Question Number: 15606

Law 3 - Number of Players 5/26/2007

RE: Competitive Adult

Ryan of Flower Mound, TX U.S.A. asks...

Dear Referee Panel,

LOTG Q&A 2006 3.13 states

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?

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

Am I to understand that this situation cannot qualify for DOGSO? I am assuming that the subsititute has stopped a shot on goal from crossing the goal line with his foot. If the elements for DOGSO are present isn't this offense punishable by showing the red card and sending off the substitute? In 3.13.1 it states

If the player prevents the goal with his hand, what action does the referee take?

The referee stops play and sends-off the substitute 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*. End Quote.

Therefore, the substitute is sent off for DGH when handling the ball. Is the difference between hand and foot the distinguishing factor between send off and caution. It would seem to me that both cases could merit a send off.

Additionally, I assume that if the substitute had thrown an object onto the field which prevented a goal it would be treated in the same manner as handling. While if the substitute had kicked an object on the field it would be treated in the same manner as the substitute entering the field and stopping the ball from entering the goal with his foot. Is that correct?

Thank you for your time.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Jim Allen has answered this question for those who are governed by the USSF. Note specifically the words, "any action, if it had been committed by a player" would also qualify for sending off the substitute. So to your question, yes, the difference is the use of the hand vs. foot. Note also that kicking the ball away could be a second caution for unsporting behavior, resulting in a send-off.

It can be found here http://www.drix.net/jim/past071.html and is quoted for your convenience:
USSF answer (February 23, 2007):
1. The 2006 changes in Law 3 and Law 12 regarding substitutes or substituted players who illegally enter the field were dealt with in the 2006 edition of the USSF publication "Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game" (see, for example, the many rewritten entries under Law 3). Unfortunately, the 2006 edition of the Advice does not cover the question about whether a substitute who has entered the field illegally can be sent off if, while on the field and before play is stopped for the illegal entry, he or she handles the ball to prevent a goal or commits any other action which, in the opinion of the referee, interferes with an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

The answer is yes: A substitute or substituted player can be sent off and shown the red card for any action which, if it had been committed by a player, would have resulted in the player being sent off for either the 4th or the 5th send-off reason listed in Law 12. ?Just as with players, all elements of the decision to send someone off for either of these reasons are governed by Section D of Law 12 in Advice to Referees and apply to substitutes and substituted players as well as to players.

2. In this second question, the solution for simply kicking the ball by the "invading" substitute or substituted player would be two cautions followed by the send-off for the second caution: one caution for unsporting behavior for entering the field without permission and the second for unsporting behavior for kicking the ball away from the opponent. You would then restart the match with an indirect free kick where the ball was when the substitute illegally entered the field (the first misconduct).

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Misconduct whether it be a sub or a player is treated as the same in terms of conduct just not always in restart.

In the following Q&A to the one you quoted it states if the ball is actually handled deliberately it is in fact a send off event be it a sub or a player.

If you read the 3.13 Q&A literally it states stopping a ball with the foot NOT kicking it away.
I proposed the same situation as you quoted but instead of a sub it is a player who is off the field with permission say to fix an equipment defect or as a result of an injury treatment and that player enters without permission by the referee and acts in the same manner.
Many responded that only a single caution could be issued. I remarked if the act itself is a result of illegally being there on the field then why is two cautions considered for a sub as opposed to a player? In truth that player had no more business being there than a sub warming up!

In my opinion only, any illegal act which actually denies a goal or a legitimate scoring attempt should result in a send off. However, I find the Q&A to be ambiguous on DOGSO and not always within the context of the spirit of why such a law exists for those who cheat!

Let me ask you if the sub did not enter the field but screamed at the top of his lungs from just beside the post to verbally put off the opponent from shooting or if he rolled a ball onto the field and the result was a missed shot because the opponent cringed or was distracted?

In the past the sub was treated the same as an outside agent and dropball was the restart thus it was impossible or at least a reach to find two cautions for this situation in points of law although many tried!

Now as the restart has been CHANGED to INDFKs I think there is justification in using the laws to punish any such an act as an unacceptable violation of the spirit of the those laws.
Cheers