Pvan and Jayhonk's Deceased Equine

[PVancouver]

Those are two lousy examples. An AR is a referee, and as such is considered part of the field of play. A rock is also considered part of the field of play, unless it was thrown onto the field by an outside agent. Players off the field of play with permission, substitutes, and substituted players are not considered part of the field of play.

Next time as a substitute I'm going to lay down right behind my own goal line. If the opponent's shot happens to hit me and bounce off, I'll just tell 'em Jim Allen said it was OK, play on.

[jkc313]

Those are two lousy examples. An AR is a referee, and as such is considered part of the field of play. A rock is also considered part of the field of play, unless it was thrown onto the field by an outside agent. Players off the field of play with permission, substitutes, and substituted players are not considered part of the field of play.

Next time as a substitute I'm going to lay down right behind my own goal line. If the opponent's shot happens to hit me and bounce off, I'll just tell 'em Jim Allen said it was OK, play on.
you can lay down but it better be at the halfway line

[PVancouver]

you can lay down but it better be at the halfway line

You aren't restricted to the halfway line or technical area when warming up.

[jayhonk]

You aren't restricted to the halfway line or technical area when warming up.
So, how's the reffing going, Pvan?

[PVancouver]

So, how's the reffing going, Pvan?

Better than yours, I suspect.

[IASocFan]

So, how's the reffing going, Pvan?

Better than yours, I suspect.

Our quick interpretation obviously has created some great discussion. Let's try to keep it on topic. THANKS. :)

[jayhonk]

Our quick interpretation obviously has created some great discussion. Let's try to keep it on topic. THANKS. :)
My comment actually had a point, though it appears I was trying to say too much using too few words.

Pvan has shown over time, the desire to extend points of controversy to logical extremes. He does this because, in a rule-based activity, like soccer refereeing, pursuing points of view to extremes by reductio ad absurdam is one way to highlight the weakness of a given argument. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in extending discussions past the point of usefulness. The preceding exchange, while it does contain some humorous images, shows this tendency:


Next time as a substitute I'm going to lay down right behind my own goal line. If the opponent's shot happens to hit me and bounce off, I'll just tell 'em Jim Allen said it was OK, play on.
you can lay down but it better be at the halfway line
You aren't restricted to the halfway line or technical area when warming up.

By asking how Pvan's reffing is going, I meant to highlight how this "quick interpretation" has pretty well explored all points of view on this topic. Furthermore, it seems to have left the realm of what actually might happen on any soccer field, ever. Further, I was trying to reintroduce some touchstone with reality--such as any interesting situations that might have happened in an actual game of soccer, for instance in one of Pvan's recent games.

Next time I will just try to say something humorous about a deceased equine.

[PVancouver]

My comment actually had a point, though it appears I was trying to say too much using too few words.

Yeah, I don't think I got your intended meaning. I am still a bit unclear.


Pvan has shown over time, the desire to extend points of controversy to logical extremes. He does this because, in a rule-based activity, like soccer refereeing, pursuing points of view to extremes by reductio ad absurdam is one way to highlight the weakness of a given argument.

True dat.


Unfortunately, this sometimes results in extending discussions past the point of usefulness. The preceding exchange, while it does contain some humorous images, shows this tendency:

jkc introduced a limit, the halfway line, that I didn't see in Jim Allen's text. However, it is certainly possible that this location was assumed in the context. If the halfway line location is important, it should be made more clear.


By asking how Pvan's reffing is going, I meant to highlight how this "quick interpretation" has pretty well explored all points of view on this topic. Furthermore, it seems to have left the realm of what actually might happen on any soccer field, ever. Further, I was trying to reintroduce some touchstone with reality--such as any interesting situations that might have happened in an actual game of soccer, for instance in one of Pvan's recent games.

Sorry, I missed that. I certainly didn't think you were being humorous.

Sure, it was a facetious argument but my point still stands:

Since we can't get any consensus on this I asked Jim Allen. He says as long as the sub is simply standing there off the field of play and does nothing but have the ball hit him, there can be no misconduct which is what I thought. However, JA says since the ball never went out of play this is akin to hitting a rock, or maybe an AR would be a better example, the ball is still in play and when it was handled deliberately play stops then and we award a DFK to the opponents.

Jim Allen gave a very different view from how the discussion had been going.

