FootballNews

In a game this weekend I saw something that I'm pretty sure I've never seen before from the referee.

All I saw was the referee give a player a yellow and award the other team an indirect free kick just outside the box and, when I asked the lino who was standing nearby what it was for, he said it was for dissent. That's fine, I have no problem with the yellow, and I thought that the referee had stopped play to caution the player. Surely you'd just let play continue until the next stoppage then go back and give the yellow? If not, that means that, if the goalkeeper yells something at the ref, he can stop play, caution the keeper and award an indirect free on the 6 yard box, irrespective of where the ball was when the keeper abused him? Doesn't make sense, nor is it fair. Surely that's not how refs are told to interpret the rule?

Someone else later told me that they thought the ball had already gone out for a goal kick and was therefore not in play. So how did the ref work out that it should be an indirect free kick?

Anybody else seen this happen?

refs call is correct....yellow card and indirect free kick given for dissent...

MegaBonus wrote:refs call is correct....yellow card and indirect free kick given for dissent...

I know that but maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Yellow card is fine and, when the ball is in play, indirect free is OK up to a point. If the ball's out of play then surely an indirect free is wrong?

My question was, has anyone ever seen a ref actually stop play for dissent rather than wait until a natural stoppage? The point being, it's ridiculous to award a free kick at one end when the ball is at the other end, even though technically under the LOTG it may be correct.

My question was, has anyone ever seen a ref actually stop play for dissent rather than wait until a natural stoppage? The point being, it's ridiculous to award a free kick at one end when the ball is at the other end, even though technically under the LOTG it may be correct.

yep....at various levels.....aimed at encouraging respect for officials....if you are a keeper and are stupid enough to slag off at the ref...serves you right!!!!

in the end...its the refs call whether he stops play or waits for it to go out...

MegaBonus wrote:

My question was, has anyone ever seen a ref actually stop play for dissent rather than wait until a natural stoppage? The point being, it's ridiculous to award a free kick at one end when the ball is at the other end, even though technically under the LOTG it may be correct.

yep....at various levels.....aimed at encouraging respect for officials....if you are a keeper and are stupid enough to slag off at the ref...serves you right!!!!

in the end...its the refs call whether he stops play or waits for it to go out...

Fair enough, some players are incredibly dumb, but in 40+ years of football I don't think (or can't remember) I've ever seen it happen before. I was shocked.

MegaBonus wrote:

My question was, has anyone ever seen a ref actually stop play for dissent rather than wait until a natural stoppage? The point being, it's ridiculous to award a free kick at one end when the ball is at the other end, even though technically under the LOTG it may be correct.

yep....at various levels.....aimed at encouraging respect for officials....if you are a keeper and are stupid enough to slag off at the ref...serves you right!!!!
in the end...its the refs call whether he stops play or waits for it to go out...

Yes, Saw Colossus get sent off at Fulham a few years back for just that, indirect free kick inside the box which Fulham took sideways to take out the Raptors' wall from the equation and bury into the net. I'd dare say Megabonus was there that day.

Nice One Cyril wrote:I know that but maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Yellow card is fine and, when the ball is in play, indirect free is OK up to a point. If the ball's out of play then surely an indirect free is wrong?

If the ball was out of play you are indeed correct. However you also said "Someone else later told me that they thought the ball had already gone out" so there's every chance that it hadn't.

I've had a ref do it to me before so yup it definitely happens!

Dissent by a player which warrents a caution. If the offending players team has possession, then the referee has to stop play caution the player and award an indirect free kick from where the offence occured, as there is no advantage. If the oppositon had poseession, and there is an obvious advantage to be played, the referee applies the advantage and cautions the player at the next stoppage of play.

penalty wrote:Dissent by a player which warrents a caution. If the offending players team has possession, then the referee has to stop play caution the player and award an indirect free kick from where the offence occured, as there is no advantage. If the oppositon had poseession, and there is an obvious advantage to be played, the referee applies the advantage and cautions the player at the next stoppage of play.

All of which I understand, but it does seem a ridiculous application of the law when the ball is in the centre circle when the keeper abuses the ref and a free kick is then given 50 yards away from where the ball is. I can't honestly believe this was the intended use when the law was framed. There is actually no need whatsoever to stop play to caution a player for dissent, since it doesn't affect the play. Simply wait until the next time the ball is dead.

Law is Law.
Read the post above.
If the offending team has the ball - Stop play.
If the opposing team has the ball and no obvious advantage - stop play.
If the opposing yeam has the ball and obvious advantage - allow play to continue and caution at next stoppage,

If play is stopped to caution or send off a player where no offence punishable by a direct free kick (see Law 12), play is restarted with an Indirect Free Kick where the offence ocure.

If you stillcant understand contact the FFSA and do the referee course.

Nice One Cyril wrote:All of which I understand, but it does seem a ridiculous application of the law when the ball is in the centre circle when the keeper abuses the ref and a free kick is then given 50 yards away from where the ball is.

