Which is why the ATR was produced in the first place. So much was lost when the Laws went through the "Great Condensation" of 1996. IFAB thought it wasn't necessary because "everyone knows" - but USSF saw just how many referees were being produced each subsequent year who didn't know.
What is assumed, if it doesn't outright say so, is that the sub will still be getting the caution - for entering the field. The IFK is for if you stop play for the sub entering. It's like the restart for handling (by a player) is a DFK - but only if you stop play for it. Apply advantage, and the next restart might be a DFK for something else, or a throw-in, a goal kick, a kickoff - depends on what happens later. Because the sub didn't commit one of the 7 sending off offenses. Playing the ball, even by an ineligible person, is not an offense. However, if you search Jim Allen's archives from the time when his site was official policy, you will find a lengthy argument on how you can interpret playing the ball as unsporting behavior. It feels right that the sub should be sent off; you just have to do it by using 2 cautions not a direct send-off.
Thanks, Gary. I used to be a huge asktheref reader. I have dozens of questions and answers saved in a spreadsheet and indexed by topic. You guys helped me tremendously when I first got started. I could quibble with a few of your comments above, but there's no point to that. The end result of all this is that the substitute gets sent off, which you could use common sense to figure out, and which you can support by creatively interpret Law 12 in a slightly different way from Jim Allen. Who's to say which is the right way?
At the risk of reopening the issue, I would note that JA posted an answer yesterday (on a wholly different topic) that references the International Board Decisions (which preceded the Q&A) as "an interpretation of the Law that remains valid guidance." http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=3741
Although I haven't read JA's post about the issue, I think that to get to the red for the sub, you have a yellow for entering (technically UB) and once the sub prevents the goal with his foot, he had brought the game into disrepute (UB). 2 yellows = red. Problem solved.
Was this discussed in the ATR with the same specificity as the Q&A? I just looked and couldn't find it. It was mentioned above that the I&G "replaced" the Q&A, so if this happened without being mentioned in the ATR I would feel free to award DOGSO-F. But if the Q&A language was incorporated in the ATF, my default would be yellow. I'm all for making stuff up in grey areas, but not when the ATR envisions the exact scenario in the OP.
While I was 100% sure this particular Q&A was directly captured in the ATR, I appear to have been 100% incorrect as I can't find it clearly set out there either (though one can argue from inference, it is certainly not as black and white as the Q&A ). (Cue reprise of discussion about whether one can be sure and incorrect. . . ) That said, it has been the consistant view from USSF that the Q&A remain valid in the absence of a change in the law. E.g., a pair of official USSF answers on JA's site in 2o11: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=3127; http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=3091. In the latter of these came the explanation: The following rules appear in the International Football Association Board’s “Questions and Answers 2006,” the last year in which the Q&A were published. As they have not been restated in the Laws of the Game in any other way, they continue to be valid. I remain of the view that the technically correct answer is that only a caution should be issued. But I also remain of the view that the cretin who tries this move in one of my games gets to make that argument to the discipline commitee after he sees the red, and see if the committee is going to overturn it based on the Q&A. (And if I were on the disciplinary committee with jurisdiction on such an appeal, my ruling would be (1) overturning the red as unwarranted, (2) rejecting any appeal of the result as overly speculative in that it invovled the send off of a substitute, and (3) imposing a multi-game suspension for the grossly unsporting conduct that undercut the integrity of the game. Which all amounts to about the same thing as upholding the red card in the first place.)
I understand that it's complicated by tradition, accepted practice, the old Q&A, and various other published guidance, but I think the Laws themselves are actually pretty clear on this point. DOGSO-F applies to misconduct. A goalkeeper could be sent off for DOGSO-F on a second-touch offense if he played the ball with his foot or hand following his own goal kick or free kick. He could be sent off for DOGSO-F if he denied a goal through dangerous play or by hanging from the crossbar or by throwing his shoe at the ball. The sending-off offenses apply to substitute players. If a substitute runs onto the pitch to stop the ball as it is about to enter the goal, that's DOGSO-F. If a substitute, without ever entering the pitch, reaches his foot through the side of the net to prevent a slow-moving ball from fully crossing the goal line, that's DOGSO-F. If he grabs a leaf blower from the groundskeeper and uses it to deflect the ball away from the goal, well, that's DOGSO-F too. The only wrinkle is that in all these cases, DOGSO-F requires an opponent moving toward the goal. If the ball is headed into an empty net, and the attackers are just standing still watching, I think the cretin with the leaf blower gets off with a caution. If he steps onto the field and then uses the leaf blower, that's two cautions. - QC
This I don't agree with. Regardless of DOGSO-F or H you can't score on yourself on any free kick so this would not be a DOGSO.
