Ah, how soon we forget. It was only 2006 when the last edition of Q&A came out. There we find, under Law 3:
2006 was before my time, but this makes no sense to me. Why would it make any difference how he prevented the ball from entering the goal? He has no business even being on the pitch, much less touching the ball with any body part.
The argument is that stopping the ball with his foot is not "an offence punishable by a free kick." In that instance, the only offence he committed is entering the field without permission, which is technically unsporting behavior for a substitute. Hence, only the yellow card. However, there is an explicit carve-out for deliberate handling DOGSO that includes substitutes. So you can give the straight red card within the Laws. Now, that's the "book" answer. But the Laws are easily stretchable to make sure you get a red card even if the goal isn't prevented with a hand. I'm sure there's another type of misconduct that can be found in an incident like this. I'm also sure no one--including the culprit himself--is going to expect the player to stick around after performing such an act. The Laws aren't stretchable enough to invent a new restart, however. That's a bridge too far.
I understand his confusion, but you are, of course, right. The ATR doesn't say a substitute can be guilty of a foul. It says that he can be guilty of DGH because he deliberately handled. It's a fine distinction, but it only says he's guilty of misconduct because of the act he commits. It doesn't say the act, in itself, is a foul. Sure, it's a foul if a player commits it. And it gets confusing because it's the exact same term we use for a foul by a player. But there's nothing in that clause that trumps all our other instructions, which is that only players can commit fouls. Also, campbed's ire at the ATR--in this case--is misplaced. As the FIFA Q&A that Gary V cites essentially says the same thing. Instruction here is somewhat confusing, but it's consistent.
I'm not quite following you. The Laws say that if a substitute enters the field of play without permission the referee must stop play, although not immediately if the player in question does not interfere with play. It also says that if the referee stops play it must be restarted with an indirect free kick. So why would it not be true that the act of touching of the ball is an IFK offense? And all send-off offences apply to substitutes, (except for serious foul play, which you have to rule out be inference.) So why is it not clear that this is a send-off and an IFK?
You're probably asking the wrong guy because I'm someone who is least likely to defend what the instructions are, because I say you find a way to send him off no matter what. But, to do my best at explaining the "logic"... Kicking the ball is not "an act punishable by a free kick." It wouldn't be illegal--neither a foul, nor misconduct--for a player on the field to do it. So the IFAB, FIFA and USSF reason that it's not an act that can rise to the level of DGF for a substitute since you wouldn't punish a player for DGF if he did the same thing. You can only punish for entering without permission, which is, by its nature, a yellow card for unsporting behavior. The fact that the entering also coincides with the kick to stop the ball from entering the ball is irrelevant insofar as our letter-of-the-law instructions go. You're right that all send off offences apply to substitutes (with the exception of SFP, which would create a paradox). But the application of DGF to substitutes is apparently narrowed by the IFAB to only encompass misconduct that would also cause a player to see red for DGF. Again, I say you send the substitute off no matter what, and I think you can easily find justification in almost any circumstance. But it's technically not what FIFA and USSF tells us we're supposed to do.
I appreciate the response. If you can give me any sources for IFAB instruction that supports what you are saying, I would be interested in looking at that (I have no interest in what USSF has to say about these things).
Gary's post above is from the 2006 FIFA Q&A document. I don't want to misspeak here, but I'm certain it had the force of Law worldwide and I'm fairly certain it still does, aside from any places where it's obviously been trumped by Law amendments since 2006. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Available here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...GW14EQ&usg=AFQjCNE-ofeVT4quXLu5xZl3duGBHuRrjA Page 10 of the document (page 6 of the .pdf).
I see what you're saying. I guess short of me actually being wrong I was using a socratic method to see if they could come to the answer on their own. I do see the confusion though.
Fine. I hereby expand the scope of my ire to include the old FIFA Q&A guidance. (off topic, but one wonders if this Q&A is still in force given it is no longer available/reachable on fifa.com. More than a couple referees with a 2007 or greater pedigree have popped up since then) And it is only ire. Send off is the right thing to do. I just don't like how we get there. Handling is a foul. If USSF doesn't want substitutes to be able to commit fouls, then use a different word. (If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, and especially LOOKS like a duck, etc. etc.) I kinda like this word ire now. Cuz I'm getting old and crotchety.
I don't see the problem. Entering without permission is USB. So is intentionally interfering with play. So you could, if you liked, give two cautions and a red. But you don't have to because here the interference is also conduct punishable with a free kick which denies an OGSO, so it's a straight sendoff. Oh, but that's only players. OK, I see the problem.
True. But there are more than a few official instructions that have never been rescinded which are not readily available online either. I'm thinking of both FIFA circulars (try finding one of those without knowing which number you're looking for!) and USSF memorandums. When instructions get overridden vs. when they stay in force vs. when they sort of just get "forgotten" is an interesting question. With the FIFA Q&A, though, which was disseminated worldwide as an authoritative document, I'm pretty sure it remains in force except for the obvious instances where law amendments have altered the answers. This issue is bugging me a little bit now. Does anyone recall if the Q&A was formally abandoned and rolled into the I&G? Meaning, will we never see a Q&A again? Or is it just along time between updates?