I don't have jkc's e-mail from Jim Allen, so I can't say exactly what Allen said. jkc only refers to "the sub ... simply standing there off the field of play". Perhaps Allen meant to limit this to subs standing at the halfway line, perhaps not. Certainly, most youth leagues don't have technical areas, and players can get quite close to the line, even if they aren't supposed to. I am not sure how, if a player is where they are clearly NOT supposed to be, you can rule out misconduct even if they do "nothing but have the ball hit him." Yes, I was being facetious about lying next to the goal, but I don't feel I was being ridiculous. At some point, you have to consider UB.

Just like a substitute shouldn't be lying next to the goal line, or stretching next to the end line, I don't think he should be standing next to the halfway line either unless he is paying careful attention to what is taking place on the field of play. It would be interesting to see the reaction if the momentum of an attacker took him momentarily off the field of play as he raced ahead to run onto a long ball, only to have to dodge an oblivious substitute who happened to be standing at the halfway line.

Conversely, there could be interference well away from the field of play, and certainly no UB should be due the off-field substitute in that case. The critical factor is whether or not the player had a right to be where he was, and was paying the amount of attention he should have been paying given his location.

I have a bigger issue with treating the substitute as part of the field of play. This makes no sense to me. It certainly hasn't been made clear in anything else I have read to date.

Compare to the situation where a fan blows a whistle and a player apparently thinks the referee has stopped play, and picks up the ball. The referee is supposed to consider this as interference with play on the part of the fan, and award a dropped ball. I don't see how a player can be blamed for doing the same in this situation (although, theoretically, he should wait for a whistle). The player assumed that play had been interfered with by an outside agent, and IMO, would be correct in his assumption.

[o5iiawah]

I have created a monster.

Jeez, it wasn't even my touchline. There's a LOT of speculation going on here.

[jkc313]

You aren't restricted to the halfway line or technical area when warming up.
True but you can't make the case you were doing "nothing" like this sub was since you are warming up by lying down in an important area of the field.

[jkc313]

Yeah, I don't think I got your intended meaning. I am still a bit unclear.




True dat.




jkc introduced a limit, the halfway line, that I didn't see in Jim Allen's text. However, it is certainly possible that this location was assumed in the context. If the halfway line location is important, it should be made more clear.








Jim Allen gave a very different view from how the discussion had been going.

I don't have jkc's e-mail from Jim Allen, so I can't say exactly what Allen said. jkc only refers to "the sub ... simply standing there off the field of play". Perhaps Allen meant to limit this to subs standing at the halfway line, perhaps not. Certainly, most youth leagues don't have technical areas, and players can get quite close to the line, even if they aren't supposed to. I am not sure how, if a player is where they are clearly NOT supposed to be, you can rule out misconduct even if they do "nothing but have the ball hit him." Yes, I was being facetious about lying next to the goal, but I don't feel I was being ridiculous. At some point, you have to consider UB.

Just like a substitute shouldn't be lying next to the goal line, or stretching next to the end line, I don't think he should be standing next to the halfway line either unless he is paying careful attention to what is taking place on the field of play. It would be interesting to see the reaction if the momentum of an attacker took him momentarily off the field of play as he raced ahead to run onto a long ball, only to have to dodge an oblivious substitute who happened to be standing at the halfway line.


I have a bigger issue with treating the substitute as part of the field of play. This makes no sense to me. It certainly hasn't been made clear in anything else I have read to date.

Compare to the situation where a fan blows a whistle and a player apparently thinks the referee has stopped play, and picks up the ball. The referee is supposed to consider this as interference with play on the part of the fan, and award a dropped ball. I don't see how a player can be blamed for doing the same in this situation (although, theoretically, he should wait for a whistle). The player assumed that play had been interfered with by an outside agent, and IMO, would be correct in his assumption.

Pvan Here's the reply I got:

Keith,
If it was absolutely clear that the Black sub, who had a right to be
where he was -- unless he violated some rule of the competition by
being so near the line -- did not actually "play" the ball and it
actually simply bounced off him without any action on his part, then
there was no infringement and the ball has not left the field. It
might as well have hit a stone. No infringement, ball has not left
the field. White defender's error. Restart should be a direct free
kick for Black. No cautions, no "common sense," no hesitation.

As Bob Evans has made famous: The Laws of the Game were not written
to compensate for the mistakes of the players.