I always like to think of the refereeing crew as a team and mistakes are made as a team no matter which official made the error. On this week's ayso newsletter a interesting situation was analyzed http://www.ayso.org/resources/referee_res/whistle_or_not.aspx March 08, 2012 Now, lets for a moment forget this came from AYSO but instead it happened on a game you are working. What would you do? Apply the law as written or use Law 18 (common sense) and allow the goal since the AR gave permission and he is a part of your team?
My rule of thumb on technical infractions like this one is that if the offended team is correctly arguing about it, we have no option but to correctly apply the Laws. If no one is upset or notices the problem, don't make it a problem. In this case since the opposing coach is getting upset, I feel like the referee needs to disallow the goal. If the coach is aware that misconduct had occurred and is yelling that Blue #4 needs to be cautioned, then the referee should caution for entering without permission. At that point the referee needs to suck it up and realize that even though this misconduct was entirely avoidable if his AR weren't an idiot, it's not his job to protect the players from problems resulting from their ignorance of the Laws. Restart with a goal kick (or corner kick if there was a deflection off the defending team before the ball entered the goal). Regardless of the circumstances following the AR's error, the AR needs to be addressed sternly by the referee at halftime or after the game concerning the mistake.
In a professional game, the ref and 4th can communicate on the fly, and a player can reenter during active play. For youth, there could be several minutes before a stoppage occurs for the ref to beckon the player. Besides, why can't the referee tell the AR to allow the player to reenter once the equipment issue is resolved? That would have been my instruction, and to me that comprises the permission to reenter that is required by the laws.
A bit of a disappointing answer for AYSO, who put special emphasis on empowering ARs, who like the CRs are volunteers, and on interpreting the laws correctly in their context. The first point that should be made is why re-entry should be controlled by the CR. The reentering player should not be allowed to achieve tactical surprise. If that is the case, then the goal is tainted and fairness demands it be erased. But if not, well, it should be kept in mind that there is no explicit protocol for how the CR signals to the AR to allow the player to return, and there is certainly no obligation to make that signal visible to the opposing coach...
I stand corrected - there is a protocol. I would never beat up on AYSO. They are probably closer to full FIFA soccer than other US youth soccer leagues.
Restart goes back to the infraction. Illegal player entered field so IFK where the ball was when play was stopped. So since play technically had to "stop" before the goal was scored likelyhood is that it was somewhere over the goal area.
And assuming USSF: 4.6 INCORRECT UNIFORM OR EQUIPMENT Instructing a player to leave the field to correct an illegal uniform or equipment does not require a report by the referee, as this is not a "send-off" for misconduct. The inspection to confirm that the correction has been made is conducted by the referee or, if delegated by the referee in the pregame conference, by the fourth official or an assistant referee if a fourth official has not been appointed. The player must receive a signal from the referee before actually re-entering the field and may do so only during a stoppage. So, on equipment issue, re-entry can only be done at a stoppage!
I sent AYSO a follow-up question on this. IIRC, in either the current or the previous version, the ATR on this topic was modified after the print editions came out, with a revsied version as a pdf on the website:
Fair enough. I think I get the reasoning now since techinally you stopped play with the ball out of bounds, not while it was still in play. Makes sense. Let me reverse this situation a bit. What if a player who is off the field legally enters without correct permission and saves a goal? Legally, like with the chest or foot.
See part (a) of what I posted before, which tracks the correct restart any time the ball is in play and an extra person is discovered. (I believe there is also a chart elsewhere in the ATR.) The goal kick answer flows from Law 16, which provides for a goal kick if the ball crosses the goal line and a goal is not scored.* *The ATR, however, seems to create a great trivia question. It does not say a GK if last touched by an attacker, but simply a GK. This, if meant literally, means that a GK can be given on a ball last touched by a defender before going over the goal line. While there may be some justice to that result, it is tough to tease that result out of the language of Laws 16 and 17.
IMO the GK follows logically from the Laws. The Laws says that "IF the referee stops play" because of the infringement then the restart is an IDFK and to me that implies that if the referee doesn't stop play then whatever restart that comes naturally should prevail. Honestly not sure. It should definitely be a IDFK to the attacking team and then, IIRC, that would lead to an DOGSO send off (a bit harsh if, as here, the player was told by the AR that he could enter).
