One foul worse than the other - restart

[Nij]

Made some corrections. I decided it is a foul, I raised the whistle but did not blow waiting to see if I can play advantage. It materialised and I awarded the goal. I never decided i am stopping play before the ball goes in (that is all i am willing to say or write in any report). A good referee is one who can improvise and use the full extent of what the law allows him to use to achieve a fair outcome.

That's not the argument you and others have made. It's been stated several times that, when the referee decides in their mind that they will stop play, that play stops at that exact instant.
If the referee has done so, they have decided that there is no advantage and they are not playing it.
You can spin it however you want, but if you have decided play must stop, how does it magically become not stopped because you didn't yet communicate this to others?

You turn. In my example, if I decide to award a TI, would you say it is not in accordance to the LAWS of the game? And if it is not why not?

I would say it is within law to give a throw-in, but it's always a worse decision than the free kick. At best the team misses out on the better legal restart, at worst the foul is rewarded, defeating the purpose.

 

[Nij]

This makes no sense - you're the one saying that when there are two fouls shortly after each other, you can ignore the first one and pretend it didn't exist, even though the ball was definitely in play when it happened.

Now I know you're not even trying to show good faith. Not once have I said the first offence can't be penalised, never have I said that it shouldn't be.
What I have said, and you keep skirting, is that a foul happening does not stop play, the referee thinking a foul has happened does not stop play, and the referee wanting to stop play does not actually stop play.

 

[Peter Grove]

Now I know you're not even trying to show good faith. Not once have I said the first offence can't be penalised, never have I said that it shouldn't be.
What I have said, and you keep skirting, is that a foul happening does not stop play, the referee thinking a foul has happened does not stop play, and the referee wanting to stop play does not actually stop play.

I think we're slightly arguing at cross purposes and maybe we're getting too hung up on the minutiae of the underlying concept of when play is stopped but as far as I can tell, you are still saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that when two offences occur in succession (not simultaneously), committed by players on opposite sides, you don't always have to penalise the first offence and you can award the free kick the other way because the second foul is more serious. I still maintain that is incorrect. You have to penalise the offence that happens first. It's the same principle as if one player commits a foul then the fouled player retaliates. The free kick goes the way of the first offence, even though you end up sanctioning (possibly even sending off) the player who retaliated.

 

[one]

That's not the argument you and others have made. It's been stated several times that, when the referee decides in their mind that they will stop play, that play stops at that exact instant.
If the referee has done so, they have decided that there is no advantage and they are not playing it.
You can spin it however you want, but if you have decided play must stop, how does it magically become not stopped because you didn't yet communicate this to others?

It doesn't magically become not stopped. You have to read between the lines in my post #19. @Peter Grove has a good understanding on what I was saying in his post #20.

In my example, if I decide to award a TI, would you say it is not in accordance to the LAWS of the game? And if it is not why not?

I would say it is within law to give a throw-in

The team who gets the throw in could be the team who committed the foul before the trow in. Think about how wrong that would be if you send off the player for the foul, yet your interpretation allows the referee to give a TI to his team. I think just this should make it easy to deduct there is something not quite right with your interrelation.

 

[Nij]

It doesn't magically become not stopped. You have to read between the lines in my post #19. @Peter Grove has a good understanding on what I was saying in his post #20.



The team who gets the throw in could be the team who committed the foul before the trow in. Think about how wrong that would be if you send off the player for the foul, yet your interpretation allows the referee to give a TI to his team. I think just this should make it easy to deduct there is something not quite right with your interrelation.

The laws allow for a lot of things that don't seem fair or make sense if one wants to push them to that extent. That doesn't mean we would want to do them, nor does it mean we should, especially when there is a more sensible approach that is just as valid in law and leads to better outcomes.

People want to use the argument that play stops when the referee decides to stop it, as the reason to penalise the first foul. Not only is this incorrect in law and leads to needing justification for even more unfair outcomes (giving a goal even though play has stopped before the ball went in... why is it fine to ignore the decision if the whistle hasn't been blown but not if it has? Answer: because it is necessarily the whistle that determines whether play has been stopped) but it isn't even necessary.

We can penalise the first foul in that principle basis alone - that it is the first foul. We don't need to ignore clear law and make convoluted arguments about decisions made in the referee's mind that are never communicated to anybody else.

 

[Ganajin]

Actually I believe Nij is totally correct. We need to forget all this stuff about the ball being out of play when the referee decides, even if the whistle has not blown. So let's assume that the ball IS in play until the whistle. Now, so long as we stick to the principle that we always punish the first offence (unless we see advantage for the team being offended against) then it does not matter one jot that we consider the ball still in play for the second foul...we always should punish the first. If offences are simultaneous, then we punish the more serious.