It doesn't matter where the ball is (provided it is in play). It's no different to you punching someone behind the play. You don't ignore it because the ball is nowhere near by.

Colossus's Therapist wrote:

Nice One Cyril wrote:All of which I understand, but it does seem a ridiculous application of the law when the ball is in the centre circle when the keeper abuses the ref and a free kick is then given 50 yards away from where the ball is.

It doesn't matter where the ball is (provided it is in play). It's no different to you punching someone behind the play. You don't ignore it because the ball is nowhere near by.

Hmm... Dissent and punching someone. That's a good comparison.

to me it's a great punishment.

Picture the situation - your team is on the attack and your goalkeeper tells the ref he's rubbish. Ref stops the game and moves the ball 80m back down the field for the indirect free kick.

I dare say that keeper won't be too popular with his own players and won't be making that mistake again.

It's about the common sense from the ref's point of view. Personally, I would pull the game back if the offenders team had the ball but wait until a stoppage if the opposition had it.

Colossus's Therapist wrote:

Nice One Cyril wrote:All of which I understand, but it does seem a ridiculous application of the law when the ball is in the centre circle when the keeper abuses the ref and a free kick is then given 50 yards away from where the ball is.

It doesn't matter where the ball is (provided it is in play). It's no different to you punching someone behind the play. You don't ignore it because the ball is nowhere near by.

This is actually a good comparison. If the ball is in the middle of the park and the keeper punches a forward in the box, assuming the ref isn't blind, then a penalty would be given, as this is where the offence occured. Same thing as dissent, the ref can blow up and award an indirect free kick at the place the offence occured, or play advantage, just like any other fre kick situation.

If the ball has gone out of play, there is no free kick, just the caution. Play restarts as it would if there was no dissent (eg goal kick, throw in, etc).

Cantona69 wrote:This is actually a good comparison. If the ball is in the middle of the park and the keeper punches a forward in the box, assuming the ref isn't blind, then a penalty would be given, as this is where the offence occured. Same thing as dissent, the ref can blow up and award an indirect free kick at the place the offence occured, or play advantage, just like any other fre kick situation.

If the ball has gone out of play, there is no free kick, just the caution. Play restarts as it would if there was no dissent (eg goal kick, throw in, etc).

Why would the ref have to be blind, he could just be facing the wrong way?

Cantona69 wrote:

Colossus's Therapist wrote:

Nice One Cyril wrote:All of which I understand, but it does seem a ridiculous application of the law when the ball is in the centre circle when the keeper abuses the ref and a free kick is then given 50 yards away from where the ball is.

It doesn't matter where the ball is (provided it is in play). It's no different to you punching someone behind the play. You don't ignore it because the ball is nowhere near by.

This is actually a good comparison. If the ball is in the middle of the park and the keeper punches a forward in the box, assuming the ref isn't blind, then a penalty would be given, as this is where the offence occured. Same thing as dissent, the ref can blow up and award an indirect free kick at the place the offence occured, or play advantage, just like any other fre kick situation.

If the ball has gone out of play, there is no free kick, just the caution. Play restarts as it would if there was no dissent (eg goal kick, throw in, etc).

I would disagree. Punching an opposition player is directly affecting the actual match. Abusing the referee isn't actually part of the match, he's an arbitrator, supposedly. The point is, what have the opposition done to earn a free kick, albeit indirect, in the box when the ball is up the other end? Nothing IMO.

That's not to condone abusing the referee, but I fail to see why the opposition should benefit to that degree from it.

Nice One Cyril wrote:That's not to condone abusing the referee, but I fail to see why the opposition should benefit to that degree from it.

You can't blame others for your own lack of discipline.

Nice One Cyril wrote:
I would disagree. Punching an opposition player is directly affecting the actual match. Abusing the referee isn't actually part of the match, he's an arbitrator, supposedly. The point is, what have the opposition done to earn a free kick, albeit indirect, in the box when the ball is up the other end? Nothing IMO.

That's not to condone abusing the referee, but I fail to see why the opposition should benefit to that degree from it.

Read up on your laws. The dissent is a cautionable offence. Needs to be called up carded, then played on with an indirect where the offense occurred. The only time you would play on is when there is advantage to the opposition.

How many countless times have you seen a tackle, played on, tackled player gets upset, shouts at ref, ref whistles, cards the abuser, then restarts with an indirect from where the abuser was standing. It's exactly the same.

Also, I don't think there is anything, ever, you can do to 'earn' a free kick (without cheating). They are conceded.

God is an Englishman wrote:to me it's a great punishment.

Picture the situation - your team is on the attack and your goalkeeper tells the ref he's rubbish. Ref stops the game and moves the ball 80m back down the field for the indirect free kick.

I dare say that keeper won't be too popular with his own players and won't be making that mistake again.

It's about the common sense from the ref's point of view. Personally, I would pull the game back if the offenders team had the ball but wait until a stoppage if the opposition had it.

