A question from the Crew Forum: Late in a HS match, team A pulls it's keeper for a field player. No shirt exchange or other accomodation )a pinney or whatever) is made. No one notices. Play continues. Team A scores a goal, at which time Team B protests because Team A had no designated keeper. Referee agrees, disallows the goal. My position is that the Ref blew the call. He and the AR both had an opportunity to notice the uniform and failed to do so. I believe the goal should stand. Thoughts?
My thoughts: the referees are responsible for substitution. If they allowed a field player to substitute for a keeper and incorrectly authorized the substitution by allowing a restart, then the goal should stand. If the keeper removed his shirt to play the field or was substituted illegally, then the illegal substitute should be cautioned and the goal disallowed. My conclusion: coach A, the players involved, the AR and CR, all goofed.
First off I am not clear on what happened here. If the keeper came out of the PA to play forward, without any uniform change, then there was no wrongdoing. There is no rule about where the keeper can play and so long as he is clearly identified as the keeper, there is still a designated keeper. No violations here. If a field player then drops back to protect the goal, he cannot use his hands but otherwise there is no violation here, either If the keeper pulled off a keeper shirt and then looked like a field player, he was still the person designated as a keeper but he used trickery to play in the field without the opponents realizing there was no one protecting the goal so I would call that USB. That deserves a caution. If the field player put on the keepers shirt without a stoppage or referee permission, then both get a caution for USB but the person with the shirt is still allowed to handle the ball. In any case, there were still 11 players on the field and one was allowed to use hands in his own PA so I see no major violation and no reason to invalidate the goal. Again, if he made no uniform change, he can go anywhere on the field and there could have been no question of a valid goal.
A SUBSTITUTION was made. To be precise, the Coach put in another forward and his keeper left the field completely. It was not a case of the keeper running forward and participating in the attack - in this case the keeper came out of the game entirely.
If that's the case the ref blew it, there HAS to be a keeper. As for the goal, a ref has til the NEXT restart to fix a call, the call he made was "goal" when pointed out the other team was not legal according to the rules, he can then take back the 'GOAL' call. It never should have gotten there.
Doesn't high school have an officials desk that checks in and out players? Should not that also be part of their responsability?
how do you authorize a sub to enter and see the keeper leave in exchange of each other and not really "see" what is happening? requires a brain meltdown, i think. but, now given that this is brought to your attention after the apparent goal...pull the ball out of the net, disallow the goal, yc the last player to enter for usb, restart with gk or ck, as appropriate (hs) or dropped ball on the six (fifa).
Obviously the ref blew the substitution. The call back of the goal is not obvious to me. Rule 3 differentiates between improper substitution (stop play) and improper change of places with the GK (play continues). Both infractions, however, result from the failure to obtain the referee's permission for the sub/change. Here I will assume that the referee knew the GK was going off and granted permission (wrongly). Therefore I would argue that there is no improper substitution or change, no card, no stopping of play, and no calling back the goal based on this rule. In contrast, if the referee gives permission for players to run on and the team ends up with 12 players on the field, I would see this as the ref gave permission for the correct number of players to run on and didn't know that an extra player came on, so there is no permission for the extra player and play is stopped when the ref realizes that there is an extra player on the field. There is a violation of rule 4, required equipment, but goals should not be called back because the attacker lost their "required" shoe, so why call back for the lack of a GK jersey that did not affect play? And if this technical argument does not sway you, it does not seem fair to call back a goal on such a technicality because no advantage was gained by the attackers.
njref, A basic rule of this game is that there are 11 players, one of whom is the goalkeeper. If the person charged to be the keeper is replaced by one who is not given that charge, then the game is illegal from that point on. This is not a simple matter of advantage. If the charged keeper is out of uniform but on the field, this could be a simple USB but to be taken off the field AND replaced by a field player makes the game unplayable and all else does not count. At a minimum, the game should be restarted from the point where the coach illegally pulled his keeper. At worst, it could have been abondoned. Any goals scored inbetween cannot count.
