The Ref Stop

Manager caution

R

Ref1466

New Member
The manager shouts dissent across the FOP whilst the ball is in play.
You stop the game to issue a caution.
What is the correct restart?
Drop ball?
IDFK? Is this where the ball is when play is stopped or from the boundary line?
 
The Ref Stop
I would have thought it could have waited until the ball was out of play myself... but I would think it is a drop ball where the ball was when you stopped play.
 
If the opposing team to the manager is attacking I play advantage if appropriate. Otherwise play stops, IDFK and yellow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
From an observer's point of view and the "safe refereeing" view point, I would not advise you to stop play to issue a caution. Wait until the next stoppage and deal with. Easier game management, as the players will understand more.

If you were to stop play, As an observer I would be expecting a dismissal for OFFINSABS language.
 
Quarryref said:
If the manager's offence is only bad enough for a YC for dissent, I can't think of any circumstance in which it would be advisable to stop play. Just issue the card at the next stoppage.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. If the team that that has posession (the manager) commits an offence, I can't think of any circumstance in which it is advisable to allow play to continue. Doing so would be contradictory to law 12.

If the team in posession scores a goal before any stoppage, you award a goal, then caution the manager for an offence he committed before they scored a goal. Try explaining that to an assessor ☺️

EDIT: Haha, I missed the following post - in regards to the bolded part of my post 😂
 
I very much agree with what seems to be the general idea - manager's team in possession = IDFK, other team = advantage.
 
Gabriel said:
I very much agree with what seems to be the general idea - manager's team in possession = IDFK, other team = advantage.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think you’ll actually find the other team quite annoyed if they have a spell of possession with the ball which is then interrupted by issuing a caution to the opposing team manager.
 
one said:
Completely disagree. If the team that that has posession (the manager) commits an offence, I can't think of any circumstance in which it is advisable to allow play to continue. Doing so would be contradictory to law 12.

If the team in posession scores a goal before any stoppage, you award a goal, then caution the manager for an offence he committed before they scored a goal. Try explaining that to an assessor ☺️

EDIT: Haha, I missed the following post - in regards to the bolded part of my post 😂
Click to expand...
I actually had this once assessor said I was correct not to stop play as it didn’t influence play even get a mention on my notes.
 
Irrespective of whoever was in possession, I'd just wait until the next stoppage and then go over and show the card. Even if it's 2 minutes later, they'll know what it's for. You're likely to get a bit of back chat but it exhibits calmness and lets the game flow ...
 
Kes said:
Irrespective of whoever was in possession, I'd just wait until the next stoppage and then go over and show the card. Even if it's 2 minutes later, they'll know what it's for. You're likely to get a bit of back chat but it exhibits calmness and lets the game flow ...
Click to expand...
And to add to that - last thing you need after stopping the game to caution is to set an IDFK in front of dugouts and most likely have to explain why it’s an IDFK and why it’s on the boundary line (regardless of where ball actually was)

Let game continue and come to natural stoppage, run over and issue caution, run away
 
I’m surprised by the absolutes here. I think details matter, including where the ball is, the nature of the dissent, what has happened up to that point, and whether the dissent is causing issues on the field.
 
I am perplexed as to why some very experienced referees here think it's ok (under whatever circumstance) to caution for dissent after the next stoppage in this case. It is a very clear error in law and can lead to the replay of the match in some circumstances (eg a goal is scored by the offending team).

If it's dissent, it's dissent, the nature of it matters not. You can use the nature of a disagreement to determined if it's dissent, but once you have determined it's dissent, it's an offence. You have only two options, play advantage or stop play for an IFK. Playing advantage can only happen on certain define by law which doesn't apply here.

I'm ok to go for a warning after the next stoppage, meaning you have determined it was not dissent. But if go for a caution, and the manager has not done anything during the stoppage, it means you are publicly agreeing there was an offence and it happened before the stoppage.

This would not be too different to giving and IFK for a player dissent but not cautioning. Or giving an IFK for a handling that is not deliberate. The lotg doesn't give us the luxury of making these decisions because it makes it easier for us and helps us with game management. These are black and white decisions. The only get out of jail here is determining it was not bad enough for it to be dissent so no offence is committed and you can't caution for it.
 
It may be the correct thing to do in the LOTG, but I have never seen this happen on TV or in any of the Scottish Tier 6 games I have covered as a photographer and that is despite hearing some "anger" displayed at a decision and knowing fine well the MO has heard it.
 
one said:
I am perplexed as to why some very experienced referees here think it's ok (under whatever circumstance) to caution for dissent after the next stoppage in this case. It is a very clear error in law and can lead to the replay of the match in some circumstances (eg a goal is scored by the offending team).

If it's dissent, it's dissent, the nature of it matters not. You can use the nature of a disagreement to determined if it's dissent, but once you have determined it's dissent, it's an offence. You have only two options, play advantage or stop play for an IFK. Playing advantage can only happen on certain define by law which doesn't apply here.

I'm ok to go for a warning after the next stoppage, meaning you have determined it was not dissent. But if go for a caution, and the manager has not done anything during the stoppage, it means you are publicly agreeing there was an offence and it happened before the stoppage.

This would not be too different to giving and IFK for a player dissent but not cautioning. Or giving an IFK for a handling that is not deliberate. The lotg doesn't give us the luxury of making these decisions because it makes it easier for us and helps us with game management. These are black and white decisions. The only get out of jail here is determining it was not bad enough for it to be dissent so no offence is committed and you can't caution for it.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this interpretation. There are plenty of instances where an offence can be committed by the team scoring the goal and the caution is applied after the goal is scored e.g. player re-entering without permission and not impacting play, marks on the field of play.

For me this comes under not everything can be written down, use your common sense. The underlying principle is if it doesn't impact play, don't stop play, which you see as a theme thought the Laws.. That of course doesn't make it wrong in Law to stop play if that is what you feel you feel you need to do, but I think that route is more likely to cause you a problem.

I've never had a problem with observers doing it this way and I also do the same thing with player dissent, although there are some circumstances where I do stop for that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top