Question Number: 18602

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/23/2008

RE: Competitive Adult

Omid of Ottawa, ON Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 18590

Hello,

I was reading this question and answers for 18590 and thought I share something with you from the Questions and Answer 2006 of Laws of the Game, ( Law 3) page 10, question number 13. It says that:

13. A substitue warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of playe and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take?

The referee stops play, cautions the substitue for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted wtih an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped.*

Now the next question:

13.1. If the player prevents the goal with his foot, what action does the referee take?

The referee stops play and sends-off the substitue for denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped.

I think these answers contradict your answers to at least one of the questions in this regard or maybe it is a different circumstance.

My question is this:

What is the difference between stopping the ball with a foot or a hand? In my opinion, both can be deemed deliberate. Under one condition, kicking the ball with a foot cannot be considered deliberate and that's when someone forced or this player to stick his foot in front of the ball or forced him to hold the foot in the direction of the ball.

Sometimes, FIFA Laws of the Game can be so mind-boggling but I guess we have to accept them.

Please comment on this.

Thanks a lot,

Omid

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

The reason lies in the wording of SO4. It spells out the action necessary for the sending-off, "denies the opposing team ... deliberately handling the ball". This is different than SO5's "to an opponent ... an offence punishable by a free kick", something a substitute or substituted player cannot do.

Regards,

Read other questions answered by Referee Chuck Fleischer

View Referee Chuck Fleischer profile

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Omid,
oh I think you better reread that passage!
we do read the Q@A , we too wonder at the way it is worded and the exact meaning to be gleaned.
You need to understand that the 2006 Q@A was replaced by additional instructions in 2007 although the intent of the Q@A might still carry over.
The fact is it states ONLY if the HAND is used to deny a goal or scoring opportunity is point 4 of law 12 sending off offences applied be it a legal player or illegal entity(substitute, substituted player or player) on the field. As a direct red it is a easy decision.

You understand of course as a player this act is ALWAYS A PENAL FOUL and a DFK event whereas for the other two (substitute and substituted player) this is a further act of misconduct and an INDFK only! This IMPLIES that the player and sub are held to the SAME standard and thus punished according to the NATURE of the misconduct. It appears that in our second subset of events where only a foot is used to stop or kick the ball that BECAUSE a player can do it then so can a substitute or substituted player!

Where it becomes unfair is a PLAYER can kick a ball on the field as part of his duty to the game. Thus a kick of the ball is NOT an infringement. Thus a player who might be off the field with permission (injury recovery, jersey or equipment repair or even a late arrival to a ten man squad. He can run onto the field and use his feet just the same as ANY player can do so and he is ONLY punished for the entry without permission which is something a substitute or substituted player CAN NOT be guilty of!

The point I personally have issue with is if we only consider an illegal entry by a substitute or substituted player to kick a ball EVEN if it denies the opponents a goal as a single event then the single caution is for USB of the whole act (entering the field when not allowed too and participating in a dynamic event that CLEARLY and unfairly denies the goal) is only a cautionable offence not as two SEPARATE acts of misconduct.

I have GREAT misgivings that we cannot in law send off the substitute or substituted entity off for two cautionable events in lue of not finding the indfk for law 3 violation as a reason to apply a DIRECT send off according to point 5 of law 12 sending off offences.

I believe because we could apply advantage on the fact that a goal might still be gained after the illegal entry onto the field until the kick away occurs this should allow us the FAIR opinion that this was two separate acts of misconduct by an entity that was NOT allowed in law to be there. A player at least has that legality he is permitted to be on the field as a player to mitigate his actions.

While I cry foul, it is misconduct and perhaps not in the way I WANT to see it or in the WAY we should be seeing it!

Cheers


Read other questions answered by Referee Richard Dawson

View Referee Richard Dawson profile

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

These are rationalizations of why FIFA has instructed us as they have. Their reasoning is that it is not an offence to kick the ball. In the question you bring up, the stopping the ball isn't the USB, the entering the field without permission is. Does this make any sense logically? Does the subsequent reprehensible behavior of stopping a sure goal not warrant punishment? I would think anyone would agree that denying a goal even if it's with the foot is unsporting behavior but I would be wrong.


Read other questions answered by Referee Keith Contarino

View Referee Keith Contarino profile