As I say, the argument that we consider the ball in play until the whistle is actually blown makes to me a lot of sense. As NIj rightly says, to think otherwise actually creates a lot of hard to interpret situations. But only if we also accept that we MUST punish the earlier offence (unless it is to the advantage of the team offended against not to do so). If Nij is saying (and I don't think he is) that we have a choice as a referee to chose to punish the second, where it is not advantage, then I strongly disagree. Whether stated so or not, it must be the referee's job to punish offences, not to chose to ignore them to the fouled team's detriment.

And a final note, ball in and out of play is NOT an offence and can NEVER be ignored, even if is to a team's advantage to do so.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi Nij
There has always been a distinction between decision and signal. The whistle is a signal of a referees decision. Most times it makes no difference yet there are times that it does such as the OP.
I go back to the point that if there is a first foul and the referee decides that he is giving it then that is the decision. Just because the whistle is *slow* *late* does not mean that the decision has not been made so that a later foul is the one that is called just because it is more egregious.
A foul on an offside player is a perfect example and quote in the Laws
“ a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence”
Where is the signal here? The decision is a DFK for the foul as that is the decision not offside and it flips over in the next para which says
“ an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge”
Again clear decision and no signal so with all respect it is not convoluted arguments. It is the referees decision not his signal that matters.

We can penalise the first foul in that principle basis alone - that it is the first foul. We don't need to ignore clear law and make convoluted arguments about decisions made in the referee's mind that are never communicated to anybody else.

 

[Nij]

Hi Nij
There has always been a distinction between decision and signal. The whistle is a signal of a referees decision. Most times it makes no difference yet there are times that it does such as the OP.
I go back to the point that if there is a first foul and the referee decides that he is giving it then that is the decision. Just because the whistle is *slow* *late* does not mean that the decision has not been made so that a later foul is the one that is called just because it is more egregious.
A foul on an offside player is a perfect example and quote in the Laws
“ a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence”
Where is the signal here? The decision is a DFK for the foul as that is the decision not offside and it flips over in the next para which says
“ an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge”
Again clear decision and no signal so with all respect it is not convoluted arguments. It is the referees decision not his signal that matters.

Both of those situations are penalising the first offence because it is the first offence: "the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence" and "the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge". The explanation couldn't be clearer here.

There's no mention at all of the referee making a decision before the second offence but not being able to signal it, because it is irrelevant, unnecessary, and incorrect in law.

The idea of calling the more egregious offence only applies when they occur simultaneously. When there is a definite gap between the first and second offence, these clarifications only underscore that the intent is to penalise the first offence because it is first, not because the second could not be penalised.

Again, there are only three things that make the ball out of play, and "the referee makes a decision in their head" isn't remotely close to one of them. Play is stopped when the referee takes action to stop it, not before.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi Nij
You are arguing against yourself. If there is an offence and it happened first then that is the decision.
In the offside who decided that the offence occurred BEFORE the offside. Did he communicate that by way of a signal. It was the referees decision and No he did not signal it.
As far as I am concerned play is stopped when the referee DECIDES and then he signals that decision. Most times there is no difference between decision and signal yet I go back to the OP. The only correct decision is Law is the first foul period. The second offence is misconduct.
I do not intend to discuss this any further and if you want to ask IFAB to clarify this I would be very happy to hear what IFAB has to say.

 

[one]

Actually I believe Nij is totally correct. We need to forget all this stuff about the ball being out of play when the referee decides, even if the whistle has not blown. So let's assume that the ball IS in play until the whistle. Now, so long as we stick to the principle that we always punish the first offence (unless we see advantage for the team being offended against) then it does not matter one jot that we consider the ball still in play for the second foul...we always should punish the first. If offences are simultaneous, then we punish the more serious.

As I say, the argument that we consider the ball in play until the whistle is actually blown makes to me a lot of sense. As NIj rightly says, to think otherwise actually creates a lot of hard to interpret situations. But only if we also accept that we MUST punish the earlier offence (unless it is to the advantage of the team offended against not to do so). If Nij is saying (and I don't think he is) that we have a choice as a referee to chose to punish the second, where it is not advantage, then I strongly disagree. Whether stated so or not, it must be the referee's job to punish offences, not to chose to ignore them to the fouled team's detriment.

And a final note, ball in and out of play is NOT an offence and can NEVER be ignored, even if is to a team's advantage to do so.

When the ball goes over the touchline for a TI, has anyone commited an offence for that restart?

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
I am not talking about the ball being out of play. I am talking about the referees decision and his signal. Going back to the OP the ball is in play when the first foul happens, the referee decides to stop play and before he whistles there is a second foul. Irrespective if the ball is in play or not the first foul is the decision. In law it cannot be the second foul.
BTW this is unique to situations where something happens such as the two consecutive fouls or the offside / foul scenarios. the 99.99% of the time the whistle stops the play

 

[Ganajin]

You are all arguing exactly the same thing: two fouls, one before another and the referee must punish the first. The only disagreement here is at what point exactly does play stop? When the first foul happens and the referee decides he (or she) is going to give it? Or when he actually whistles? But so long as we all agree he must punish foul number one, then the actual moment play stops is totally academic...it just has no bearing at all on anything important. So, as Nij appears to be saying, it is much cleaner and easier to work with the idea that play stops when the whistle goes. Arguing over something that makes no practical difference is like old time philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Grayson]

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

A minimum of 7

 

[one]

@Ganajin I have my question unanswered. What Nij is also saying is that if there is a SFP foul, then the ball quickly goes over the touchline, and the referee doesn't whistle between the two, if he awards a throw in, he would be correct in law.

