+1 The sub committed an offense against an opponent for which an IFK is awarded. The LOTG specificaly permit DOGSO to be applied to a substitute. (See also ATR reference to DOGSO by USB for hanging from the goal to block a shot -- USB can be the predicate for DOGSO.) Sure, you can drag yourself down the VC path, but unless it's vicious I'd probably keep it simple with DOGSO. (Uh, oh, the difference between a sub entering and kicking the ball away (yellow) and handling to prevent the goal (red) was from the old Q&A, wasn't it? Can we just have a friendly refernce to thatdebate on how to handle the old Q&A and not beat it to death again?)
Yeah, I've always wondered about that. I acknowledge that per Law 12 a sub/sub player can be sent off for SFP, but how do we get around the S-FOUL-P? Are we saying a substitute can commit a foul? We are dorks for even debating this and I will now apologize for dragging this out much further than it needed to be. Enter dead horse from stage right.
It's a matter of semantics, serious foul play does not mean a foul per law 2. Just like in the sentence, "the policy suspects foul play". A substitute can only commit misconduct still being guilty of serious foul play. Got it? I didn't either . Gotta love FIFA's writting style.
So can I decide to call the send off SFP when a player kicks another player prior to a corner kick being taken? I mean, I know its not a "foul" but... Do you see where I'm going here? I know it's semantics, but the distinction between VC and SFP is important in other situations and I don't know why it's not important here. Damn semantics!
ATR is pretty clear that SFP is only for players, while VC is for players or substitutes. It can't be SFP with a sub because it can't be a foul, because fouls happen between players.
From FIFA's LOTG: A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: • serious foul play • violent conduct • 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 A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.
NHREF, thank you! if anyone looks at the powerpoints that USSF has for sfp, it can only be a player that can commit SFP, not a sub! If a ref writes it up as SFP, the card may be thrown out for incorrect terminology. it has happened before to referees!
I teach clinics and the biggest thing we tell the refs is foul has to be a player who is currently one of the 22. We even have on the slide I am not trying to insult anybody. Think about it this way, you pull someoever for loitering and write a ticket for speeding- the cop's ticket will not stand up in court Illinois Ref, I see where you are coming from. The way they have it written, it is very confusing. It should be rewritten and made more clear. Contact US soccer - or paul rojas or rich grady and ask them
Per ATR 12.33 This does not include serious misconduct by substitutes, who should be punished for violent conduct ifthey commit an act as described in the first paragraph of this section. (See 12.34.) As such you cannot give a sub or substituted player a red card for SFP despite the grammatical oversight stated earlier in this section because it is specifically stated as such. So VC or bust.
Thank you jesus. I knew it was in the atr. I just couldn't get around to looking at it. Hopefully that puts this to rest!
I respectfully disagree. First the LOTG trumps anything on US soccer's ATR. Second, it states very clearly on the LOTG that a substitute can be guilty of SFP. Third, I hols the believe that serious foul play does not mean a serious foul. As I know only players on the field can commit a foul. A substitute is guilty of misconduct. To corroborate what I'm saying I went to read the LOTG in portuguêse which is a language I'm fluent. The term serious foul play translate to jogo brusco grave. Translated literally it would mean: grave = severe, serious, grave, brusco = brusque, blunt,. No reference to foul which in portuguese means falta. So from reading the laws in portuguese I'd translate serious foul play to a severe blunt act. I think we get too caught up on the word foul in serious foul play meaning it means the same as a foul described in law 12. MY 2 cents. jogador substituído será expulso e receberá o cartão vermelho se cometer uma das seguintes sete infrações: 1. for culpado de jogo brusco grave 2. for culpado de conduta violenta 3. cuspir em um adversário ou em qualquer outra pessoa
I'm off today with nothing better to do. I'm not trying to win the argment at all costs but... In Spanish: Un jugador (titular, sustituto o sustituido) podrá ser expulsado si comete alguna de las siguientes infracciones: Ser culpable de juego brusco grave. Ser culpable de conducta violenta. Escupir a un adversario o a cualquier otra persona. Impedir con mano intencionada un gol o malograr una oportunidad manifiesta de gol (esto no vale para el guardameta dentro de su propia área penal). Malograr la oportunidad manifiesta de gol de un adversario que se dirige hacia la meta del jugador mediante una infracción sancionable con tiro libre o penal. Emplea lenguaje o gesticula de manera ofensiva, grosera, obscena o insultante). Recibir una segunda amonestación en el mismo partido. Again the word for foul (falta) does not appear anywhere.
