Jim Allen announced that the IFAB has decreed a new restart if too many players are on the field. As I understood it, this is the old rule: under law 12, if a player enters the field without permission, the player is cautioned. Also under law 12, if play is stopped for an offense punishable under law 12 and no other restart is mandated, the offended team gets an IFK. If play was already stopped, the restart did not change. As I understand the new interpretation: if a player enters without permission, the player is cautioned. But the restart is a dropped ball in all cases. If the ball was out of play, the restart is changed to a drop ball where the ball went out of play unless the drop ball would be in the goal box, then it moves to the edge of the goal box. To me the old interpretation was more consistent with the laws and more fair than this new interpretation.
Well, it sounds like the IFAB has decided that too many players on the field is akin to being an outside interference (dog, spectator, etc.). That's not too much of a stretch to see that. However, I don't understand changing the restart -- we wouldn't change the restart if a dog ran on the field during a stoppage.
Didn't they simply change the restart from an IFK to a drop ball, as you said because it is more akin to outside interference? I actually agree with that change.
If that was the only change there would be no issue. Unfortunately they are also saying the restart changes when the ball is out of play already as well. For example, if the ball goes out for a goal kick with an extra player on the field, the restart is a drop ball on the goal line where the ball went out (subject to Law 8). If a goal is scored by the opponent and you have an extra player on the field, the goal is disallowed with a drop ball restart on the 6 yard line... Personally I would ignore "discovering" the extra player until after the kick-off.
If the extra player ran out AFTER the stoppage we would not do so either. The intent is I think to say the non allowed 12th person entered BEFORE any subsequent action or stoppage occured and thus IF found out at the stoppage makes the reason for the stoppage a secondary event. I have some qualms with the absolutness of an outside agency distinction even as I see the uniformity issue they are trying to achieve. Does this somehow preclude playing advantage properly? As I understand it we can wait to see if a goal is scored and it says CLEARLY in the Q@A in such a case the goal would stand! Statesman are you sure? The FIFA Q@A directly states that if your opponents score on you playing with 11 against your 12 the goal stands??? A substitute who has joined the game without the permission of the referee scores a goal. The referee realises this before restarting play. What action will the referee take if the opposing team scores the goal? The goal will be awarded. The offending player is cautioned for entering the field of play without the referee’s permission and is instructed to leave the field of play for the substitution to be completed correctly. The match will be restarted with a kick-off. If the defending team has too many players, the defender fouls an opponent in the penalty area for a PK I am better off not calling it if the dropball location is not as advantagous as letting play continue???? If we KNOW the defenders have 12 people playing but we SEE the attacker could score we do not have to stop play we can apply advantage, however, if that attacker is fouled or if a corner kick or throw in results we now punish the attackers by giving a 50/50 dropball? Does it make ANY difference if we do not know until AFTER the stoppage that the defenders had 12 players? Does it remain a PK IF the defender committing the foul was not the 12th! Does it revert to a dropball ONLY if that defender WAS for sure the 12th? CERTAINLY a defender who comes on to the field AFTER the stoppage would reset NOTHING. I find this revelation if indeed true, unsettling.
Hold on what?? Team A has 12 men on the field and they take a shot and it goes wide. the ref notices 12 players on the field for team A. So now there's a drop ball at the edge of the box??? Isn't that giving advantage to a cheating team? Heck if I'm the head coach and I know there's an inexperienced ref is send in another guy if he doesnt notice it, good. if he does, hopefully we took a shot by then and get a drop ball. I must be understanding you wrong because the scenario i just wrote is ridiculous
No, I'm not sure. I haven't seen a definitive answer regarding the changing of a restart after a stoppage. The only time the Q&A seems to bring it up is at the scoring of a goal by a team with 12 men. Although you are correct that the Q&A states the goal should be allowed. My point was basically that if what people are saying is true, it isn't applied uniformly. This lends me to believe that we do not change the restart unless the ball was last played by the illegal man, or the foul committed by the illegal man, or whatever the case may be, in which case the outside interference occurs first. The ONLY other time the restart is changed is at the scoring of a goal by the team with 12 men, becoming a drop ball.
