for verbally distracting an opponent. But presumably the shot went out for a goal kick and play was not stopped to caution the player. So wouldn't it be a goal kick restart?

The shot did't go out for a goal kick. it sort of trickled about 4 yards infront of the attacker.

The offence happened before the shot went out of play, idfk.

Thats right.

Out of interest, what age group, as you mention parents were bewildered as well?

They were under 16's. to be honest most parents are biwildered by most decisions.

If the players were bewildered could you have just given a GK and had a word in passing with the offender?

If the players didn't have a clue, the spectators didn't have a clue. Then I don't see the benefit in giving the FK if it wasn't that loud.

It was loud enough for myself, the attacker and about 6 other playes to hear it (and for most of them to laugh as the shot trickled). The ball didn't go out so i couldn't give a GK

A player's gone out of his way to distract a player and the shot went wide (giving pretty good evidence to suggest the tactic worked)?
there are plenty of potential scenarios under the LOTG where the only person on the field who would know what's happening is the referee. Especially at this age. How often have you even seen an incident like the above? I'd imagine very rarely. So of course nobody on the field understood what was happening - it was one of those 'blue moon' scenarios. That doesn't justify not addressing a blatant offence.

Thanks mate. makes me think I actually done the right thing! (for once)