A&H

Off the ball incident

Status
Not open for further replies.

JH

RefChat Addict
Say a fight breaks out off the ball and out of view of the referee, obviously you would stop play when you realise, administer appropriate cards, but what about the restart? (Specifically if you hadn't see the first offence)
 
The Referee Store
How are you going to administer the appropriate cards if you haven't seen what's happened?

But yeah in that case, I guess you'd restart with a dropped ball from where the ball was, given that you're not blowing up for a foul.
 
If you're giving cards, you cannot restart with a dropped ball.

If you see the tail end of the fight, but miss the start (which is suggested above, but not made 100% clear), and thus send off a couple of players, you must restart as per the most serious offence (Law 5, pg 62). As, based on what you saw, the sanction is identical, the nature of the offence identical, it comes down to tactical. So, if this takes place outside one penalty area, the restart (DFK) would, de facto, go to the attacking team.
 
How are you going to administer the appropriate cards if you haven't seen what's happened?

But yeah in that case, I guess you'd restart with a dropped ball from where the ball was, given that you're not blowing up for a foul.

I meant if you just see the end of a fight, for example.

If you're giving cards, you cannot restart with a dropped ball.

If you see the tail end of the fight, but miss the start (which is suggested above, but not made 100% clear), and thus send off a couple of players, you must restart as per the most serious offence (Law 5, pg 62). As, based on what you saw, the sanction is identical, the nature of the offence identical, it comes down to tactical. So, if this takes place outside one penalty area, the restart (DFK) would, de facto, go to the attacking team.

That's what I meant yes, makes sense but I don't think it would go down well if I gave a penalty for a fight that may have been instigated by the attacker! Never had it happen and hopefully the trailing eye would prevent such a situation.
 
I don't think it would go down well if I gave a penalty for a fight that may have been instigated by the attacker!
In that case, make sure that you see something more serious done by the attacker that gives you reason to give a DFK to the defender... :)
 
In a fight / melee it should generally not come down to offences at the same time. In my experience it starts with an act of aggression and then retaliation after retaliation. Retaliation by definition is an act that happens after another act. Even if you catch the incident part way through, you can choose which act you give a free kick for. It has to be the one you saw first (well chose to see first). It doesn't even have to be a card for it if you saw it before you stopped play. It can be a simple push for DFK, or it can be card act like OFFINABUS for IFK.

Once you issued all/any cards. I usually have talk to both captains to control their players, in that instance you can explain you saw the push before everything else and that is what the free kick is for.

Obviously if you don't see any acts that warrants a free kick or card before you stop play then dropped ball from where the ball was when you stopped play is the only option.
 
Last edited:
If you're giving cards, you cannot restart with a dropped ball.

If you see the tail end of the fight, but miss the start (which is suggested above, but not made 100% clear), and thus send off a couple of players, you must restart as per the most serious offence (Law 5, pg 62). As, based on what you saw, the sanction is identical, the nature of the offence identical, it comes down to tactical. So, if this takes place outside one penalty area, the restart (DFK) would, de facto, go to the attacking team.
I don't agree. The section of the law you mention is for offences occurring simultaneously. Unless what you see are a number of separate players who all deliver their punches (or pushes, kicks etc) at precisely the same moment in time, these are not simultaneous offences. Unless something extremely unusual happens, a fight would normally involve sequential events.
 
I don't agree. The section of the law you mention is for offences occurring simultaneously. Unless what you see are a number of separate players who all deliver their punches (or pushes, kicks etc) at precisely the same moment in time, these are not simultaneous offences. Unless something extremely unusual happens, a fight would normally involve sequential events.
Yes -- if you (or your NARs, or fourth official) see the start of the incident, it'll be clear what happened first.

But, in the case here @JH points out that it started behind him (out of view) and he turned to see both mid-fight.

With no NARs, you, as a referee, are now completely screwed, because you don't know how it started.

