I may have asked this once before? 13. A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take? The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behavior and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *. There is an impassioned argument that we can send off this sub for a double caution USB for illegally being there and dissent for kicking the ball away. Do others belive we can manufacture this exact incident into a send off? It is not a stretch to send a player off for two cautions as in Q&A law 12 questions 8 and 9 down below but is the referee reaching to fill the loophole or justified as an opinion? Let me ask if it was a player who has left the field of play to receive treatment enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. Could a double caution still apply? For what it is worth I feel only a single caution is permitted in law because misconduct is now treated the same between players and subs with only INDFKS restarts instead of DFKs restarts as the difference. I wish we could send the illegal player/sub off but I do not think we can? Anyone out there feel I am wrong? If so can you make a case that I am? 8. A player who has left the field of play to receive treatment trips an opponent inside the field of play. What action does the referee take? The player is cautioned for re-entering the field of play. If the trip is deserving of a caution the player will be sent off for receiving a second caution in the same match and play is restarted with a direct free kick or penalty kick. 9. A player enters the field of play without receiving a signal from the referee and then deliberately handles the ball. What action does the referee take? The player is cautioned for entering the field of play without the permission of the referee. Play is restarted with a direct free kick or penalty kick to punish the more serious offence. If, in the opinion of the referee, the player is also guilty of unsporting behavior, by deliberately handling the ball, he is sent off for receiving a second caution in the same match. If, in the opinion of the referee, the player is also guilty of denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity, the player is sent off
Boy that's a tricky one you've got. First thing is that nobody should be that close to the field behind the goal for that to happen...subs should never be where the question describes. That being said, I know that sometimes the craziest things happen and they must be dealt with. My first consideration was that the correct call is caution for Entering/Leaving w/o permission, restart with a drop ball where the outside agent interfered with the ball or on the goal box line. Second and I guess current belief is that a caution should still apply, but a straight red can be given for DGSO...denying a goal scoring opportunity, followed by a drop ball. Since we can now show cards to coaches and subs (I was taught the 3 Ps...Plastic to Players during Play and still have a hard time showing cards to the bench), shouldn't a substitute be penalized the same way as a field player would? A goal cannot be awarded as the ball did not enter the goal, and a PK cannot, unfortunately, be awarded as the foul/interference was not committed against an opposing player. I'd sure be interested to hear what others think about this though.
13. I would say this warrants two cautions. Entering the FOP with out permission, and USB. So then you can send the player off. The restart is an drop ball where the misconduct occurred/where ball was when play was stopped. 8. Everything looks fine in that one. He is still a player, so the trip would still result in a DFK/PK. 9. Caution for entering with out permission, and possible caution for USB or send off for DOGSO. DFK/PK where ball was handled.
NO dropballs, indfk restarts for sub (substitue) or sub-player (substituted Player) violations onto the pitch the law was changed two years ago and look in law 12 only 3 cautionable events now apply Yes a caution but is stopping a ball with the foot follow DOGSO criteria in any way? again no drop ball is possible here! only INDFK In fact he is for MISCONDUCT just not in restart It would not make a difference if it was a the sub fouling he can only create further misconduct and always an indfk restart if it was the illegal player who actially fouls the opponent then a PK ONLY 3 cautions pertain to subs or substituted players but all 7 send off violations do apply. A substitute or substituted player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following three offences: 1. is guilty of unsporting behaviour 2. shows dissent by word or action 3. delays the restart of play Sending-Off Offences A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits ANY of the following seven offences: 1. is guilty of serious foul play 2. is guilty of violent conduct 3. spits at an opponent or any other person 4. denies 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) 5. denies 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 6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures 7. receives a second caution in the same match. A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off and shown the red card must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area What bothers me is the USSF answer on illegal entry and a kick of only the ball says two cautions for any kick. While then does FIFA Q&A says only one caution and that kick even denies a goal? I quoted only a parsec of the original question which had to do with send off and DOGSO. I have no issue with two cautions as in entering is USB for being there illegally and committing misconduct against a player for a second offence. I agree DOGSO is certainly feasable as in the use of the hands it specifically address that in 3.13.1, so to if any act is VC but is a kick of the ball a second misconduct in the same phase of play or continued misconduct? is the fact that only 3 of the 7 cautionable events are now listed as possible play a part here???Or is this 3.13 a mistake and due to be changed at next printing as in the old keeper hold the ball in your palm and a player can play it safely? MAY A SUBSTITUTE/SUBSTITUTED PLAYER BE DISMISSED FOR DENYING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY? Your question: 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): 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).
