Imho Regarding the sub who comes onto the pitch to deny a breakaway, call it VC and send him to the showers, pronto. Don't quibble with the double-yellow crap. Hopefully the league disciplinary board will add on for such actions.
Re: Imho I agree that a red, not yellow, seems just. But if it isn't VC, you shouldn't call it VC just to send him off.
Re: Imho This could easily be justified as "Violent Conduct". VC does not have to be "24"-level violent.
Re: Imho There's a difference between serious foul play and violent conduct. The contact would need to be pretty nasty to qualify as VC. Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity does not, by itself, get you to VC.
Re: Imho The only difference between SFP and VC is that one is done against the opponent, on the field, while challenging for the ball, and the other is done against anybody, anytime, anywhere that isn't SFP. The "level" of violence has nothing to do with whether the call is made or not. It is the act in of itself that we judge. A non-player running onto the pitch and tripping an opponent is an act of violence, however "slight" it might be. Further, the referee can interpret the act as one intended to start a fight. Either way, a red card for violent conduct may certainly be justified, even if the "trip" is but a mere tap on the shin.
Why don't you start a thread with your list? I'd be rather interested in seeing what you came up with!
Re: Imho Correct about the distinction between VC and SFP. I basically disagree with all of that. True, the 'level' of violence has nothing to do with whether it is considered SFP or VC. But the act must legitimately be considered violent, and a mere tap on the shin cannot be, in my opinion, considered violent - regardless of the circumstances. The ATR says this about SFP: "It is serious foul play when a player uses violence (excessive force; formerly defined as "disproportionate and unnecessary strength") when challenging for the ball on the field against an opponent." Sorry, but in my book a non-player committing a normal, non-violent tap on the shin against a player who has an obvious goalscoring opportunity does not qualify as violent and I would not interpret this as VC. Nor do I think any referee could legitimately interpret a simple trip as VC.
Re: better cheating? Possibly a better [cheating] strategy than running on the field and tripping the player with the ball [thus getting a RC?] would be to have 2 or 3 subs run on the field and just play defense and prevent the scoring opportunity. Unless we are talking about some superstar, he isn't going to get through 2-3 additional defenders. Each illegal sub gets a yellow, but if it is the end of the game, who cares. The restart is a drop ball, not even a direct kick. End result, you stop the scoring chance, get a drop ball, and the only cost is a few meaningless YCs (and no RCs). A big team could do this several times without running out of subs. A similar strategy would be to insert an illegal sub every time the other team started to threaten on offense. Again, the restart is a drop ball, and I am not sure that "advantage" could correctly be used to delay the whistle as this is not a rule 12 foul. I think that there are some possible referee tactics to prevent these strategies, so I don't think that they actually would work, but they sound great on paper.... NJRef
Re: better cheating? This is a great idea! It's too bad coaches don't spend as much time looking for creative strategies within the laws as they do yelling at referees. Honestly, i would *love* to see a team pull something like this in a game. Really, the referee could not stop it before it happened - if someone wants to run onto the field, he/she will be successful.
I can see multiple cautions for coming onto the field and unsporting behaviour for interfering with play. I can see leagues awarding a forfeit, assessing a fine or a similar action if such an activity were thought to be suggested by a coach. I wouldn't want to try the suggested procedure of a substitute intentionally interfering with play.
this position is supported by jim allen in an exchange of email i had with him: >your response to - "foul" off the field of play indicates a ifk for the team >"fouled" (really misconduct as it was off the field). the 2004 q and a's; >12-10 seems to be an identical situation. it calls for a dropped ball >restart. am i missing a distinction? Read Law 12, Indirect Free Kicks. You will find that the correct restart (no matter what may appear in the 2004 Q&A) is this: QUOTE An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee: //snipped// - commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player The indirect free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.* END OF QUOTE Misconduct initiated on the field of play requires an indirect free kick, whether the contact took place on the field or off the field. Jim Allen USSF National Instructor Staff
If the reasoning is that it initiated on the FOP, then why isn't it a real foul, resulting in a direct free kick?
It is consistent with all other "long-distance" situations - particularly thrown objects as documented in a memo/position paper last (?) year. Consider the case of a player striking an opponent. The fouler is outside the PA, the foulee is inside. It's a PK, because of the location of the strike. Now move that same infraction to the sideline, rather than the PA. If it's a foul, we would have to restart at the location of the strike - outside the field. That can't be done. So the restart is moved to the initiation point - which is also done for thrown objects. (And incidentally, if it's across the sideline or endline, it's not a foul because the definition of a foul is by a player, against an opponent, on the field of play.)
