Distraction by attacker during play

[Playon123]

Through ball is left by last defender after he hears "Keepers!". The problem is this came from an nearby attacking player (not the keeper); ball is then played up by an attacker into the goal.

Law 12 states caution for USB (verbally distracts an opponent during play) but does the goal still stand? If not, what is the restart?
If so, where in the laws is this specified?

Thanks in advance

 

[es1]

Indirect free kick is the restart so no goal. As you say, caution as well

 

[JamesL]

Through ball is left by last defender after he hears "Keepers!". The problem is this came from an nearby attacking player (not the keeper); ball is then played up by an attacker into the goal.

Law 12 states caution for USB (verbally distracts an opponent during play) but does the goal still stand? If not, what is the restart?
If so, where in the laws is this specified?

Thanks in advance

As @es1 says this is an indirect free kick and a caution.
To complete your question the restart is from where the offence happened, in this case where the attacker was stood.
Law 12 section 2:
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
• is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or
gestures or other verbal offences

Law 13 part 2
All free kicks are taken from the place where the offence occurred

 

[one]

For further completeness:
Law 10
"A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal."

 

[Degnann]

What shouts would you say are allowed during a game? I’ve seen people say things like shouting leave it wouldn’t be allowed. Players should shout their name instead if they want to go for the ball.

curious to see what your opinions are of it

 

[es1]

there's really only one thing to bear in mind @Degnann, was the shout intended to put the opponent off?

if it was, then you penalise it, if it wasn't, then you don't.

mine / yours / leave it etc. are all permissible if not said with the intention to put off the opponent

 

[Ciley Myrus]

What shouts would you say are allowed during a game? I’ve seen people say things like shouting leave it wouldn’t be allowed. Players should shout their name instead if they want to go for the ball.

curious to see what your opinions are of it

as above

you will find no reference in the book to players having to shout their name etc...

tbh, its a rare situation anyway, and one that if/when it happens, you and everybody around will know about it

 

[es1]

as above

you will find no reference in the book to players having to shout their name etc...

tbh, its a rare situation anyway, and one that if/when it happens, you and everybody around will know about it

yep, certainly is uncommon, I've had it twice in 10 years though everyone was shocked by my decision both times contrary to what you may have thought!

 

[JamesL]

What shouts would you say are allowed during a game? I’ve seen people say things like shouting leave it wouldn’t be allowed. Players should shout their name instead if they want to go for the ball.

curious to see what your opinions are of it

This is a common misconception you will beat regularly.
For some reason, players, and some refs (unbelievably) still perpetuate this myth.
As others have said above you have to determine if it was an offence i.e. An attempt to verbally distract an opponent or not. Giving a team mate an Instruction is not.

 

[Peter Grove]

What shouts would you say are allowed during a game? I’ve seen people say things like shouting leave it wouldn’t be allowed. Players should shout their name instead if they want to go for the ball.

curious to see what your opinions are of it

It's not a question of what words you can (or can't) shout. Any utterance that distracts an opponent is to be penalised. Any utterance that does not distract an opponent, is OK (at least in terms of this particular offence).

there's really only one thing to bear in mind @Degnann, was the shout intended to put the opponent off?

I think I would phrase it a little differently and ask did the shout put the opponent off (or not)? The law says it's an offence to verbally distract an opponent, rather than to intend to do so.

I suppose if it's a really blatant but failed attempt, you could potentially consider USB for showing a lack of respect for the game but as others have said, it's a vanishingly rare occurrence anyway and especially if it's the first instance of it, you could probably start off with a warning.

 

[one]

This is one of those you need to 'interpret' the wording and apply a bit of common sense. Deliberate unsuccessful attempt to distract usually only gets a warning from me. I have had quite a few of these, especially in futsal.

Unintended verbal distraction is a rare occurrence that could go either way. I once had a genuine shout in pain which clearly distracted an opponent. I took no action on that one.