We need to remember that this was a HS match, so they have their own unique ways of doing things. Penalty for not having a properly equipped GK (wearing distinct colors): ordered off until corrected, may re-enter at the next stoppage or may be subbed at the next subbing opportunity. Penalty for changing places with the GK without notifying a ref: both players are warned (NOT cautioned) at the next stoppage. Penalty for scoring a goal while an illegally equipped player is on the pitch: none that I can find in the rule book. In fact, according to a literal reading of the HS rules, the only rule violation by an attacker that can negate a goal is deliberately handling the ball. Given NFHS's penchant for leaving nothing unsaid, I can only hope that this is an oversight. Even FIFA's LOTG, which leaves out so much detail that is assumed to be commonly known, specifies that the attackers may not infringe any of the Laws for the goal to stand.
Ok, so the keeper was substituted. That means one keeper goes off, and another comes on. Furthermore, the lack of a distinguishing goalie shirt does not mean there is no keeper on the field - it simply means that the keeper's uniform is not adhering to the laws of the game. A response which is perfectly within the LOAF and meets the requirements for a keeper on the field. Furthermore, I don't see that a cautionable offence has been committed, merely improper equipment. I see no reason to disallow the goal. The referee should also demand that a player put on a keeper's jersey (doesn't have to be the person who came on though). this is my reasonining via the LOAF - I have no knowledge of US specific rules
The original version above I got second hand. I scouted around and found someone who was actually in attendance and he has the following to say: With 1:45 left in the game Fairfield pulled their keeper and put another player on, the referee noted the change and then Fairfield threw the ball in play. The sideline ref was waving his flag for about 15 seconds and then finally put it down and let the play go on, Fairfield then scored about 15 seconds after the ref put his flag down. the player inserted in the paly never came within 30 yards of the ball and had no effect on the play. (They had 5 refs for this game 3 reffing and 1 on each teams side.) they disallowed the goal, put the time of the throw in back on the clock and started with a throw in from the original throw in with 1:45 on the clock To me, this is even wierder, but maybe I'm wrong. Where does the Referee get the right to wipe out his mistake like this? What does really make you scratch your head is that there were FIVE officials, and only one of them noticed anything was wrong.
i liken this to too many players on the field, or when a foul/misconduct occurs prior to the ball entering the goal. hs 3.1.1 situation A: Team A's coach decides to sacrifice defense and sends in a sub for the goalkeeper in order to keep 11 players on the field. RULING: Legal. As long as there is a designated, properly attired goalkeeper. if not discovered as the substitution happens, only later, i would find this usb. if the ball entered the goal before it was discovered, i would negate the apparent goal, yc the last player to enter, and restart with the appropriate restart (see my earlier post), after ensuring a keeper is now on the field and properly attired. attacker a1 shoots on goal and the ball goes in. just prior to that a2 trips defender b1 out of your sight but seen by the lead ar, who pops the flag. with ball in goal you see the ar's flag, confer, learn of attacking team foul before the shot. you negate the apparent goal, call the foul, restart from point of foul. the improperly designated keeper has committed misconduct prior to the apparent goal, also. i would not treat this any differently.
But it's not really like that. There weren't too many players on the field. And fouls are violations of Law 12, where play is stopped for the foul. The ref allowed the goalie to go off, and some one went on for him. This is the new goalie, even if he didn't have a colored shirt. Law 4 states that the goalie must wear distinguishing colors, so what we have is a violation of Law 4. For violations of Law 4, play need not be stopped, but rather, the player leaves the field of play when the ball next ceases to be in play. Even if you want to make the case for illegal goalie change, play is not stopped to administer the caution. It is given at the next stoppage of play. Of course the ref screwed up here. But I see no reason to stop play before the goal, and I see no reason to disallow the goal.
