Just looking for quick interpretation

[o5iiawah]

In my League final match this past weekend another ticky-tack situation happened but im wondering if my CR handled it right. Seems like its straight out of a Grade 7 quiz...

Black defender clears the ball down the touchline and it goes out of play at the halfway line...or does it? Black sub is standing there with the toe of his boot and inch from the line waiting to go on..it bounces off his foot and dies on the line. White defender picks up the ball to throw in and the CR calls handball and a FK to black.

how should we have called this?

1. Caution sub for USB, FK to black for handball
2. outside agent, Dropped ball, since the interfering agent was off the field of play
3. allow white to throw in.

[PVancouver]

It should be an IFK to white for interference with play by the black substitute.

A caution to black would be in order if the interference was considered deliberate. In a high level league I would expect a caution would be given regardless.

Did the AR or linesman signal? Did the CR see the contact with the sub's toe?

[ColumbusSoccerRef]

In my League final match this past weekend another ticky-tack situation happened but im wondering if my CR handled it right. Seems like its straight out of a Grade 7 quiz...

Black defender clears the ball down the touchline and it goes out of play at the halfway line...or does it? Black sub is standing there with the toe of his boot and inch from the line waiting to go on..it bounces off his foot and dies on the line. White defender picks up the ball to throw in and the CR calls handball and a FK to black.

how should we have called this?

1. Caution sub for USB, FK to black for handball
2. outside agent, Dropped ball, since the interfering agent was off the field of play
3. allow white to throw in.
Let's start in a different order than you have.

#3 is not possible since the whole ball did not cross the line. So a throw-in cannot be the correct restart.

#2 - I don't believe to be possible since the ball did not hit an outside agent, it hit a substitute.

#1 - is possible, but how you handle it will depend on the behavior of the substitute. You could, theoretically, caution the substitute for entering without permission. If the substitute intentionally brought his foot forward as to play the ball, then perhaps a caution for USB.

But. . .from what you described, I don't think a caution is in order for the substitute as it sounds like he was simply standing there. Assuming that is indeed the case, the blame for the whole incident should go to the referee team - especially AR1 (assuming no 4th) - for not keeping the substitutes off the field of play. If the substitute was standing on the touch line, then there's absolutely no way that AR1 could view the entire touch line - an important part of his responsibilities. As AR1, I am as nice as possible but make sure substitutes and all other bench personnel are at least 1-2 yards back off the touch line. Do it early and consistently, and the problem generally goes away fairly quickly. Sometimes, you may need to ask the coach for help in managing his players. This is why it's important to manage the technical area at every match - not just high-level stuff. What you referred to as a "ticky-tack situation" I would refer to as an "Oh Scheiss" moment. And one that I feel should have been prevented by the referee team.

-- CSR

[vabeacher]

I would go with option 3, consider it trifling and assume that the ball would have gone out of play. I've had these situations happen with parents, substitutes and even coaches; and I've always gone with option 3. Only if it happens with an active player, will I whistle for handling and award the free kick, even when I get the "Come on Ref, it was obviously going out" response.

If you feel the sub on the sideline was doing it intentionally to keep the ball in play, feel free to caution him. I would probably go with "Unsporting Conduct" rather than "Entering the field without permission".

[refontherun]

In my League final match this past weekend another ticky-tack situation happened but im wondering if my CR handled it right. Seems like its straight out of a Grade 7 quiz...

Black defender clears the ball down the touchline and it goes out of play at the halfway line...or does it? Black sub is standing there with the toe of his boot and inch from the line waiting to go on..it bounces off his foot and dies on the line. White defender picks up the ball to throw in and the CR calls handball and a FK to black.

how should we have called this?

1. Caution sub for USB, FK to black for handball
2. outside agent, Dropped ball, since the interfering agent was off the field of play
3. allow white to throw in.

The technically correct thing to do would be dropped ball; outside agent.

But, depending on the flow and temperature of the game, along with the reactions of the participants on both sides (did it appear as if everyone assumed play should continue, and were they suprized by the whistle for handling?) if my AR's flag stayed down, I might hold my whistle for a second or two.

o5, were you the AR on that line? What do you think he should have done?

[jayhonk]

Well, first of all, you don't do this:
CR calls handball and a FK to black.

For me, I would tell the sub to "Back up, please." and let White take the throw. [Law 18; sec. 14]

[PVancouver]

The technically correct thing to do would be dropped ball; outside agent.

I change my opinion and agree with this, but not because he is an outside agent. It is because he is off the field of play.

This is, IMO, a play that should be an IFK for white, but isn't.

[o5iiawah]

The technically correct thing to do would be dropped ball; outside agent.

But, depending on the flow and temperature of the game, along with the reactions of the participants on both sides (did it appear as if everyone assumed play should continue, and were they suprized by the whistle for handling?) if my AR's flag stayed down, I might hold my whistle for a second or two.

o5, were you the AR on that line? What do you think he should have done?

I was AR2, but since play was deep in the attacking end before the defender cleared it up the line, I had as close a view as I could. AR1 was near the corner flag. Hard to manage subs from that position. It was definitely the CRs call as he had already started to make his run upfield. The 3 of us had a chat about it at halftime and we each had 3 different answers.