I believe that the USSF answer given is not correct. The answer doesn't lie within Law 12. The answer lies within Law 8, Restarts. This type of foul/misconduct is not mentioned in the Laws. That is, a misconduct that happens during the play for the ball while the ball is in play and that misconduct happens off the field of play. A necessary stoppage has happened while the ball was in play. The reason for that stoppage is not mentioned anywhere else in the Laws. The restart is a dropped ball. The Q&A has the answer and that would override any USSF answer as well.
law 8 says: dropped ball - a dropped ball is a way of restarting the match after a temp stoppage that becomes necessary, while the ball is in play, for any reason not mentioned elsewhere in the lotg. law 12 says: ifk - ...commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player. law 12, decision 1 says: a player who commits a cautionable or send-off offence, either on or off the field of play, ... is disciplined according to the nature of the offence committed. the atr defines a foul as ...an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play. ... if any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct. now, here we go. the action in our case is not a foul because it was off the field of play and only met 2 of the 3 requirements. therefore, it is now an action and not a "holding" foul, or "tripping" foul, or "striking" foul, etc. and if it is not one of the listed fouls, then it is an action to be "disiplined according to the nature of the offence" and an offence "not previously mentioned in law 12." a trip is only a trip if it can be called a foul. a hold is only a hold if it can be called a foul. otherwise, it is misconduct. if it is an action called misconduct, it is "any other offence ... for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player." so we have the restart as an ifk and not a dropped ball because the "reason" is mentioned elsewhere in the lotg - law 12 as quoted above.
I'm pretty sure we were talking about an opponent. Anyway, looking at the ATR, I see what they say for striking, and assume the same logic could be extended to this case (be it tripping or whatever), as long as the defender was on the FOP and reaching off the FOP to "foul" the attacker.
Nice logic but something bothers me. Law 12 starts out by stating: "Fouls and misconduct are penalized as follows:" It then lists all direct and indirect free kick offenses. You can have a misconduct, a foul, or misconduct and foul with these offenses. The misconduct also does not need to be sanctioned by a caution or send off at all. It can still be a misconduct. If you do not show a yellow card and caution this player you have not stopped play to caution or send off a player. So, decide now.
in all the examples of a misconduct where one player is off the field of play and other misconducts off the field of play, it seems that a caution is always given. i infer from these examples that when an action that otherwise would be a foul, if on the field, is committed off the field, we are expected to find it a cautionable offence. kind of like you can trip someone on the field and not be cautioned, but if you trip them while they are off the field, bang - yc. the atr and q&a's seem to consider this a move from "careless" to "reckless." the atr, 12.25, restarts for misconduct - if play is stopped solely to deal with misconduct committed by a player on the field, the proper restart is an ifk taken from the location of the misconduct ... in our casestudy, the players were one on and one off the field of play. i think the result would be different if both had left the field of play. we still have players. we still do not have a foul as it was not on the field. we still have an action that should be punished by a misconduct call. but now, we have a situation closer to misconduct by a sub or bench personnel, which would call for a dropped ball restart.
I think this debate has become far too technical and philisophical (that being said, I do stick by my assertion--backed by USSF and Jim Allen--that an IFK is the technically correct decision). Anyway, if a situation like this ever occurs, the "foul" is likely to be, at most, half a yard off the field of play. Common sense says that--in practice--you give the DFK or PK, and not worry about all the technicalities and mess around with an IFK or dropped ball.
Ahh! You said what I was hoping you would say. Now, Play was stopped for what? A trip or hold or push correct? (there was no mention of whether both players were on or off the field of play, just that one player was a few feet over the goal line) They can not be considered a foul (all agree on this I think) because the action is off the field of play. Play was stopped because of the trip, hold, or push. Those are listed in Law 12. Law 12, however does not deal with restarts for misconduct off the field of play. So it isn't that the player committed "any other offense not previously mentioned in Law 12 for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player" as referred to by JA because the reason is mentioned. It becomes misconduct only because it occurred off the field of play. Play was not necessarily stopped to deal with the misconduct either. So, even if a caution is given we need to refer to Law 8 for the correct restart. And, since play was stopped for a reason not mentioned elsewhere in the Laws (nothing is mentioned about stopping play to deal with an offense that occurs while the ball is in play but the offense happens off the field of play) the restart should be a dropped ball. This is what I believe FIFA is thinking. If the player committing the offense is still on the field of play when the misconduct occurs then it will still be a foul and the restart according to the infringement and caution if needed. If both players are off the field of play when the misconduct is committed it should be a dropped ball restart per Law 8.
I would have to disagree with you on this, based on ATR 12.6b. In this case, the act was initiated ON the field of play but contact was made OFF the field of play. The proper call is yellow or red for misconduct since contact was OFF field of play, but restart is an IFK from where misconduct was initiated. I see where Jim Allen is coming from, saying that any misconduct that initiates ON the field of play must be restarted with an IFK. If the point of contact occurs on the field of play, that's where the IFK is taken. If the point of contact occurs off the field of play, the point of initiation becomes the spot for the IFK.
Did you read my post? I said that a player on the field of play committing the misconduct. Sounds like that's where the foul was "initiated" to me. And yes, if it was striking the "call" would be a send off. Wouldn't matter where the foul "initiated" from. What we have been discussing is the proper restart. Yes, if the player who committed the foul was on the field of play even though contact was made off the field of play, the restart would be an indirect free kick. But, the incident discussed stated neither that both players were on the field of play, both players were off the field of play, or just one player was off the field of play. this changes the answers for a restart depending on where these players were. Both off- dropped ball player committing the misconduct on- indirect free kick player committing the foul off while opponent is on- direct free kick