I think this makes sense. The key phrase being "if not discovered as the substitution happens, only later." But I think that this can be distinguished from the case where the referee is aware that a player without a GK jersey is substituted for the GK and wrongly gives permission. If the referee gives permission, the replacement player IS the GK (w/o proper jersey), and I would view it as only being a case of missing required equipment and not illegal substitution. Therefore no card or negating the goal [under fifa, I don't know anything about high school]. In my view, it comes down to: was the referee mistaken or inattentive?
I agree with chrisrun, holdenman, njref, etc. What we have here, at worst, is an improperly equipped GK, which is not cautionable under high school rules. (Even an illegal switch with a field player during play isn't cautionable under NFHS.) We also have a ref crew that made at least two MAJOR mistakes: allowing an improperly attired GK to enter the game (the keeper substitution was implicitly acknowledged once the game was restarted after the substitution), and disallowing the goal and turning back the clock once the illegal equipment was discovered.
to expand on njref's point...the penalty listed in rule 4 for hs is ... the player will be instructed to leave the field of play at the next stoppage. play is not stopped immediately except if the ref views the situation as immediately dangerous. so.. i agree with njref's modification to my original post.
Really? I mean, two of you said it, that's probably the HS rule (I don't know, I don't do HS). I'm questioning the rule. If the keeper isn't properly attired, we make him leave the field to correct the equipment, and play without a keeper until the next stoppage? Or is someone else on the field "appointed" keeper? Oh wait, he's not properly attired either. Repeat from step A until no players are left. Game ends.
when the keeper leaves to fix equipment the team can substitute for him/her. the new keeper needs the proper attire/equipment. the original keeper can then be subbed when properly attired, at the next sub opportunity. the team cannot choose to play down without designating a keeper. give a penny to someone. on the field.
There's nothing preventing you from stopping play to order the improperly attired keeper to put on a funny-looking shirt. Then you hold up the restart until a properly attired keeper (or sub) comes on ... oh, wait, if you do that, then you wouldn't have had the problem in the first place.
Re: Pulling the Keeper - the correct answer Shockingly, someone was not satisfied with the collective brillance of the posters on this board and submitted this question to Jim Allen. The edited answer is below (I eliminated the discussion concerning having 5 referees at a game). Even more amazingly, Mr. Allen's analysis is different than all of ours (including mine), although he reaches the same result (the goal is allowed and the referee at the game messed up). GOALKEEPER PRESENCE Your question: With 1:45 left in the game Team A pulled their keeper and put another player on (without goal keeper apparel) the referee noted the change and then Team A threw the ball in play. The AR was waving his flag for about 15 seconds and then finally put it down and let the play go on, Team A then scored about 15 seconds after the AR put his flag down. The player substituted in on the play never came within 30 yards of the ball and had no effect on the play. [The referee] disallowed the goal, put the time of the throw in back on the clock and started with a throw in from the original throw in with 1:45 on the clock and then that was that. Is this the correct action? I know this what would be done if there was an extra player on Team A, but I wasn't sure what the action was if the team did not play with a goalkeeper. USSF answer (November 8, 2004): Under the Laws of the Game no team may play without a goalkeeper. The goalkeeper does not need to be on the field if a goal is scored, but must be part of the team. (See answer of October 13, 2004: "THE GOALKEEPER DOES NOT NEED TO BE STANDING OR EVEN IN THE PENALTY AREA.") Furthermore, we do NOT roll back game events and time on the clock to some point at which the team presumably was "whole"-- we simply resolve the situation and then move onward.
Jim Allen agrees with this. I bow to the superior intellect and reasoning of Ref47, NHRef and all those who felt the goal should be disallowed, and eat my cyber-crow!
The referees messed up and if the competition authority has the half of brain the referee team was missing, then the game should be replayed with referees who do not suffer from a mental deficiency.
Re: Pulling the Keeper - the correct answer It is probably me but am I the only one who isnt quite sure what Jim allen is saying here? What is wrong with him saying"disallow the goal" or "allow the goal" I understand he is saying that you must have a goalkeeper but to me he is unclear about what we should do.