Question Number: 24458

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/4/2011

RE: Adult

tony of Sydndey, NSW Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 24388

Panel,

I am interested in the correct mechanics in these situations:

An 'illegal' substitute enters the field without permission and denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an attacker by:

1.Yelling out to the attacker and so distracts the attacker and no goal is scored.

2. Makes a 'legal' tackle on the attacker and so prevents the goal.

In situation 1 - as I see it we have two options. Caution for the illegal entry (USB)and caution again for the yelling to distract an opponent (USB) and then send off for receiving 2 yellow cards.

Another option could be to consider the illegal entry to yell at the attacker on the field as one sort of simultaneous action. If so we could show the yellow card for the misconduct (yelling) USB and then show the red card as per send off offence 5.

Same outcome but which one is more correct?

In situation 2 the sub has achieved the same outcome i.e. he has stopped a goal being scored but here the sanction can only be a yellow card for the illegal entry and an IDFK from where the ball was when play was stopped. It is not an offence to legally tackle a player even if that player should not be on the field.

If we could consider the illegal entry as the offence that denied the goal we could at least send him off as per sending off offence 5. but as I understand in law this is not correct. Do you agree?

Now it seems strange that an 'ilegal' sub who yells at an attacker in a goal scoring opportunity gets sent off whereas the same 'illegal' person who actually makes a legal tackle only gets a caution and is able to take part in the game at a latter date.

Interested in your thoughts and comments on this one from the law point of view.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

A few years ago, FIFA provided a pair of answers in the Questions & Answers that addressed the situation of a substitute stopping a goal from an act that would be an infringement by any player and compared it with the substitute doing what would be proper play (kicking the ball) if done by a player. FIFA provided for a sendoff for the first (for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by an infringement punishable by a free kick), but only a caution for the second. These answers, however, were not incorporated into the latest interpretations and guidelines which are annexed to the laws of the game. It is not clear if they have any continued life.

The USSF recently addressed a question similar to yours and opined that the referee has the power to caution the substitute for unsporting behavior - - the entry onto the field and then to caution the substitute for unsporting behavior - - later interfering with the opponent's play on the ball. The result is a sendoff for receiving a second caution in the match.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

In both instances an illegal substitute has denied a goal scoring opportunity.

1. You are correct that verbally distracting an opponent is USB. But you may still send the illegal sub off for DOGSO as the verbal distraction is an offence punishable by a free kick. Or for the 2 cautions.

2. You are correct that the legal tackle cannot be punished as an illegal tackle. By this I mean you can't say it was careless, reckless or with excessive force unless it really was. In the US you may still send him off as his interfering with play by tackling an opponent (even if not careless,reckless or with excessive force) when he had no business being on the field in the first place is unsporting behavior. This would result in 2 cautions and a send off.

In discussions with referees from all over the world everyone has agreed the substitute should be sent off in both cases because he denied a goal in both cases. When the 2006 Q&A came out I thought it absurd the sub could not be sent off for denying a goal by stopping the ball with his foot but that's what IFAB decided so we had to abide. It's fortunate that USSF has given referees here in the US a way to obtain justice but unfortunate that USSF policy cannot help non-US referees do the same

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Tony
Outside the US there is a different answer to this question
1. The substitute has committed an offence which has denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity and the substitute is dismissed for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity and the restart is an indirect free kick from where the offence took place
2. In this situation the substitute is cautioned for unsporting behaviour that is the illegal entry and the restart is an indirect freekick from where play was stopped by the referee.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Excuse me, Tony, but how is a 'legal' tackle by a sub who is illegally on the field any different from the yell by the same sub which distracts the attacker? The attacker is certainly distracted in both instances, although the latter has greater potential to not only cause him to miss the shot on goal but to injure him as well - how is he supposed to anticipate being tackled by a sub?

In that situation, I would recommend cautioning for the illegal entry (USB) and cautioning again for the unsporting action of tackling a player and thus distracting him when the sub has no right to be on the field. The sub is sent off, and is no longer a problem. This is quite supportable under the LOTG and metes out appropriate justice.

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

See Question: 24533