So, with that in mind -- we have to fall back onto the only logical option we have, which is that this is now (to the referee's POV) a "simultaneous" action. Which, as I noted above... is a pretty screwed up situation.
 
Agree with Alex. I think that when you turn around, see players already fighting and they both commit punching each other, I don't think the spirit of the law is to worry about which punch you did see 1/10th second before the other. I think considering them simultaneous at this point is fine.

Consider if this is in the penalty area and you turn around to see the keeper's punch a moment beforehand, but you're certain this wasn't the first one. Is it really fair to put down a PK here?

I believe simultaneous offences can apply here, so drop ball.
Alternatively, go for the 'least influential' option - free kick to the defence.
Of course that can very easily backfire, if the other team takes offence or - heaven forbid - they manage to score off that play!
 
What if your beloved CAR accuratley and honestly saw what happened, can advise you that Blue captain started it with a headbutt and should be sent off, a huge key match decision.
However, you take his word on offsides, potentially disallowing the winning goal, but not to dismiss correctly the blue team captain?!
Bear in mind at an offside, although you might not be in line, there is a 99% chance you at least be looking in the right direction!
Off the ball behind your back, you wont have seen it at all
Logic?
 
Last edited:
Referee should be looking at a throw or goal kick or so on
An off the bal behind back is factually impossible to see, thats the diff
 
@AlexF in response to your last two posts (if I have understood them correctly).
You can give cards and start with a dropped ball if the cards were for incident after you stopped play and you did not see any punishable offence before you stopped play. You can not punish an act you did not see, be it a sanction or restart (simultaneous or not).
I can see a few issues with your approach.
1. You are assuming there were offences before you turn around (highly likely but only an assumption).
2. You are assuming there were offence from BOTH sides before you turn around
2. The assumption of all those offences were "simultaneous" is quiet arbitrary. I disagree with it being a logical option.
3. You are punishing act(s)/offence(s) you did not see.

Any of the above in an incident/send off report could get a case thrown out in a judiciary hearing. You must act on and report on facts you know and not assumptions.

Agree with Alex. I think that when you turn around, see players already fighting and they both commit punching each other, I don't think the spirit of the law is to worry about which punch you did see 1/10th second before the other. I think considering them simultaneous at this point is fine.

Consider if this is in the penalty area and you turn around to see the keeper's punch a moment beforehand, but you're certain this wasn't the first one. Is it really fair to put down a PK here?

I believe simultaneous offences can apply here, so drop ball.
Alternatively, go for the 'least influential' option - free kick to the defence.
Of course that can very easily backfire, if the other team takes offence or - heaven forbid - they manage to score off that play!
What Alex is saying is assuming simultaneous offences without even seeing them which is not the same as what you are saying.

I think think your solution of a dropped ball after seeing "simultaneous" punches in the PA is directly against the LOTG and its IFAB clarification. So is the 'least influential' option when simultaneous.

punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physicals severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time
and
Restart – a direct free kick offence is more serious than an indirect free kick offence
-Tactical impact – an offence which stops an opponent’s attack is more important than one which ends a player’s own team attack
Given a PK is more serious than a DFK and least influence basically means least impact.
 
@AlexF in response to your last two posts (if I have understood them correctly).
You can give cards and start with a dropped ball if the cards were for incident after you stopped play and you did not see any punishable offence before you stopped play. You can not punish an act you did not see, be it a sanction or restart (simultaneous or not).
Didn't quite understand what I was going for -- I may not have been as clear as I'd hoped.

My point was:

As a solo referee in this situation, you're turning to see a fight in full-fledged... well... er... fight-mode.

You don't know how it started, you can't make any assumptions. The only thing you can draw is logical conclusions:
1. Something precipated this. Whether immediate or well before... in either case, you don't know what it is, and you cannot take it into account in any way (whether in situ or in report).
2. From your POV, nothing happened until you saw it. When you see it, you're seeing both sides partaking of violent conduct. That's why I call it "simultaneous". Unless it's obviously clear that only one side is partaking, of course. With all that said, smart refereeing will see something one way or the other first.