Help me with this. I'm seeing a disconnect within the LOTG itself. LOTG says: So, plainly, DOGSO-F can be applied to a substitute, if he commits an offense punishable by a FK and thereby denies an OGSO. But what is such an offense in the case of a sub? All of the free kick offenses are defined exclusively with reference to players. Well, there's entering without permission of course. But is that it? I'm confused. I guess I'm not terribly troubled with concluding here that entering without permission was itself the offense that resulted in denial of the OGSO. That's certainly in the Spirit, and maybe in a convoluted way, in the letter. But which way is it less likely to be deemed protestable? Straight red, or two cautions?
If he tripped an opponent, for example, that would count. Essentially, it would have to be an act that a player could also be punished for. Of course, when a player does it, it's a foul. When the substitute does it, it's just misconduct. FIFA is excluding any act that would not be an offence for a player from qualifying as DOGSO for a substitute. Despite the fact that it makes it seem like we are punishing "fouls" for substitutes, there actually is some logic to it. It does, however, make things unnecessarily complicated, particularly because I've yet to encounter a referee who would only give a yellow for this, despite the instructions. Everyone agrees that you find a way to give the red, as you already reasoned out above.
I edited while you were posting. See my last question, re which way gives the least opportunity for a successful protest.
At anything below the international level or something directly controlled by a federation (like USSF), I don't think the competition authority would even know enough to look at all these documents. For example, do you think the "Protest Committee" of your local youth or amateur league even knows the FIFA Q&A exists? I also doubt a protest committee would care that a substitute got dismissed, but I guess it's not totally out of the realm of possibility. Regardless, I think you're fine with either option at any level in the US below a National Cup competition. If you were truly concerned about a protest, however, I think you go the two caution route solely because the act itself, as described in the Q&A, is explicitly listed as a caution. Maybe it's the two cautions you listed. Maybe it's caution and some sort of visual dissent. Maybe he bumps an opponent and it's the first caution plus game disrepute. There are plenty of ways to get there.
I don't think any committee is going to agree with a protest where a team argues, "The referee gave our player two cautions instead of a straight send-off. The match should be replayed." The end result is the same in their eyes.
I think the word you are looking for is curmudgeon Maybe I'm just parsing words, but Law 12 does not actually say "foul" under DOGSO-F. The actual word used is "offense" resulting in a free kick (including IFK) or a penalty kick. I know what the instructions say, but using just the wording and a little Law 18 1/2, since the "offense" of entering the field without permission results in an IFK, shouldn't that be enough?
The referee has to stay out of this one. If I'm coaching, however, and a knucklehead on my team pulled a stunt like that, we would concede the goal.
A few notes. The Q&A was the predecessor to the I&G and was an annual publication that no longer exists. (It's predecessor was the decisions of the inernational board, which were published in a side-by-side with the Laws, back when they used Roman numerals, but I'm dating myself . . . .) I think the general consensus is that the Q&A remain valid as IFAB's interepretation of the LOTG unless (1) there has either been a change to the Law since they were published or (2) there is something contradictory in the I&G. Neither applies here ,which would clearly explain why USSF takes that position -- they are following the teaching from IFAB, which is exactly what they should be doing. As for why IFAB only gets to a caution and not a sendoff, I think the answer is that they view the entry and involvement in play as a single instance of USB not as two separate incidents of USB. So if you go the double caution route on a kicked ball, what is the appeal panel supposed to do when the GK appeals the send-off and points to the ATR (which is the controlling interpretation in the U.S.) supported by the old Q&A? Were this to happen on my field, I think I'd take my chances with that one and issue two cautions for USB [or perhaps pause to give a chance for a glimmer of dissent to get me to my other perfectly unappealable second yellow...]. (And if I were on the disciplinary panel, I would probably vote to rescind the red and to impose at least a two game suspension for willful behaviour determintal to the game [or whatever box the panel needed to use to issue discretionary suspensions].)
Ok I'm happy to be set straight that I should be working under FIFA Q&A. Given that, I think this can only be true if it exists and is accessible. So.... where is it. On fifa.com. Where any referee can find and get it. Else, it is an interesting historical document that shows us how we arrived at the current LOTG and I&G.
The rationale for the continued valdity of the interpretation is that it was written by those that wrote the Laws to explain what they meant. And the Laws (on this issue) haven't changed -- so they still mean the same thing they did in 2006 when IFAB wrote this. They haven't continued to publish the explanation of what to do in this shockingly unusual event -- that doesn't mean what they explained before is wrong. I got nothing else on this But for those of us in the U.S. (at least as to this paritcular A from the Q&A), it is really nothing more than a theoretical issues, as the ATR remains the binding interpretation in the U.S., and this A is incorporated into the ATR . . . that said, and even as an advocate of the ATR who really dislikes refs making stuff up, I'm certainly looking for a second yellow here . . .
The 2010 ATR said that the "other sources" of information included: "the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, which replace the former Questions and Answers..." So, in a way you are right. Still, I wouldn't dismiss the Q&A too readily. It got published in 2006 with the force of Law. As socal lurker says (and the ATR made clear), most of the document was rolled into the current I&G. But do you really think that FIFA suddenly abandoned all the answers and they think they aren't true now? All of the answers in that document are, in some way, part of our instructions still (either in the I&G, the ATR, memorandums or just plain clinic instruction).
Yep. I'm with you. My point is we are not some mid-evil guild secret society where only certain people have access to the sacred texts. If the common referee does not have access to "it" whatever "it" is, then it is not in effect. Full stop. (I miss the ATR...)