Question Regarding a Caution

[phatneff]

Ok, here is a situation that happened last night in an Ohio high school varsity game.

Team Black (TB) was awarded a corner kick. The Center Referee (CR) was standing next to the goal looking toward the players as they were coming into the goal area when the ball is kicked. At the time of the kick, he noticed that a defending Team White (TW) player flagrantly threw a TB player around him by basically headlocking the TB player and tossing him aside. However, the ball that was kicked was not played in the TB player's direction that was fouled so it didn't have any effect on the corner kick play. The AR was on the far side of the field and didn't see the interaction at all. Anyway, the ball was cleared away and play resumed. About a minute or two later, when play stopped for another foul, the CR stopped the clock and went back to the TW player who fouled the TB player during the corner kick and gave him a yellow card for that action and sent him off the field.

There was a discussion at halftime that that was the incorrect procedure, that you can't go back and caution a player if you don't call a foul on him. The point was made that if it was worthy of a caution, then the foul should have been called immediately and a penalty kick should have been awarded. The disagreeing point was that the foul had no bearing on the play and that, although the foul was unsportsmanlike, it should not constitute stoppage of play to award a penalty kick when the play didn't involve either players. Needless to say, the game ended in a 0-0 tie.

My question to all of you is what is the right decision for this action? Should a penalty kick have been awarded? Can a caution be given later in the match for a previous foul that didn't affect play?

Interested to hear your opinions.

[Edited by phatneff on Sep 28th, 2005 at 10:39 AM]

[QuebecRef87]

There's an important missing information here: did the foul occur before or after the corner kick was made?

If it occured before it was made, play must be stopped immediately (it never actually started), the offending player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior and play is resumed with the corner kick.

If the foul occured after the corner kick was made, it's hard to say if the center referee was right or wrong since I didn't see the play. I will however tell you the ruling so you can judge by yourself (well, FIFA ruling at least; Nevadaref will notice me if anything is different with USSF or NFHS...).

First of all, the CR was right not to call a foul right away: he must see if advantage is gained by the fouled team (TB). If the corner kick is missed or team White takes control of the ball or team Black does not take control of the ball (i.e.: advantage is not gained by the offended team), the foul must be called, the offending player must be cautioned (yellow card) and play resumes with a penalty kick since the foul occured inside the penalty area. If team Black (the fouled team) takes control of the ball after the kick is made (i.e.: advantage is gained by the offended team), the referee must rise his arms and say loudly "Advantage!" or "Play on!". Then, the offending player must be cautioned at the next stoppage of play for unsportsmanlike conduct.

All that is assuming the ref judged the foul was a "cautionable offence". In the case of a "sending-off offence", play must be stopped immediately to show the offending player the red card.

As I said, this is the FIFA ruling. There may be a slight difference with NFHS and/or USSF.

By the way, are you a coach, an official, a fan or a player?

[Edited by QuebecRef87 on Sep 28th, 2005 at 03:43 PM]

[Nevadaref]

Quebec gave an excellent summary, which is also applicable to NFHS rules for this play.
In short, a call of some kind MUST be made at the time of the action. Unless the referee indicates that advantage is being played or stops the game right then to call the foul, he has no right to go back and give a caution at the next stoppage. Well, also if an AR saw the action and couldn't get his attention immediately, then it would be appropriate, since a call by the AR was made at the time of the foul. Otherwise, it must be assumed that the action was considered trifling. (And just to nitpick a bit, Quebec said that "play MUST be stopped immediately" for sending-off offenses. That is not true. FIFA Law 5 contains the powers and duties of the referee. Listed therein is: "takes disciplinary action against players guilty of cautionable and sending-off offenses. He is not obliged to take this action immediately but must do so when the ball next goes out of play"
However, the referee is strongly advised not to play advantage when sending-off offenses are involved because the volatile nature of these situations could quickly escalate into something much worse, if the players believe the action is not being punished and that justice is not being served.)


You seem to put a great deal of weight upon the fact that this action took place away from the ball and didn't affect the play. So, was it trifling? From your description, I certainly don't believe so. Therefore, this was a foul. Whether it is near the ball or not, it NEEDS to be acknowledged and punished, especially since this was more than a normal foul. The offender was simply stupid for committing such a foul away from the play when the attacker had no chance to make a play. Poor decision by the defender.

In your scenario, while it seems that the Referee didn't acknowledge the foul and give advantage to the offensive team on the play, perhaps he did. There is a school of thought which advocates not verbalizing advantage in the penalty area, see below. Perhaps this is why, in his mind, he went back at the next stoppage and cautioned the player. Or perhaps the referee purposely set aside the laws of the game/NFHS rules in order to dispense what he believed to be proper justice. I do not referee in this manner, but I have seen it done many times.

Now, giving advantage in the penalty area is a very touchy issue. The team better have a tremendous opportunity to score because by not immediately calling the foul, the referee is taking away the awarding of a penalty kick (if the foul would result in a DFK). There is some strong advice in USSF play to be very careful about playing advantage in the penalty area. We discussed it in a thread over on the NFHS forum.

Personally, I would have awarded a PK and cautioned the defender as soon as I saw that the attacking team wasn't going to score right away from the corner kick.

[phatneff]

I was the center official in this match.