The obvious ones to stop and caution are the ones like the OP.

 

[GraemeS]

It's not a question of what words you can (or can't) shout. Any utterance that distracts an opponent is to be penalised. Any utterance that does not distract an opponent, is OK (at least in terms of this particular offence).


I think I would phrase it a little differently and ask did the shout put the opponent off (or not)? The law says it's an offence to verbally distract an opponent, rather than to intend to do so.

I suppose if it's a really blatant but failed attempt, you could potentially consider USB for showing a lack of respect for the game but as others have said, it's a vanishingly rare occurrence anyway and especially if it's the first instance of it, you could probably start off with a warning.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I was reading through the thread intending to ask this exact question.

I had an incident once where an attacker was put though on goal. The nearest defender managed to get in a position where he was less than a metre behind the attacker but couldn't make a tackle. Just as the attacker took his shot, the defender yelled "BOO!!" at the top of his voice - the shot was scuffed, but still went in.

I chose to pull the defender and his captain aside after the goal and explain the concept of verbal distraction. It was very obvious what he was trying to do and very obviously deliberate (despite the defender's protests), so I did wonder after if I should have gone for a card anyway, even though the shot did go in?

 

[wazztie16]

I had one game where a sub came on, and called mine at least once when going for the ball, i think he called it twice but wasn't sure.

After the second time i questioned him on his name, thinking I'd misheard and it could be Mike, and it sounded nothing like 'mine', so i warned him of the offence he could commit (which was a school day for him), and let it be as nothing had come after either call.

He didn't do it again, so no further issues.

Definitely a rare offence imo though.

 

[Kes]

In the cold light of day, this occurrence is something you as a referee need to just simply deal with as it happens.

The law states that it's an offence to verbally distract a player sure, but even if the "distracted" player doesn't react as if he has been what do you do? (Hypothetical question). The offence is in the visible affect it has on the opponent, but if a player claims he was distracted, (even if you didn't observe them to be in your opinion), who are you to say that he's not been?

A bit of a chicken/egg question really, but posted to to underline my first sentence.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Has anyone seen say a player in red team shout for a pass from member of another team, in a kinda, spur of the moment confusion thing?
Would you allow it if say, red shouted " through the middle Jimmy", and blue made a defence splitting pass, but to a player in the other team?

am sure i had it happen at 5 a sides.

 

[RustyRef]

Remember as well that you have to caution, just awarding an IDFK would be incorrect in law. Reason being that "verbally distracts" only appears in Law 12 under "cautions for unsporting behaviour", so no caution means that you have absolutely no grounds to award an IDFK.

 

[JamesL]

Remember as well that you have to caution, just awarding an IDFK would be incorrect in law. Reason being that "verbally distracts" only appears in Law 12 under "cautions for unsporting behaviour", so no caution means that you have absolutely no grounds to award an IDFK.

I agree that it is a mandatory caution.
But law 12 specifically states IDFK for "other verbal offences" so I don't particularly agree with why you suggest no caution is wrong in law.
Horses for courses I suppose.

 

[RustyRef]

I agree that it is a mandatory caution.
But law 12 specifically states IDFK for "other verbal offences" so I don't particularly agree with why you suggest no caution is wrong in law.
Horses for courses I suppose.

I would argue though that the specific mention of verbal distraction under the caution section carries more relevance than a more vague other verbal offences elsewhere.

 

[GraemeS]

I would argue though that the specific mention of verbal distraction under the caution section carries more relevance than a more vague other verbal offences elsewhere.

Yeah, this. Deciding to stop the game because you didn't like a (non verbally-distracting) shout is getting dangerously close to making it up as you go along.

 

[Kes]

I would argue though that the specific mention of verbal distraction under the caution section carries more relevance than a more vague other verbal offences elsewhere.

Agreed.

If the offence (in the referee's opinion) occurs then it's caution first and foremost - IDFK is simply the correct restart. I fail to see where ambiguity exists ...