A report for this might start something to the effect of:

I turned to look over my shoulder and saw Blue #2 and Red #3 in a fist-fight with each other.

You're simply saying that "no idea what started this or why this happened, I turned and saw them fighting. They may have been fighting for a while, they may have just started. I just don't know and have no unbiased way to find out."

I do have a question for you though:

In your case above, what are you stopping play for if you're going to restart with a dropped ball? An injury on the field? Something else?

If you're stopping play because of the fight, then you must restart with a free kick of some variety. You can no longer start with a dropped ball, because you're stopping because of offence.

Now, again, if you've stopped for an injury, then turn around and see a full-fledged fist-fight, that is, of course, a totally different case, and you're restarting based on what you stopped play for.

Hopefully that's a bit clearer than before.

I do think that we are saying (more or less) the same kind of thing, just coming to a slightly different conclusion at the end of the day.
 
I can see what you are saying clearer now. Not sure i agree with the simultaneous part however don't entirely disagree with it either. Let's leave it at that. :)
I do have a question for you though:

In your case above, what are you stopping play for if you're going to restart with a dropped ball? An injury on the field? Something else?

If you're stopping play because of the fight, then you must restart with a free kick of some variety. You can no longer start with a dropped ball, because you're stopping because of offence.

Now, again, if you've stopped for an injury, then turn around and see a full-fledged fist-fight, that is, of course, a totally different case, and you're restarting based on what you stopped play for.
I am stopping play because of possibility of VC that I don’t want to miss for match control reasons. This could go something like, I hear commotion from the crowed and behind me, and I have a quick look over my shoulder and see players gathered in what looks like a confrontation. I then blow my whistle immediately to stop play and witness deal with the incident. But I have not seen anything warranting a free kick from the time I turned around and the time I stopped play.

What happens after I stopped play may or may not need sanctioning and it’s irrelevant to the restart. What happened before I turned around is irrelevant to restart because I haven’t seen it.

If I stop play when the ball is in play the only options for restart are, DFK, IFK, PK and dropped ball. Because I can’t give a DFK, IFK or PK due to not seeing anything, the only option left is a dropped ball as per the definition of dropped ball in law 8.

One last bit of semantics. The law never refers to a ‘fight’ for free kicks. You need to dissect the generic term to identifiable acts like striking, kicking etc. which are punishable by free kicks. If you haven’t seen any of those acts, then as far as you are concerned, the never was a ‘fight’.
 
I am stopping play because of possibility of VC that I don’t want to miss for match control reasons. This could go something like, I hear commotion from the crowed and behind me, and I have a quick look over my shoulder and see players gathered in what looks like a confrontation. I then blow my whistle immediately to stop play and witness deal with the incident. But I have not seen anything warranting a free kick from the time I turned around and the time I stopped play.

What happens after I stopped play may or may not need sanctioning and it’s irrelevant to the restart. What happened before I turned around is irrelevant to restart because I haven’t seen it.

If I stop play when the ball is in play the only options for restart are, DFK, IFK, PK and dropped ball. Because I can’t give a DFK, IFK or PK due to not seeing anything, the only option left is a dropped ball as per the definition of dropped ball in law 8.
I'm not convinced that this option will fly at all under the LotG. But... *shrug*

One last bit of semantics. The law never refers to a ‘fight’ for free kicks. You need to dissect the generic term to identifiable acts like striking, kicking etc. which are punishable by free kicks. If you haven’t seen any of those acts, then as far as you are concerned, the never was a ‘fight’.
True -- having said that, the following line would then clarify as to what's actually happening. Introduction is merely that, setting the stage, quick identification of those involved.

Once you've done that, then you can break into the more detail as to what happened/was seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top