Question Number: 24388

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/28/2010

RE: Adult

Tony of Sydney, NSW Australia asks...

Panel,

A substitute runs onto the field (team now has 12 on the field) and spits at an opponent.

Now I know that a sub can not commit a foul and spitting is listed as one of the 10 penal fouls. However spitting is also one of the send off offences and as the law says 'A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences'

Now this is strictly not correct as a sub can not commit serious foul play and a sub cannot be sent off denying 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. The reason being in both that a sub can not commit a foul.

As spitting is both a defined send off and a foul it must be possible to send a sub off for spitting. In this case not a foul but committed one of the possible listed send off offences.

Restart is indirect free kick for illegal entry (USB)where the ball was when play was stopped.

Is my understanding correct?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Tony
Spitting is a sending off offence in its own right and it applies as well to substitutes and substituted players.
You have quoted the wording of the Laws of the Game in respect of the seven sending off offences that can be committed by a player, substitute or substituted player and you are correct in that a substitute cannot commit a foul. The important part is that when a player, substitute or substituted player uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent that he/she is dismissed. The paperwork can be managed afterwards and as Referee Voshol has quoted "the use of "serious foul play" as the reason for sending off a substitute should be avoided".
In relation to cautions the Laws of the Game make the distinction that substitutes and substituted players can only be cautioned if they commits any of the following three offences:
# unsporting behaviour
# dissent by word or action
# delaying the restart of play

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

While substitutes are limited to only 3 of the 7 cautions, they are eligible for all 7 of the send-off offenses. None of those offenses require a foul to happen in conjuction with the send-off. For example, other than DOGSO, one of the offenses could happen while the ball is not in play. So subs can be sent off as well as players.

Whle the Laws allow for the sub to be sent off for any of the 7 offenses, I have a hard time envisioning a situation where I would send off a non-player for SFP - instead it likely would be VC. Advice to Referees 5.16 says, "(The use of "serious foul play" as the reason for sending off a substitute should be avoided.)" Sections 12.29 and 12.33 say it should be VC, not SFP. (Sorry, we kind of got off on a tangent there.)

Because a sub or a subbed-out player cannot commit a foul, the restart would be an indirect free kick - even if the restart would have been a direct free kick had a player done it. So your spitting sub would be sent off, and play would be restarted with an IFK.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

You have it correctly.

1. It is not a foul since it wasn't done by a player.

2. Although Law 12 does not limit the offenses for which a substitute may be sent off (cf., only 3 cautionable offenses); the sendoff here for spitting applies equally to players and substitutes.

Although a substitute cannot commit a "foul", (which by definition is limited to acts by a player) DOGSO does not require a foul. It requires preventing a goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball or by an offense against an opponent for which the punishment is a free kick. When a substitute enters the field and then prevents the ball from entering the goal by an act that would be a foul (if done by a player) that act is still misconduct for which the restart is an IFK. A substitute can commit an offense punishable by a free kick.

"Serious foul play" does not include serious misconduct by substitutes. (See ATR 12.33.) The sendoff would be reported as violent conduct.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Sending off offense #5 doesn't say anything about a foul. It says an 'offence' punishable by a free kick which applies to misconduct which a substitute MAY commit so a sub MAY be sent off for #5. The only send off offense not possible for a substitute is #1 Serious Foul Play because SFP REQUIRES a foul be committed and as you correctly state, substitutes cannot commit fouls. Were a substitute to rush onto the field and jump two footed into a challenge for the ball endangering the opponent's safety, he would be sent off for Violent Conduct, not SFP. Jumping at an opponent is a direct free kick foul which, by definition, a substitute cannot commit even if it endangers the safety of an opponent. If a substitute "lunges" at an opponent using excessive force he is either jumping at, striking, tackling, pushing, or charging, all of which are direct free kick fouls which, again, by definition he cannot commit.

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

See Question: 24435

See Question: 24458