[Soccer7947]

[QUOTE=refontherun;17623378]The technically correct thing to do would be dropped ball; outside agent.[QUOTE]

In Advice 12.25

" If play is stopped soleley to deal with misconduct commited by a substitute, for misconduct committed off the field of play, the restart is a IDFK taken from where the ball was when play was stopped"

[vabeacher]

The LOTG specifically state that substitutes and team officials are not outside agents (Law 3). It also states that if team officials enter the field of play, play must be stopped, but not immediately if the offical does not interfere with play or if advantage can be played. Maybe you can consider this a case of advantage, it would be more adventagous for white to receive a throw than to compete for a dropped ball.

Sometime, common sense has to prevail. Award the throw in and tell the subs to back of the line.

[intechpc]

Soccer7947 has the technically correct answer however I would go with vabeacher on this one. Apply a little Law18 and just get on with the throw-in. Anything else is just going to cause unnecessary confusion and frustration and doesn't really keep with the spirit of the game anyway.

[vabeacher]

Soccer7947's response is only technically correct if you consider the substitute's actions to qualify as misconduct. Do you really want to card him for his actions? What if it's just an honest mistake of the substitute touching the ball before it has fully crossed the line. The only way I can see it as a misconduct is if you had previously told the subs to back away from the line.

[PVancouver]

The technically correct thing to do would be dropped ball; outside agent.

In Advice 12.25

" If play is stopped soleley to deal with misconduct commited by a substitute, for misconduct committed off the field of play, the restart is a IDFK taken from where the ball was when play was stopped"

12.25 has been extensively rewritten in the 2008 ATR (the above is from the 2007 ATR). The 2007 version had changed the restart from a dropped ball to an IFK, and now the 2008 has it back as a dropped ball again. I can give an explanation of why this has to be the case if you want it.

Because the ball was on the field of play, and handling of a ball is considered to occur as if the handling occurred at all locations of the ball simultaneously, touching the ball with your foot outside of the field of play could very well be considered as touching the ball inside the field of play, due to the special qualities given contact with the ball. So this is still a gray area for me.

[boylanj64]

How were the substitute's actions misconduct? He was off the field behaving responsibly, and no one had told him to step back. I don't see how you can caution him.

[intechpc]

By interfering with a ball that is in play, the substitute has committed misconduct. His intent is not a question under the laws. However, the points that you bring up are exactly the considerations you'd use in applying a little common sense. The fact that the ball was headed out of play and it was a mistake on his part are things you can take into account. As I said, it would be foolish to generate that confusion and frustration over something like this, but technically, by the book alone, a caution to the substitute would be correct. There is no requirement that you have to warn him first. He put himself in a position to interfere with a ball in play. Now it wasn't his intent and it would be a very ticky tack and stupid call to make, as I've stated ad nausem (even though you choose to ignore it), but by the letter of the law it's right.

[PVancouver]

behaving responsibly???

[boylanj64]

???

What did he do irresponsible? He was standing on touch, behind the line - no one said his touching the ball was deliberate. If you'd run AR1 more, you'd know how close youth players get to the line when they're waiting to come in - I spend more time telling them to back up then I do watching for offsides :P

[intechpc]

You know I've done more searching and I'm going to question a premise that we've all been operating under, which I too believed was correct. However, I found the following statement in the 2007 ATR (Sec 1.8d) and have not been able to find any interpretation anywhere else that contradicts it. If someone can locate contravening text, I would appreciate it:

An "outside agent" (under any portion of the Laws of the Game) is anything that enters the field without the permission of the referee and plays or misdirects the ball or otherwise interferes with the game. This means that substitutes can be outside agents in some cases, as can dogs or coaches or spectators. Interference by any outside agent other than a substitute illegally on the field will result in the referee declaring a stoppage of play, restarting with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped.....If the interference is by a substitute who has entered the field of play without the permission of the referee, the restart is an indirect free kick where the ball was when play was stopped. The kick is taken after the substitute is cautioned and shown the yellow card.

So a substitute can be considered an outside agent?

[NHRef]

There's a HUGE difference between what the book literally tells you to do and what you should do. We tell students all the time that the book is flexible so should you be.

If it's clear to everyone that the ball WAS going out and it just bumped into a player who was to close to the touch line, then sure, yup, it's a throw in and here we go!

It's not like the kid was redirecting a ball to keep it in play for his rushing teammate to give him an attacking chance. It was a mistake, simple mistake, no harm done, do the throw in.

The "by the book" answer here will get you to in hot water, both teams won't be happy with it, its not expected or needed. Restore what should happen and move on.

Yes some here are gonna try and extend this into all kinds of stupid extensions, but this is a simple case of a simple mistake, get the ball back in play and move on.

[refontherun]

By interfering with a ball that is in play, the substitute has committed misconduct. His intent is not a question under the laws. However, the points that you bring up are exactly the considerations you'd use in applying a little common sense. The fact that the ball was headed out of play and it was a mistake on his part are things you can take into account. As I said, it would be foolish to generate that confusion and frustration over something like this, but technically, by the book alone, a caution to the substitute would be correct. There is no requirement that you have to warn him first. He put himself in a position to interfere with a ball in play. Now it wasn't his intent and it would be a very ticky tack and stupid call to make, as I've stated ad nausem (even though you choose to ignore it), but by the letter of the law it's right.

Just as I wouldn't penalize the substitute for unintentionally touching the ball, even though I could, I probably wouldn't want to punish the player picking up the ball for acting in a manner consistant with what everyone at the field (except the referee) thought was going to happen (the ball going into touch).

If the players are adhering to Law 18, we should too. After all, it is their game. If they aren't, well we should probably oblige them.