Fair enough but I will respectfully disagree with you there as well. The laws were originally written in English so Serious Foul Play is the actual term. ( I am being a bit snarky here and I apologize) Though I will concede we get too caught up in the word foul, but it is a useful tool when teaching the American philosophy on soccer to new refs. So as such in the US you cannot card a sub for SFP. Back to the heart of the matter though. Second point is if you go to the FIFA Laws of the Game and go to the description of SFP you will find this: [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]serious foul play.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmpOOEnc][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmpOOEnc][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmpOOEnc](see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmpOOEnc][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmpOOEnc] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmpOOEnc]inside the offender’s penalty area).[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT] So there is no mention at all of substitutes or substituted players. Also it says the restart for SFP is a DFK which in the case mentioned by the OP is not the restart. Further if you go to VC in the FIFA Laws of the Game you find this: [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]a team-mate, spectator, match of[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R6C4B.tmp][FONT=Z@R6C4B.tmp][FONT=Z@R6C4B.tmp]Þ[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]cial or any other person.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]Violent conduct may occur either on the [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R6C4B.tmp][FONT=Z@R6C4B.tmp][FONT=Z@R6C4B.tmp]Þ[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]eld of play or outside its boundaries,[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]whether the ball is in play or not.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation,[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]be sent off.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]So while most of the passage uses the word player, VC does specifically mention subs and substituted players while SFP does not. Further VC does not make mention of the restart as it could be IFK or DFK.[/FONT] [FONT=Z@R69B1.tmp]This is my argument for why it cannot be SFP despite what the section of send-offs says.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Correct. They way I see is that they do not have the authority to overule something that it's explicit in the LOTG. They can however "advise" their referees on how too apply such laws.
Do not ever, ever, and i repeat ever write serious foul play as the reason why you sent off a sub. Please please accept what nhref and what the otehr gentleman says as what is supposed to happen i hate the use of the word should. It should say at all costs, do not write down serious foul play i would hate for you to write down serious foul play and then see your red card overturned by the admin people and see that player get no suspensions
To nit pick, it is from the Interpretations & Guidlines, not form the LOTG. Nonethless, you're making a key point. The LOTG don't define SFP, and the full explanation of SFP in the I&G is: So while the LOTG simply list players and substitutes together for all of the 7 send off offenses, I agree that the I&G definition doesn't make any sense as applied to substitutes. The red portion seems to indicate that IFAB does think that ther has to be a foul for there to be SFP. So I think harshing on the ATR by some is a bit unreasonable.
I was quoting the FIFA Laws of the Game not the USSF Laws of the game. There is a huge difference. About 200 pages difference. The USSF Interpretations are very similar to the FIFA Laws of the Game. I concede that you may be able to technically write down SFP as some have stated but you will also be opening yourself up to your decision being overturned as it is not the standard operating procedure to write things up that way.
Sorry, I'm going nit pick again. There is no difference whatsoever in the LOTG. In addition to the LOTG, FIFA publishes the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees ("I&G"), which is generally published in the same book as the LOTG. USFF does not include the I&G in the booklet it generally distributes, as the ATR works to incorporate the I&G. (AYSO does include the I&G in the hard copy it distributes.) USSF does makes the I&G available on its websites in one of the places it provides an electronic version of the LOTG, and it also references the I&G in the begnining of the ATR. (Nonetheless, I completley agree with you that the I&G (not the LOTG, which completely fails to define SFP), supports the interpretation that SFP doesn't really work with respect to a substitute and would not be the best solution to this dilema.)
Ah I see what you mean now. I was just clarifying that I was not quoting the USSF 'pamphlet' they put out titled Laws of the Game. Rather than the true Laws of the Game.
I found this from Jim Allen's Ask a Soccer Referee site: (see highlight) MAY A SUBSTITUTE/SUBSTITUTED PLAYER BE DISMISSED FOR DENYING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY? February 23, 2007 Question: situation 1: an attacker was moving toward the goal with the ball. the goalkeeper was way out of his goal area and a defender tripped and fell, leaving the goal open to the attacker. a substitute who was warming up near the goal ran on to the field without my permission and tripped the attacker who was getting ready to shoot on goal as the defender tripped and fell. i didn’t know what to do, so i cautioned the substitute and gave the goalkeeper’s team an indirect free kick.what should i have done? i know the 2006 Law says we can send off substitutes or substituted players for all 7 of the reasons listed in Law 12, but i am not sure. some referees said i did it right, but others say i should have sent him off. can we really send off substitutes who enter the field illegally and prevent goals? a second question: what should i do if the substitute or substituted player enters the field without my permission and then simply kicks the ball away, rather than tripping the opponent or committing any other foul? USSF answer (February 23, 2007): 1. The 2006 changes in Law 3 and Law 12 regarding substitutes or substituted players who illegally enter the field were dealt with in the 2006 edition of the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” (see, for example, the many rewritten entries under Law 3). Unfortunately, the 2006 edition of the Advice does not cover the question about whether a substitute who has entered the field illegally can be sent off if, while on the field and before play is stopped for the illegal entry, he or she handles the ball to prevent a goal or commits any other action which, in the opinion of the referee, interferes with an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The answer is yes: A substitute or substituted player can be sent off and shown the red card for any action which, if it had been committed by a player, would have resulted in the player being sent off for either the 4th or the 5th send-off reason listed in Law 12. Just as with players, all elements of the decision to send someone off for either of these reasons are governed by Section D of Law 12 in Advice to Referees and apply to substitutes and substituted players as well as to players. 2. In this second question, the solution for simply kicking the ball by the “invading” substitute or substituted player would be two cautions followed by the send-off for the second caution: one caution for unsporting behavior for entering the field without permission and the second for unsporting behavior for kicking the ball away from the opponent. You would then restart the match with an indirect free kick where the ball was when the substitute illegally entered the field (the first misconduct).
IMO people makes way to much of the perceived difference between the I&G and the Laws. It seems to me that while the IFAB do make a distinction between the Laws and the I&G they are both considered to be of equal importance and they are both a part of the "laws of the game".