 

[GraemeS]

When the ball is hit over the touchline, it is clear that the ball has gone out and it's clear who's throw in it is, would anyone on here whistle for that? So we can immediately start from the point of view that a whistle does not have to occur in order for play to have stopped. So therefore, the whistle cannot be the key as to defining the moment play stops - it must be something else (the referee deciding) and the whistle is simply a communication tool to help communicate that decision when it may not be obvious to everyone else.

 

[socal lurker]

When the ball is hit over the touchline, it is clear that the ball has gone out and it's clear who's throw in it is, would anyone on here whistle for that? So we can immediately start from the point of view that a whistle does not have to occur in order for play to have stopped. So therefore, the whistle cannot be the key as to defining the moment play stops - it must be something else (the referee deciding) and the whistle is simply a communication tool to help communicate that decision when it may not be obvious to everyone else.

We are getting into theoretical forays that may be different over time as various tweaks get over the years by FIFA. But I don't think you can compare the ball leaving the field to a foul. Per Law 9, the ball leaving the field causes the ball to be out of the play. For other causes, the referee stops play. (Though this long established simplicity in Law 9 was muddled with the new DB for hitting a referee, which causes play to stop.)

I don't have my old books handy, but I'm wondering if the much older laws (from before the word "whistle" was there at all) did refer to play stopping when the referee decides that a foul has occurred. But regardless, I think the key concept of that has always been that it's the first foul (or misconduct) that gets punished. And once we agree on that, we can let the angels dance away on their own. (I suppose tis the season for that. )

 

[Ganajin]

@Ganajin I have my question unanswered. What Nij is also saying is that if there is a SFP foul, then the ball quickly goes over the touchline, and the referee doesn't whistle between the two, if he awards a throw in, he would be correct in law.

As I said, I only accept Nij's argument about a whistle stopping play if we also accept that a referee MUST punish the first of two offenses. So, in your case above he cannot give a throw and also caution the player for the earlier SFP. However he CAN decide the the SFP was not in his mind an offense and give the TI

When the ball is hit over the touchline, it is clear that the ball has gone out and it's clear who's throw in it is, would anyone on here whistle for that? So we can immediately start from the point of view that a whistle does not have to occur in order for play to have stopped.

Of course we can start from that point of view. The LOTG tells us that THREE different things can stop play:

1 Ball going out of play
2 Referee stops play
3 Ball hits referee and leads to a dropped ball (for one of several reasons)

So number 1 does not need a whistle (as you say) but Nij is saying that number 2 does...and I am inclined to say that it makes far more sense to accept that viewpoint - SO LONG AS THE FIRST OFFENSE IS PUNISHED (ie the ref can't pick and chose). In practical terms it then works exactly the same as if play stopped when the referee decided, except that it is far easier to tell the players after whistling: "I am giving the blue foul because it happened first" than having to say: "Sorry lads, the second foul does not count because I decided the ball was dead, I just hadn't blown the whistle yet".

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

I am confused...can someone answer simply "is the ball no longer in play when the foul is committed, or when the whistle is blown for the foul?"
Thanks

 

[socal lurker]

I am confused...can someone answer simply "is the ball no longer in play when the foul is committed, or when the whistle is blown for the foul?"
Thanks

Don't get hung up on technical distinctions here.

For a foul, the referee stops play, the foul itself does not. I think everyone agrees on that.

If a player on team A commits a minor foul before a player on Team B commits a more serious foul, we still punish the first foul. (And, I would posit, the smart referee verbally says something about "first foul" so that players know you saw the second one, too--the second could be misconduct, if appropriate, but would not be sanctioned as a foul.)

Similarly, if a foul occurs and the ball leaves the field of play before the whistle blows, we still give the FK for the foul that occurred before the ball left the field.

If a player on team A commits a minor foul and then, before the whistle blows, commits a more serious foul (for example, fouls outside the penalty area and then again inside the penalty area), we can apply advantage to the first foul and punish the second. (Of course, if the first foul is more beneficial to the victim, we would punish the first foul.

This is different from the language in the law about offenses at the same time. If two offenses occur at the same time, the restart is based on the more serious offense.

 

[Nij]

When the ball is hit over the touchline, it is clear that the ball has gone out and it's clear who's throw in it is, would anyone on here whistle for that? So we can immediately start from the point of view that a whistle does not have to occur in order for play to have stopped.

Law defines three things as the ball out of play. The ball physically leaving the field of play is the first, the laws say the whistle is not needed, so it has no relevance to the other two things.
For the referee to stop play however, the whistle is needed.