I 'saw' a certain Metro GK a couple of years ago get done for this, Metro had a corner and there was some banter going on between the Metro GK and Campbeltown crowd, was all good natured and nothing offensive but the lino got involved, gave an indirect free kick up the opposite end of the pitch where they thought I was standing when I said it, he did try and say he was on the halfway line when he said it but lucky he wasn't actually in the goal getting a drink, anyway GK got booked, Campbeltown scored from the indirect free kick on the edge of the box and I had to explain to my wife why I copped a $50 fine from the boys and the w@nker shirt for the week!

Lucky we were belting Campbeltown at the time 4-0 I think, if it had cost points that GK wouldn't have been very popular.

love the fact it's all the 3rd party until then end where it's let slip.

Not that it was in doubt anyway, I imagine the "certain Metro GK" copped even more from the crowd after that as well.

God is an Englishman wrote:love the fact it's all the 3rd party until then end where it's let slip.

Not that it was in doubt anyway, I imagine the "certain Metro GK" copped even more from the crowd after that as well.

Certainly did and what made it worse was I couldnt even give it back!

4-0 up, current champions, what more ammo could you want to fire off at Campbeltown supporters, it was all going to plan then bang, take that keeper!

I remember when a 4 year old stood behind your goal telling you you were rubbish, you laughed that day though.

God is an Englishman wrote:I remember when a 4 year old stood behind your goal telling you you were rubbish, you laughed that day though.

I know Merse is getting on, but there's no way you were four at the time

Nice One Cyril wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:I remember when a 4 year old stood behind your goal telling you you were rubbish, you laughed that day though.

I know Merse is getting on, but there's no way you were four at the time

You probably havent seen it too much because, in general, the team with the ball isnt complaining to the referee, its generally the one that doesnt have the ball (lost in a tackle, etc...), hence 'play on', but I've seen it happen a couple of times.

And next time I watch/play Metro, im going to spend the whole time trying to get merse to give away a free in his goal. We usually dont touch the ball for 80% of the game anyway...

Randoman wrote:You probably havent seen it too much because, in general, the team with the ball isnt complaining to the referee, its generally the one that doesnt have the ball (lost in a tackle, etc...), hence 'play on', but I've seen it happen a couple of times.

And next time I watch/play Metro, im going to spend the whole time trying to get merse to give away a free in his goal. We usually dont touch the ball for 80% of the game anyway...

Im actually concentrating on the game these days, but god I think of some funny cabernet that I'd love to dish out. Look out when Im a few beers deep on the other side of the fence, Im bringing banter back!

In saying this, usually Raiders are the front runners and never let the result or game get in the way of letting me have it for 90 mins but they were a bit disappointing on the week end, the league needs you in full voice Peter and co!!!

Nice One Cyril wrote:In a game this weekend I saw something that I'm pretty sure I've never seen before from the referee.

All I saw was the referee give a player a yellow and award the other team an indirect free kick just outside the box and, when I asked the lino who was standing nearby what it was for, he said it was for dissent. That's fine, I have no problem with the yellow, and I thought that the referee had stopped play to caution the player. Surely you'd just let play continue until the next stoppage then go back and give the yellow? If not, that means that, if the goalkeeper yells something at the ref, he can stop play, caution the keeper and award an indirect free on the 6 yard box, irrespective of where the ball was when the keeper abused him? Doesn't make sense, nor is it fair. Surely that's not how refs are told to interpret the rule?

Someone else later told me that they thought the ball had already gone out for a goal kick and was therefore not in play. So how did the ref work out that it should be an indirect free kick?

Anybody else seen this happen?

Happened in the cup a few weeks back. A poor decision from the ref lead to a play on call. My coach didn't really agree with the decision. Comets were on the attack down the left flank. Ref stops the game. Runs over, has a chat to the coach. Drop ball. Kick it back to their goalkeeper. Was very strange and was at a complete disadvantage to the team in possession and not doing the complaining!

Not saying anything on that particular incident but I'd like to see a return of the good old drop ball when two players would contest it. shiraz this "get away I'll kick it back to you" bullshít.

Nice One Cyril wrote:In a game this weekend I saw something that I'm pretty sure I've never seen before from the referee.

All I saw was the referee give a player a yellow and award the other team an indirect free kick just outside the box and, when I asked the lino who was standing nearby what it was for, he said it was for dissent. That's fine, I have no problem with the yellow, and I thought that the referee had stopped play to caution the player. Surely you'd just let play continue until the next stoppage then go back and give the yellow? If not, that means that, if the goalkeeper yells something at the ref, he can stop play, caution the keeper and award an indirect free on the 6 yard box, irrespective of where the ball was when the keeper abused him? Doesn't make sense, nor is it fair. Surely that's not how refs are told to interpret the rule?

Someone else later told me that they thought the ball had already gone out for a goal kick and was therefore not in play. So how did the ref work out that it should be an indirect free kick?

Anybody else seen this happen?

You've never understood the LOTG David, or had respect for officials - so no surprise really