I know the passage you are referring to. That section contradicts itself. There is a chart saying subs cannot commit a foul and the restart is an IFK in the chart. It then notes the foul should be punished if committed and references a paragraph which says that subs can NOT commit a foul, only misconduct. I fall back to the three reqs for a foul in this case.
This is why the referee makes a full report of the incident. From that point, it is up to the competition authority to determine what penalties--forfeiture, extra suspension, etc.--will be given the offending team.
Is the problem that Mr Riley is suggesting to restart with an IDK? Excuse me guys, I Don't Know what we're restarting with
yeah that would definitely be a problem here. my issue is that the team victimized is being robbed in broad daylight and nothing under the rules will allow them to eithre play a man up or get the goal. serioulsy this will keep me up at night with the injustice!!! can any of you learned ones out there think of a gray area of sorts that could be exploited so that all can be right with the world for me again???
damn you Baricur. I read the above as "Well the I Don't Know could be converted by the aggreived team" and was wondering what the hell was Iron81 talking about!!!!
Would it not behoove the referee to at least try to get the defending team to concede the goal to their opponents off the IFK (basically get them to let the attacking team score)?
I agree that the punishment doled out (red for the sub, IFK for a restart) doesn't make the offended team "whole" - (but generally, punishment doesn't do that and isn't designed to do that) - I think the referee would put himself in a very weak ethical position by attempting to get the defending team to let one in. If they come up with that on their own, fine - but don't try to help the cause.
So which player gets removed from the field of play? How do you tell another player he can't play because his teammate was an ass?
We all see the problem. But it's the responsibility of a competition authority to rectify the situation, if it feels it should and desires to do so. There's only so much a referee can do and this is one of those situations where his hands are totally tied. You may not like the lack of justice here, but you also don't want referees totally making up the Laws, either.
the same way you tell the victimized team, no goal. i am giving him a red but you are still playing 11 on 11. AND you get and IDK in the box where everyone on the defense can come back and clog the area. tough! PS I dont really think the ref can do that but as i tried to imply in my earlir post it would have been nice if he could find a way to stick it to the offending team the probelm i was refferring to was not the impact on this game that is happened. but rather what would stop a coach from employing that as a tactic in another game? the punishment does not fit the crime.... (someone mentioned about the compettion authority handling it after ref puts it in match report)
PS this for me is not a debate as in check Law this or that and you can make the victimized team whole. it is more this sucks and it would be nice if the offending team was made to pay through the nose...........
J'can - agreed it sucks and it would be nice if there were a legit way to make this come out "right" - but what we got is what we go - and so what they get is what they get.
I think what JCan is going for is, "What would be the best way to make something up to make them whole, Laws be damned?" The answer to that question would be to award a PK. Because no one has seen this situation before, no one is going to complain about a PK unless the offending team's coach is also a reasonably good ref.
I'm not saying that they will go for it (though they might), but I think it is worth trying (within reason, I'd simply make a suggestion to the team and then let it play out).
I don't know. That ball looked over the line to me... In seriousness. Send off the keeper. IDFK at top of goal area. Hope the sub gets suspended for a year. Also, another example for Doug (vetshak) to use for NOT LETTING SUBSTITUTES BE ANYWHERE NEAR THE GOAL!
Ick. I see what he's asking. It would make the whole match protestable and possibly eclipse the original infraction. The last thing I'm going to do is to misapply the laws. There is no way I'm going to reward the offending team by giving them any argument that the match should be replayed in its entirety.
If the teams decide to do that on their own, awesome, but I would be very cautious trying to even suggest anything. Wguynes hits the nail on the head -- this game is going to get a lot of post-game attention, don't do anything that would open the door to a protest. Now, if this is Sunday jungle ball maybe you can try something like that. After you stopped the opposing team from beating the holy hell out of the backup keeper, of course
We had a team that commited a foul in their own penalty area. The (whacko) referee decided that it should be a direct free kick, from roughly 14 yards out, in the center, rather than a penalty kick. He allowed the defenders to have a wall "and everything." Attackers scored anyway. Defending team lost and protested the game because it should have been a penalty kick. They, of course, were right. Technically. State Cup game had to be replayed in its entirety. The teams are located roughly three hours away from each other, each way. Protesting team had to travel, though, and they lost the second time. Please, do not make up laws or interpretations of laws in order to satisfy your sense of justice, even if you feel your sense is better than the IFAB's. You'll only make things worse. Let those above our pay grade sort this out.
Few things get me more upset than *anybody* warming up behind the goals. Substitutes? No brainer. Just say no. The team playing the next game? Yes, I know there's only 10 minutes between game, but I will not let the current game be affected by a stray ball or shout from behind the goal. My stance has softened a bit to allow teams to warm up outside the zone marked by the penalty area lines ("outside the eighteen" for non-refs and TV announcers ) when there is truly no place else for a team to warm-up.
This question came up once before, several years ago, when we were talking about bench personnel entering the field to commit violent conduct and prompt retaliatory violent conduct. In that scenario, the team that initiates the violent conduct gets an 11 v 10 advantage, which everyone agrees is unfair. There was a suggestion that coaches could employ this as a tactic and that the Law needed to be changed to account for this. My response is to ask if we have seen a rash of violent conduct from bench personnel? Or, in this case, where has the wave of substitute goalkeepers committing DOGSO been? The basic principles surrounding these type of situations have been the same in the Laws for over a century. Are there loopholes that can produce some unsavory situations? Yes. But we've gone decades without coaches or teams trying to deliberately exploit them. I really wouldn't worry about it too much.
If you look at in a single match perspective, then yes, it would be unfair, but on the whole, I'd imagine there would be lengthy bans for the personnel and in the long run it'd make it completely not worth it. That's why I imagine we've not seen stuff like that.