A substitute is not cautioned for entering the FOP without permission, that is not one of the offences for which a sub can be cautioned. If he enters the FOP he is cautioned for Unsporting Behavior. A substitute is not an outside agent. Correct restart is IFK, not dropped ball. Once a sub enters the FOP he is essentially a player insofar as misconduct. It is not misconduct to prevent the ball from entering the goal with your foot. So the substitute is cautioned only for the USB for entering the FOP. In the same scenario with an injured player, he is cautioned for entering without permission, but again a single caution. But, if the player or substitute were to kick the ball away after you have stopped play and thus delayed the restart, he could be cautioned twice and sent off.
Well I guess my first response was right, I had IFK, wasn't 100% sure(like 90%), so I changed it to DB. Janice, all of that confused me a little, here is how I'm understanding you. Scenario: Substitute enters field of play and kicks the ball away in an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Discipline: Caution for USB for entering the field with out permission Caution for USB for kicking the ball away Send off for two cautions Restart: IFK where the ball was when the substitute entered the field. That is what you are saying should happen, correct?
Not entirely FIFA says ONLY a caution the USSF says go ahead and find an excuse for two cautions. Also the restart is where the ball was when play was stopped not when he entered. Alsoran states Once a sub enters the FOP he is essentially a player insofar as misconduct. Now 13.1 seems to confirns that concept (Although the word player first appears it is a substitute as you read through) 13.1. If the player prevents the goal with his hand, what action does the referee take? The referee stops play and sends-off the substitute for denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped * As for being confused join the club!
I believe that we are making this too complex. The sending-off offense under consideration here is under Law 12: "denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving toward a player's goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick" Furthermore, the USSF Advice to Referees 12.37 states: "Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body." This is clearly a goalscoring opportunity, are we not agreed on this? Just as in the ATR example it is not an offense in itself to play the ball away with the body, it is not an offense to play the ball away with the foot. However, it is certainly an offense (misconduct) to enter as a substitute and interfere with the playing of the game. This is a very simple DOGSO case, and the substitute must be sent off. Don't make it harder than it is. Even if FIFA tells you to. USSF Advice to Referees gives you the power to send-off the substitute. There is no need to manufacture a second caution.
So in any case when a substitute enters the FOP and DOGSO, it would be straight send off for punishing more severe, DOGSO. Correct?
That would seem to me the correct reading, although it is equally possible to show both the yellow and a straight red under Law 12. The drag here is that the restart is, regardless, an IFK, so justice is perhaps not completely served. My guess here is that, as with the offside problem a couple years back, the FIFA Q & A is wrong because it has not caught up with the most recent revisions of the Laws. I will ask the person who writes the Q & A for a definitive answer, and get back to you.
Wow! you have that kind of a connection?? I know they used to offer a caution and drop ball as the answer but I thought this 3.13 was an offence against the ball without the hands which is why DOGSO does not apply on the kick? On the other site one questioner asks if this not a sub but a player who was not supposed to be on the field. Would there be a DOGSO involved here? Is an illegal player versus a sub either are on without permission any different in the misconduct of unfairly affecting play I felt a caution and INDFk was fine for all but now not so sure? is 1 and 4 ok for just a caution but 2 and 3 are send offs? (1)A PLAYER, off the field with permission of the referee to correct equipment or attend an injury renters without permission and kicks the ball away from an opponent! What action does the referee take? (2)A PLAYER, off the field with permission of the referee to correct equipment or attend an injury renters without permission and kicks the ball away from an opponent who is about to score! What action does the referee take? (3)A PLAYER, off the field with permission of the referee to correct equipment or attend an injury renters without permission and kicks the ball away that was about to enter his goal! What action does the referee take? (4)A PLAYER, off the field with permission of the referee to correct equipment or attend an injury renters without permission and kicks the ball into his opponent goal! What action does the referee take?
A player who came on to the field, with out permission(lets say he was out for injury) DOGSO would apply. He is a player not a substitute. He of course would be sent off for DOGSO. **Would you also write down that he came on with out permission, cautioning him but not showing him a yellow card?** 1-4, Caution for entering with out permission, I'm not sure about the 2nd part of each scenario. He does what a player is supposed to do, defend/attack. If it was a caution it would be for USB, then a send off for two cautions. Again, not sure!!
I know it bugs me that we are flibberty jibberty over what should be a basic premise if it is unfair and it denies a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity it should be a send off! I find it odd though we find two cautions for any kick by the sub but not for a player?
