Law 3

[Tame Lion]

Law 3 establishes a mandatory caution for USB for changing GKs without the referee’s permission. Why do we have this law? The team has just one GK easily identified by the GK jersey. What is so unsporting about changing GKs without the referee’s permission?

I have asked this question many times and have yet to get a really good reply.

[IASocFan]

My guess is that keepers would give their shirts to a field player during play. Now the referee doesn't know who the keeper is - the one in the different shirt or the player that originally was the keeper.

The laws were added to require permission of the referee to change keepers. In practice, notification is usually adequate; but the referee may decide that after four keeper changes before a PK is to be taken is too many. Therefore, permission of the referee is required.

[Ref Flunkie]

Agreed, and what happens when they are in the middle of changing shirts during play and the ball comes their way? I just consider it the same as the fact that you can't substitute during play, and this prevents you from changing keepers during play.

[Gary V]

Another consideration is in keeping track of cautions. Suppose the new keeper already had a caution as a field player. Now he does something as keeper that the ref will caution. If the ref doesn't know that there has been a change, he might not realize that it is the player's second caution.

[Caesar]

These are all good points. I agree with IASocFan that the main point is pinning down exactly which player at a specific point in time enjoys the privileges allowed to the Goal Keeper.

I have seen games where the referee has allowed keeper and defender to swap mid-play, and the ball comes towards them. One is wearing the gloves, the other is struggling into the jersy - has the change been completed? Who exactly is allowed to handle the ball in the PA? Its a major headache avoided by informing the referee who the keeper is at any particular point in time.

[refmike]

All the above answers are incorrect except Ref Flunkie. The player with the keeper shirt (different than the other members of the team) IS the keeper and allowed to touch the ball in his own penalty area. The reason for a caution is that the keeper switch was done in violation of the law. Law 3 requires that a keeper change must be made during a stoppage and after informing the referee. Players who switch shirts during play without referee permission are gulty of Unsporting Behavior and both must be cautioned at the next stoppage. In the meantime, the player with the keeper shirt is still allowed to handle the ball.

[IASocFan]

Some follow-on questions for the experts:
All assume that the original keeper has a field jersey under his keeper shirt. What if while switching keepers during play, one of the attackers chips toward goal. The keepers have the shirt off, but no one is wearing.

- Can the one who is holding the shirt catch the ball?
- If both are holding the shirt can one of the catch the ball?
- If they drop the shirt to catch the ball, is there now no goalkeeper?
- If the one with the shirt, swings at the ball with the shirt as it's going overhead and deflects the ball from the net, what should be the call? It's an obvious DOGSO!

These questions, in themselves, should answer the original question, and also why we never(?) have to deal with the issue.

[Tame Lion]

We are getting off the original topic. The topic is not how to interpret this law nor how to deal with violations, but rather, "Why is this law a violation of the Spirit of the Game? What is so bad about the practice that this law exists?"

Gary V. gave a plausible reason -- could conceal a prior caution. But is that the only reason? This law goes back decades and I don't know its history. Does anyone know its history? Thank you.

[Tame Lion]

Some follow-on questions for the experts:
All assume that the original keeper has a field jersey under his keeper shirt. What if while switching keepers during play, one of the attackers chips toward goal. The keepers have the shirt off, but no one is wearing.
The player wearing the GK shirt is the GK. If no one is wearing the GK shirt, the one who wore it last is the GK.

[Tame Lion]

These questions, in themselves, should answer the original question, and also why we never(?) have to deal with the issue.
The situation that I have in mind is not a dynamic situation, e.g., ball out of play for a CK at the other end of the FOP. There is plenty of time to swap the GK shirt so that there would never be a question of who is the GK. What is so foul about this sneaky(?) swap of GKs?

[whipple]

All substitutions occur at a stoppage and with the referee's permission. Though not involving a named substitute entering the field of play, when a field player changes places with the goal keeper, it is, in effect, a substitution.

The issue of misconduct may go back to the days prior to the jersey requirement when the only distinctive feature of the keeper was a cap.

Just a thought.

Sherman

[Gary V]

One other thought. It generally will take some amount of time for a field player to switch with the keeper, even if this is done at a stoppage. If the ref is not informed prior to the switch, he may allow play to restart with a partially clad keeper - and then we have the same potential problems as if they did it on the fly. The ref may also want to track the time taken in order to add it at the end of the half.

[Tame Lion]

The issue of misconduct may go back to the days prior to the jersey requirement when the only distinctive feature of the keeper was a cap.

Just a thought.
Aha! You may be right! Thank you.

But if this occurs at a stoppage, what is so foul about exchanging the cap (instead of the shirt)?

[chrisrun]

The player wearing the GK shirt is the GK. If no one is wearing the GK shirt, the one who wore it last is the GK.
It's almost like a playing entering the field without the ref's permission. The ref tells the player to change his shirt because there is blood on it. He leaves, changes his shirt, and comes back on the field without telling the ref. Did he really do anything foul? No. But he came back on without the ref's permission so it's a card. Why? Because the ref has to be in control, and has to know what is going on. Will this coming back on the field really affect anything? Probably not. But it's the ref's job to MAKE SURE of it. He needs to make sure the jersey change fixed what needed to be fixed. If an ambiguous situation can be avoided, then it should be.

If goalies are changing without telling the ref, such a situation can occur. What if the new goalie has his head and one arm through the keeper jersey. Is the jersey on? If not, when is it considered on? I would say when the ref says it is on. How can he say this when he hasn't been given the opportunity to inspect it? This happens at the beginning of each game and half as well. The ref "inspects" (no matter how cursory or from what distance) the keeper and acknowledges that the jersey is on and he is the keeper.