Ah, but what if everyone except a lone attacker had moved far upfield expecting a long goal kick, and then the keeper mis-kicked the ball such that it stopped just outside the 18? The only two people in the half are the attacker and the keeper -- sounds like an obvious scoring opportunity. However, the keeper is ineligible to touch the ball. If he kicks it away just as the attacker rushes in, wouldn't that be second-touch DOGSO-F? - QC
The Laws are very clear so a substitute denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is sent off. No option for caution or second caution. The direction comes from the Laws of the Game Law 12: Sending-off offences A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: serious foul play violentconduct spitting at an opponent or any other person denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures receiving a second caution in the same match FIFA in fact, more purely describes what the DOGSO criteria is and does not require that all are met. Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: the distance between the offence and the goal the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball the direction of the play the location and number of defenders the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offense that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick All this discussion does not change the facts that the Laws are clear and until FIFA and the IFB make a change, which no association has ever requested, the sub is sent off and the restart is an indirect free kick where the ball was when play was stopped if stopped to solely deal with the misconduct. But since the misconduct prevents a goal the ball is spotted where the misconduct occurred in the situation.
No that would be a IDFK Handling offence and as per the LotG the keeper is immune from misconduct on Handling offences.
Err, you need to re-read the scenario . . . the GK didn't use his hands, he took a GK and then kicked the ball away from the onrushing attacker.
While I would be happy to follow this logic, it was IFAB who said that a substitute kicking the ball away did not constitute DOGSO. (Perhaps because there is "no opponent moving toward the goal"? Perhaps b/c they consider the enry onto the field the USB, and the entry itself didn't cause the denial but the otherwise-legitimate-act of kicking the ball did? I dunno why, but the Q&A really couldn't have been more clear.) Given what IFAB said Law 12 meant on this subject the only time it addressed it, I have trouble agreeing that Law 12 is completely clear and that IFAB didn't knwo how to interpret its own Law. I'd love to see the I&G repudiate that, but it hasn't. And USSF says the Q&A remains valid in the absence of an update to the Laws or a contrary indication in the I&G -- which there isn't. (I'm not aware of anythign IFAB has said one way or another on the Q&A -- does anyone know if that is just a USSF interpretation of the role of the Q&A or something that they got from IFAB.) But I completely agree that it should be a red, and as I said before, I'm going to give it and worry about the details afterwards. I just don't think we can say there is a clear answer in the Laws or any guidance that supports that result. And with that, I think I need to withdraw, as I've said everything I have to say and will only be repeating myself. (Not that that always stops me . . . )
That discussion has been brought up before. I see what you're saying but I was speaking about the second kick or handling being in a vacuum. Even with your scenario I am going to be absolutely positive that the outcome of the play would have been the opponent having a GSO before I am even going to consider giving a red on a play where technically the ball can't be scored unless it is touched again.
Am I misunderstanding? IF it was a goal kick and it did not leave the area, the ball was never put into play properly and must be retaken. Therefore it would not matter if there was a lone attacker or whether the keeper picked up the ball with his hands. Did I miss something?
Lawyer hat on. Well, seeing how the scab as been pulled off this thread and it is active again... I know I'm pointing at windmills here, but I'm weak and cannot resist. If JA or anyone else refers to a section of the USSF ATR that is still in effect or not overridden by the I&G... -or- If anyone refers to a section of the USSF Q&A that is still in effect or not overridden by the I&G... -then- 1. The I&G is here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2012_e.pdf 2. The IFAB Q&A is here: see here is the problem for any post-2006 referee, WHERE IS IT on Fifa.com? 3. The USSF ATR is here: see here is the problem, WHERE IS IT on ussoccer.com? Simple. If a referee can't find the Q&A or ATR from ussoccer.com or fifa.com, how can certain bits of them still be in force? Back to being a guild where some know the secret password, and some don't. Lawyer hat off.
fixed it The ATR is in the dowloads section of the USSF website. Last I heard, they are working to bring back the print version, too. . . . funny how laws (and LOTG) existed long before the internet when no one could find them on a website . . . and in any event anyone who wants to now can in fact easily find the Q&A courtesy of Mssrs. Google, Yahoo, or Bing . . . but I believe part of the purpose of the ATR was in fact to capture those things that were not readily available outside the guild and share them with everyone . . .
I'm just a dummy. I didn't look in the books section. As Homer would say, Doh! ussoccer.com / referees / laws of the game / resource center / downloads /books / atr https://ussoccer.box.com/s/8d484a9971e51831618b/1/348010025 FIFA should do the same....
I think the "improvements" to the USSF site have made it less intuitive and harder to find anything. Well, they didn't catch everything (and IMHO they botched a couple of things in the process, too) - but it sure beats not having it.