It is the ONLY good thing about being in Washington State. You can't ever advance anywhere here, and we'll never produce a male FIFA referee until one of the bigwigs moves here...but at least I can get answers from a FIFA instructor on fine points of the Laws The "unofficial" word from FIFA and USSF both is, unfortunately, somewhat different from what I originally stated. As revealed to me: Having said that...I'm going to take that discretion carefully, but it still seems to me that FIFA are of two minds about this issue themselves--which explains why it makes no sense to peons like me. The Laws were specifically modified last year to say what a substitute could/could not be cautioned for, and sent-off/not sent-off for. The new Advice reflects these changes, yet specifically states that players can be sent off for misconduct OR fouls for which the restart is an IFK. Since it specifically mentions misconduct, and substitutes are subject to misconduct sending-off offenses the same as players...I cannot think this was accidental. "Denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick" reads the Law. Not a FOUL, but an offense. Curious, because misconduct consists of "cautionable offenses" and "sending-off offenses." I believe the answer to this question is probably the same as how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. The world may never know.
Ah, are we missing the fact that as soon as the substitute enters the field of play the team is in violation of having too many players on the field? Ergo, no matter what he does on the field, play becomes DEAD at the instant he stepped on the field and the CR deals with the illegal entry. As stated previously, he is not an outside agent, so those rules do not apply. DOGSO? Please, folks. He was not a player, he was a sub. The LOTG apply a bit differently to subs. Hence the reason for making sure players leave the field before subs come on.
Send-offs do not apply differently with substitutes. "A player, substitute, or substituted player is send off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offenses:" How is play "dead" with out the center knowing it? If the referee did not stop play, the substitute should be able to commit DOGSO.
He is a sub!!! Only a player can, one who is recognized as LEGALLY having entered the field of play AS A PLAYER can be held accountable as a player. What does a referee do when he realizes there are 12 men on the field? He stops play, issues a caution and restarts with an IFK. Why is this iany different because it happened in the penalty area? If the referee did not stop play he is comitting many more errors. Someone said earlier, "don't over think this". Play simply cannot continue with 12 men on the field. As soon as the CR realizes this the play is dead. Now, if he was not paying attention and did not realize this guy was a sub and that he was illegally on the pitch, then that is a totally different story.
The ball is not "dead" when a substitute improperly enters the field. It is in play until the referee stops play or something else happened. A subsitute who improperly enters the field may be send off if the substitute then commits a DOGSO offense. Under law 12, a substitute may be sent off for any of the reasons that a player may be sent off. I think we (I) read something into the USSF question and answer. When I read "kick the ball away" I thought it meant the same as the FIFA Q&A - playing the ball as a player would. I think it USSF inferred something more: kicking the ball off the field in a manner intended only to interfere with the match. I could see how that conduct differs from simply playing the ball, and could lead to a second caution for unsporting behavior.
I'm talking about if the substitutes aren't distinguished from the others, the referee does not notice until after the DOGSO occurred. Then when the referee goes to book him, he then realizes it. Should the referee show the yellow card if someone is guilty of a cautionable offense and a send off offense? I think he shouldn't because the send off is more serious, you punish the more serious misconduct. Someone want to clarify this for me? What is the significance of him being a substitute? All the send off offenses still apply. Only the cautionable offenses all do not apply.
Okay, here's a challenge to our more speculative readers. Part One: A substitute or substituted player may only be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, dissent or delaying the restart of play. Give at least one example of a situation where EACH of these offenses would apply. Part Two: A player, substitute or substituted player may be sent-off for ANY of the 7 sending-off offenses. The challenge: come up with at least one illustration of a situation in which a substitute may be sent off for EACH of the seven sending-off offenses. ...and if you can't come up with illustrations of each of the 7 sending-off offenses, come up with a reason why they didn't modify the Laws for this, when they DID modify the Laws for cautionable offenses. That should keep us all busy for awhile...
Gotcha. Then DOGSO applies. Actually, it even applies to subs as per LOTG. There are offenses in the LOTG that apply only to players, but not in this case. You have it right. My point was that the CR should have noticed a sub on the end line stepping on to the field to stop an open net goal WELL before it became even an issue of DOGSO. But say the center DOES realize the intrusion BEFORE DOGSO occurs and blows the whistle, yet the sub comits DOGSO anyway after the whistle. Is it DOGSO? Kind of like the other thread here where it posed if you can caution a player for taking off his shirt if the goal is called back for offsides.
Depending on what the substitute did, fouling or handling, would determine the discipline. If it was handling, no problem, ball is not in play, so no handling. If it was by fouling, depending how serious would determine the misconduct, if any. Restart is still IFK for team that had the OGSO, where the ball was when play was stopped.
in the case of a red carded player who was not technically supposed to be on the field - would you force the removal of a player on the field for that player or would you not allow a substitute for a player taken off by the coach?