When changing keepers, the ref holds play until the change is complete and the "inspection" is done. Ambiguous situations avoided.

[Caesar]

All the above answers are incorrect except Ref Flunkie. The player with the keeper shirt (different than the other members of the team) IS the keeper and allowed to touch the ball in his own penalty area. The reason for a caution is that the keeper switch was done in violation of the law. Law 3 requires that a keeper change must be made during a stoppage and after informing the referee. Players who switch shirts during play without referee permission are gulty of Unsporting Behavior and both must be cautioned at the next stoppage. In the meantime, the player with the keeper shirt is still allowed to handle the ball.
With respect, Mike, we weren't discussing the "what", we were talking about the "why". I agree, the law is very cut-and-dried on the preocedure for this one, we were merely speculating on the reason behind the law. My own example was not the best, but it wasn't the point of the post.

[Jeff from Michigan]

Historically, the Referee was supposed to be kept apprised of everything happening on the field that might have any consequence to the game. The practical reason for requiring notice to the Referee is to make sure that play doesn't restart until everyone is ready.

I think the reason "why" is simply to give teeth to the rule, requiring notice to the Referee of all events of this kind: if there's no sanction, then the team can simply ignore the officials...and play may resume before the switch is complete. And aside from a caution, the only other type of sanction possible would be a free kick...which, given the nature of the infraction, would simply mean stopping play to deal with "details" that aren't really affecting the game (not to mention the fact that we'd have to try to figure out a good place for the kick...and inside the offending team's PA would NOT be a good place).

[refmike]

Caeser, you are correct that my answer was off the point of the question. It was knee-jerk reaction to an older (incorrect) interpretation that said that any keeper change without referee notification required a caution. I have been fighting the old timers on this for years and needed to emphasize that the person in the bright shirt is the keeper and that it is not a handling violation.

[whistleblowerusa]

We are getting off the original topic. The topic is not how to interpret this law nor how to deal with violations, but rather, "Why is this law a violation of the Spirit of the Game? What is so bad about the practice that this law exists?"

Gary V. gave a plausible reason -- could conceal a prior caution. But is that the only reason? This law goes back decades and I don't know its history. Does anyone know its history? Thank you.
Players don't try this type of trickory these days. Mostly because of the severity of the misconduct and penalty for doing such a thing. Makes it hard to understand why we still have it in the books.
It really is to prevent any cheating by a team switching who the keeper is and gaining some sort of unfair advantage over the oponents. It could easily take the focus off of players trying to see who is in goal now. Who do they have to void. It would be a distraction and very unfair.
(Refmike, lay off the coffee)

[refmike]

yessir.

[Tame Lion]

This same question was posted on another board. Julian Carosi supplied the following (well researched) answer.

=========================================================

Answer: Good question Tame Lion - it had me scuttling for my history books!

A recognised "goalkeeper" has been a stipulation in the Laws since the very early days.

In 1866, the Sheffield Club offered to play its representative side against one chosen by the Football Association (FA). Because the contesting teams played under different Laws, certain basic conditions were laid down - and this is where the idea that 'any' player could be designated as a "goalkeeper" appeared for the first time in the offside Law 11 (as shown below).

"The goalkeeper is that player on the defending side who, for the time being, is nearest his own goal."

In other words, the term "goalkeeper" did not refer to a specific individual player. In those days, a goalkeeper was any one of the team who just happened to be nearest to his own goal. The FA continued to gradually eliminated handling of the ball "under any pretence", until it was realised that a wholesale ban was too drastic, for it had taken away from the "custodian" of the goal, the privilege of preventing the downfall of his "fort" by saving a shot with the hands. So in 1870, the goalkeeper (as we recognise the individual role today in Law 3) came into being in the Football Association rules as an individual player given the right to use his hands "in defence of his goal".

"He shall be at liberty to use his hands for the protection of his goal".

Due to the specific privileges of a goalkeeper, it has always been essential for the players and the Referee to easily identify the individual nominated to take this role. Hence, Law 4 (The Players' Equipment) stipulates that the goalkeeper wears distinguishing colours. It follows that any change to the goalkeeper must be firstly notified to the Referee, and made during a stoppage in play. It is mandatory (in Law 3) for Referees to caution breaches of Law 3 in respect to unauthorised changes to goalkeepers (whether unauthorised changes are made during the game or during a stoppage). This is to discourage confusion, as this would only lead to players and Referees from being unable to quickly recognise exactly who the goalkeeper is in a team. It would be a mockery (and unfair) to allow unsupervised changes of goalkeepers (and against the spirit of the Laws).

"Players must not be allowed to take up or claim the privileges attached to the position" (of goalkeeper). (Source Law 3 1974-1975)

Up until 1970, Law 3 stipulated that "if without notifying the Referee, a player changes to goalkeeper during the game, and then handles the ball within the penalty-area, a penalty kick shall be awarded".

The modern thinking is slightly different; as extracted below from the excellent FA 2003 booklet "Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game".

The Law clearly states that any infringement shall be punished by a caution. This means that at the next stoppage in play, the two players concerned, i.e., the original goalkeeper and the player who takes his place, shall be cautioned for being guilty of unsporting behaviour, as the Referee has not been advised of the change of position.

The advice which is issued to referees on this subject, is that the cautions should not be issued until the ball has gone out of play. It must be appreciated that the "new goalkeeper" when handling the ball, is not committing a penal offence, as it can be clearly seen that he is wearing the goalkeeper's jersey, and is, in fact, the goalkeeper. By waiting for the ball to go out of play before issuing cautions, the restart would be in accordance with normal procedure, i.e., a throw-in, goal kick, corner kick, etc, as the case may be.

Regards
Julian