My reasoning for not calling the foul was, well, I guess you had to be there to see exactly as it happened. The TB player was making a run towards his spot, as it was a set play. This TB player was a much smaller player than the offending TW player. So, as the TB player made is run, it appeared his attempt was to go through the TW player instead of around him in order to take him out of the play. The TW player than "brushed" him aside with his arm around the TB player's head. All of which happened in a split second. My opinion at the time was that either one of those actions could have been called for a foul (TB for charging and TW for holding/pushing), but which one would you call? I decided neither since none of them affected any part of the play, and it was inside the penalty box of a 0-0 game and TB had several attempts at a goal off the corner kick.

Now, the reason for the caution was simply because the TW player had already been verbally warned by me for some of his other actions earlier in the match. This caution was an attempt to keep him and the rest of the players under a certain amount of control.

Regarding fouls in the penalty box, I am of the nature where normal fouls that happen outside of the box aren't necessarily called inside the box, especially during set plays such as corner kicks. There are bodies all over each other within the box so it is pretty hard to single out one specific foul. Most of the time, what I tend to do is focus on the goalkeeper (as I am one myself) if there is an offensive player by him. I will make sure that the keeper is not obstructed, but if he is fairly done so by the offensive player, I will watch to see if the keeper fouls him to get him out of the way, of which I will definitely call a penalty kick.

Another point is that cautionable offenses are not always fouls. I believe my example is a shady gray of that, since two people's actions offset one another. However, other cautionable offenses such as delay of game, disallowing 10 yards prior to a restart, coming onto the field when not summoned, etc., can be cautioned, but those tend to happen directly at the time of the action.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by phatneff
I was the center official in this match.

That's cool that you are man enough to come forward with this and take the criticism/feedback. You will certainly improve as an official.
I still stand by what I told you in my earlier reply. From the description of the play you gave there, I would have ruled differently. However, in your most recent post, you drastically changed your portrayal. Here are your two quotes:

Originally posted by phatneff
At the time of the kick, he noticed that a defending Team White (TW) player flagrantly threw a TB player around him by basically headlocking the TB player and tossing him aside.

Originally posted by phatneff
The TW player than "brushed" him aside with his arm around the TB player's head.

This is vastly different. So which was it -- a flagrant throw or a brush?


Now I'll give you my thoughts on the rest of what you added.

Originally posted by phatneff
Now, the reason for the caution was simply because the TW player had already been verbally warned by me for some of his other actions earlier in the match. This caution was an attempt to keep him and the rest of the players under a certain amount of control.

If you had already talked to this player, then he probably deserved a punishment. Would the more just punishment have been a penalty kick? That depends upon your changing picture of what happened. Also, I'm sure that you know, there are other ways to bring players under control than using the cards.

Originally posted by phatneff
Regarding fouls in the penalty box, I am of the nature where normal fouls that happen outside of the box aren't necessarily called inside the box, especially during set plays such as corner kicks. There are bodies all over each other within the box so it is pretty hard to single out one specific foul. Most of the time, what I tend to do is focus on the goalkeeper (as I am one myself) if there is an offensive player by him. I will make sure that the keeper is not obstructed, but if he is fairly done so by the offensive player, I will watch to see if the keeper fouls him to get him out of the way, of which I will definitely call a penalty kick.

There are two schools of thought on the penalty area. One is the way you have described above. The other is a foul is still a foul and if the defense is foolish enough to not be careful inside their defending area, then that is their fault. Just be prepared to have your philosophy put to the test when you work with other referees.

Originally posted by phatneff
Another point is that cautionable offenses are not always fouls. I believe my example is a shady gray of that, since two people's actions offset one another. However, other cautionable offenses such as delay of game, disallowing 10 yards prior to a restart, coming onto the field when not summoned, etc., can be cautioned, but those tend to happen directly at the time of the action.

My honest opinion is that you don't have a solid conviction here. Your stance seems wishy-washy to me. You need to know the precise penalty rules and then have the strength to enforce them.
The fact is that ALL cautionable offenses are either fouls or misconduct. Each carries a specific penalty, and if the ball is in play at the time and the action is committed on the field by a player, then the penalty phase includes the awarding of a free kick (Off the field misconduct, including stuff done by a coach or substitute, results in a drop ball in USSF and an IFK in NFHS). It is true that some of the cardable offenses are technical infringements when the ball is out of play (and you have listed a few examples), and for these you simply use the original restart. The only time that the free kick is not immediately awarded is if the advantage clause is invoked.

This is just the opinion of one fellow referee, so take it for what you will, but I believe that if you are carding players for their actions and not awarding the accompanying free kick, then you are failing to properly punish their poor behavior. In short, you are letting them off easy. I would implore you to enforce penalties in the Laws/rules in their entirely as they are written so as to provide a deterrent for poor conduct. If the players perceive that the referee isn't going to hand down a stiff punishment for their unsporting actions, then you had better believe that they will persist in such.

[phatneff]

We will agree to disagree.

My words were taken out of context as far as the "brushed" was concerned.

It's obvious I can't give a detailed description of the events by simply typing them out.

Your philosophy of reffing also appears to be different from my philosophy of reffing, especially when it comes to fouls/misconduct within the penalty area. I guess that stems from my many years of playing and understanding that somethings that may be considered trifling can go unwhistled yet can be cautioned. It also may be a case of different reffing philosophies based on geographic area.

As a point of interest, though, when I explained the reason for the caution to both coaches, neither (yes, even the TB coach) questioned about a penalty kick.

Anyway, thanks for all of your opinions on this matter.