According to Jim Allen, the restart changes. This rule was only put in place in the middle of this season, and is contrary to what is generally tought about changing restarts, which is why it is not being applied in most games. Sorry I cannot copy the text from Jim Allen's website for some reason. I don't think that an extra player should be treated as outside interference. An extra player is the fault of the team that put the player on the field. Changing the restart or awarding a drop ball could reward the team with too many players. Here is a new strategy: at the end of the game, have a substitute run onto the field whenever the other team has the ball and is starting to develop a play, or is about to get a goal kick. The player takes a yellow card (so what, they are a sub and it is the end of the game). But the other team's play or kick stops and you get an advantageous drop ball. Take a yellow to change a goal kick to a drop ball at the 6 yard line? Definitely.
That isn't the point of this. In your case, you caution the guy runnign on the field for entering without permission. I believe what is being discussed is when you "suddenly" discover there are to many players. I agree the restart change seems wrong. I just went through my 2005 recert and they didn't mention this during the "new rules and interpretations" section.
Was this the page in question? http://www.ussoccer.com/referees/content.sps?iType=4168&icustompageid=6779 I'll write to Jim and ask for further information.
Here is the question and answer: "EXTRA PLAYER" Your question: I have just become aware of an apparent contradiction between the IFAB 2004 Q&A document, and the Entry Level Course content. I draw your particular attention to Q&A Questions 7 and 8 under Law 3. In this scenario, we are presented with an evident contradiction to the Entry Level Course transparencies 3-19 and 3-20. I am referring to the situation in which a team's status of playing with an unauthorized (even an "extra") person is discovered either during play or after an apparent goal. Still in force is the fact that the extraneous person will be Cautioned and asked to leave the field of play, and in the second instance, the goal will not be allowed. The issue becomes the restart, which, as we have been teaching it, would be an IFK to the opposing team, or in the second instance, a goal kick by that team. This Q&A document would have us instead conduct a drop-ball in both cases, at the spot where the ball was, if play was stopped for the discovery; or, if after the apparent goal, on the goal-area line parallel to the goalline, nearest to where the ball entered the goal. On the face of it, this seems a rather advantageous treatment for a team caught trying to cheat, and somewhat "arbitrary" in the specification of the placement. (It also violates one of my favorite Law parameters, in that once something has happened, nothing subsequent to that occurence will change the restart. In this case, the ball going over the goalline, not ultimately resulting in a goal, thereby leading to a goalkick, made sense.) Has the Federation decided on how to treat this apparent discontinuity? As we enter the off-season, with the attendent high number of Entry Level Courses, having this difference between published IFAB data and information on the USSF website is worrisome. USSF answer (November 2, 2004): What you point out is not an "apparent contradiction," it's an evolving interpretation by the IFAB. The entry-level course materials predate FIFA's issuance of the IFAB's new version of its Q&A. It is incumbent on referees, instructors, and assessors to remain current on the Laws of the Game, along with all current interpretations, instructions, and guidelines. The new IFAB Q&A has been available on the FIFA website since the middle of this year. As for the restart itself, the IFAB appears to have decided to standardize the restart whenever "extra" persons are discovered on the field of play-whether that extra person is a player who has returned without the referee's permission, a substitute who has entered without the referee's permission, or an outside agent (i.e., anyone else) -no matter what happens afterward. The placement of the restart is a practical issue. All dropped balls are where the ball was when play was stopped: if the ball was off the field (thus appearing to have stopped play), the IFAB guideline suggests that the dropped ball take place where the ball left the field. If this results in the restart being inside the goal area, then we have another rule that kicks in-that the restart be moved up to the top of the goal area on the six yard line closest to where the restart would otherwise have been. As the person posing the question to Jim Allen noted, a goal kick against the team with too many players is changed into dropped ball on the top of the goal area, resulting in a benefit for the team with too many players. Hardly a fair result, unless the referee drops the ball to the GK. But why should we have to go through this to get a fair result? The IFAB seems to have "dropped the ball" in more ways than one.