Oh, good point. But it gets better! Suppose a Blue player enters the field without permission and scores an Own Goal, which is discovered before play restarts. According to the ATR, the referee must DISALLOW the goal because it was scored by the intruder (or intruder's teammate). According to the next sentence in the ATR, the referee must ALLOW the goal because the intruder was on the team scored against. - QC
This is a great answer. As a coach, I try to stay up with the laws of the game as much as possible. If I see an infraction like the one in the OP, then I expect the CR/Ref team to abide by the laws. Sure, it 'feels' bad to call back a goal, but even ticky-tacky rules are still to be followed. I could certainly see the CR not giving the player a caution as they were directed to return by the AR, but the goal can't stand.
The reason I asked about the player coming on from behind the goal and simply stopping it legally is that I have posed this to a National Referee and a USSF Inspector. They both agreed a caution and IFK, but no DOGSO. Let me try to repeat what they said. Yes the player is on the field illegally but their infraction was entering without permission, not touching the ball, especially in a legal manner, that is just when you stopped. It is similar to coming back and cautioning a player after an advantage is given. Yes they are essentially sitting on a caution no matter the outcome but for all intensive purposes in the span of time between the infraction and the stopping of play they are allowed to do as they please. So since they committed a legal play to stop the ball we don't have a seperate infraction that would lead to DOGSO. Let me further give this and see if it makes more sense. ATR 3.19 B For example, if a player has been ordered from the field to correct equipment but re-enters the field without the permission of the referee and then violently strikes an opponent during play, the restart would be a direct free kick for the striking foul (or a penalty kick if committed inside the player's own penalty area). So while they did committ two infractions the advice to me clearly implies that you allow play and the player to continue to be on the field till something else happens and then act on it. Whether intentionally, you want to see if they become involved, or unintentionally you don't notice till the stoppage. My thoughts, please disect them.
When a spectator or a dog wanders onto the field, you don't stop play immediately. You wait to see if they interfere. Given that, it would seem strange to stop play the moment a player re-enters without proper permission. Such a player is on borrowed time. If he scores a goal, it doesn't count. If he interferes, he gets his caution. If he does something worse than the entry without permission, the more serious infraction is punished. As to entering from behind the goal and blocking a shot, I prefer the scenario we dissected a few months ago: a substitute player warming up near the goal manages to poke his foot through the net (into the goal, an inch outside the goal line) and blocks a shot without ever entering the field. - QC
Yes. I love it when coaches and spectators yell and scream about there being an extra player on the field. I assume they expect play to be stopped immedieately and the player removed. They don't understand that it is something to be dealt with at the next stoppage. That stoppage, however, could be a disallowed goal for the extra player's team. BTW QC, if a goal is scored by the extra player's team, the goal is disallowed regardless of who took the shot. Also, if there is a doubt who is the player that entered illegally, the captain selects a player to go off, and the exiting player receives a caution.
Well, the ATR (3.17) suggests that those yelling coaches and spectators are correct: In any event, why would they want to wait until something bad happens for their team and hope the referee is able to identify that there was an extra player on the field.
Yelling spectators and coaches are not correct, they yell about stuff all the time that we don't stop for. When the referee knows there's to many people, he stops. During the run of play, how is the referee to know this? I am not taking my eyes off play cause others are shouting about to many players, just so I can count. When play next stops, sure, I'll count. If my AR pops the flag up, I'll stop, he then might tell me there's to many. But no way in the world am I stopping when parent, coaches even players are saying it.
No one suggested you should stop at any time before, in the words of the ATR, you "find[] that a team has more than the allowed number of persons on the field." So, of course the ref doesn't stop b/c spectators are whining any more than the ref stops when they are whining about a foul, the ball out of play, or their little darling having fallen down. But the yelling specators are correct that the play should be stopped for the excess player -- but just like anything else in the game, no call is going to be made until the referee makes the conclusion (and I agree with you completely that there are other things going on that may be more critical than counting while the ball is in play). That's not the same thing as saying that the spectators and coaches are wrong to think that play should be stopped and that the proper way to handle is to wait until a stoppage.
This is pure common sense. Goal stands. What really bothers me with this poll is that 17 people are sticking to the rule on the goal, but then using common sense and ignore the rule mandating a caution. I should add that I'm having a word with the coach. If he believed there was a problem, he should have said so immediately and not wait to sandbag the player once she scores. What this coach did absolutely sucks. This is U-14 for Christ's sake. No way am I not awarding the goal. Even if it means pretending not to hear him until after the restart.
