Question Number: 17650

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/3/2007

RE: Adult

Jed of Sunshine Coast, QLD Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 17607

A quick question regarding upgrading USB to DOGSO. '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?'

This one is straight out of the Q+A 2006, and it tells us the correct sanction is ONLY yellow card for USB. How come this, which qualifies as an IFK restart and definite USB (for the substitute defying the correct substitution procedure) is not upgraded to DOGSO by free kick offence? The only reason I could find was in the wording of the send off:
'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'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it due to the fact the offence is NOT committed against AN OPPONENT? If this is then right, why should the defender in Referee Voshol's scenario in Q#17607 be sent off for what seems to be not only a lesser offence than the one I've quoted above, but an offence NOT committed AGAINST AN OPPONENT? If my 'against an opponent' logic is good, this also protects the keeper from being sent off for illegal handling within his own penalty area, and other complex scenarios including a defender pushing back onto the field a keeper falling over his own goal line with the ball in his grasp and a different case of the keeper throwing boot(s) at a goalbound shot to deflect it. Wow, now wasn't that complicated. I should probably shorten my sentences.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

The difference here is that the offense the substitute committed is entering the field without permission. That offense happened at the place he crossed the boundary line. At that point, he did not deny a goal with his misconduct. He later kicked the ball - maybe only moments later, but it was later. Kicking the ball is not illegal, even if the person doing the kicking is not legal.

This sub will have to be on his best behavior for the rest of the game, as we now have his number. He will be closely watched!

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

If you look at the next question, 13.1, you'll see the same scenario only this time the sub handles the ball and prevents a goal. Since deliberately handling the ball by anyone other than the keeper inside his own penalty area is an offence, the substitute is sent off. In #13 the only offence was unsporting behavior so no send off. You'll take note that the restart in both cases is an IFK at the spot the ball was when play was stopped as the restart is for unsporting behavior

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jed,
prior to the IFAB/FIFA adjustment of making substitute misconduct on the field indfk offences. These were consider as outside agents and drop ball restarts were all that was allowed for misconduct on the field.

The restarts now while they could be different (indfk versus dfk) as only a player can commit a penal foul, however, anything a player can do so can a substitute in terms of misconduct. Thus the part in laws about a player/substitute being disciplined accordingly to the nature of the misconduct has clarity.

There are reasons to see ANY unfair action which denies a goal to follow the reasoning of why DOGSO criteria were first imposed.
It is wrong to do so!

Yet we have occasional perversions of law where we try to stick to the letter of the law because the laws of the game are not always capable of giving us a decision that is in my opinion truly fair.

A keeper throws something at a ball inside his area to stop it from entering the goal we cal it USB and INDFK if a player does it we call it DOGSO and send off. A thrown object or holding a shin guard is considered an EXTENSION of the arm thus this becomes a handling issue. Keeper can use his hands inside his area.

In the substitute entering without permission or a player who entered without permission (off for injury or equipment fix) both were granted the right to stop the goal because kicking a ball is not an illegal action although the misconduct for entering the field is an illegal action.

An idea would be ANY unfair misconduct by a player or rostered substitute against an opposing team member/ player/substitute or the ball which denies a goal or the obvious opportunity can be sanctioned as a send off event.

2006 Q&A is being replaced by the additional instructions and advice to referees in the 2007-8 laws of the game.

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

This is a difficult concept to grasp. It involves the manner in which sending-off [SO] 4 and SO5 are written in Law 12 and the change to Law 3 in May of 2005 in that the restart of play for a substitute entering without permission went from dropped ball to indirect free kick.

Previous to May 2005 a substitute entering only forced a dropped ball. So the offence could not be denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick as per SO5. What the referee was to do was caution and remove the substitute. The restart was dropped ball UNTIL May 2005.

One part of the Law changed without a commensurate change to another. Perhaps this is an error perhaps it is something else that has become a part of the history of The Game that we're all supposed to know.

You'll note in the case of a substitute using handles the ball deliberately to deny a goal he is still sent-off because of the way SO4 is written. Here, he has well and truly denied a goal with his hand and that is in itself a sending-off offence UNLESS he is an outside agent [his name is not on the lists of players and substitutes]. The restart of play remains indirect free kick where the ball was when play stopped but the substitute has committed two offences, the first C6 and the second SO4. The referee acts in accordance with bullet 12 of Law 5.

The keeper is not sent off for illegal handling by exception in Law 12; firstly in the definition of handles the ball deliberately and secondly in SO4. Both except the keeper parenthetically.

Regards,

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 17698

See Question: 17809

See Question: 18071