Hi Martin
Thanks for the question.
Obviously if you and others can see what is going on the powers that be are also well aware of matters that are not Fair Play.
As it currently stands a team must have a goalkeeper and all referees will stop the game when a goalkeeper is down. Unfortunately we are not mind readers so we have to go with what has been presented.
What I have seen is that both teams use the opportunity not just one.
For what it is worth the FA has tried to deal with the injury situations and some of the recent items that have been introduced are
1. Lengthy added time being added on. I have seen 8, 9 plus minutes being added on
2. Restricting immediate return after injury based on individual circumstances.
Personally I think there is a lot wrong at the moment in the game and while some changes have been welcome a great deal more could be done.
One suggestion I would make is that in certain circumstances players could be treated with play continuing until there is possible interference.
Case in point was the Bradley injury in the game v Arsenal. Physios could have treated the player on the line with play restarted immediately with the throw in. It would have prevented the confrontation that took place at that incident.
In addition the rule used by NFHS as mentioned by my good colleague Referee Manjone deals with this at lower levels of the game.
Unfortunately I doubt the law body will deal with this or that teams will change their tactics. We see many players that know they need to leave the field of play laying down seeking treatment until a substitute is ready.
Again it is teams gaming the laws to their own advantage and they all do it. They don’t like it when it’s against them but all teams do it when it suits them.

Hi Martin,

It is interesting that you mention this situation. In the U.S. different levels of competition are covered by different rules making bodies, and one of them, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) addressed and changed the rule for its 20,000 member schools at the start of the 25-26 high school soccer seasons.

As before and as like the FIFA rule, the goalkeeper did not have to leave the game when attended to for an injury on the field. Now, all players including the goalkeeper must leave the game when attended to for an injury.

This rule was brought about partially because of the situation you mention and also because the safety of players is a major concern of the NFHS. The goalkeeper may want to stay in the game but further attention to the injury may be needed.

The other major rules making body in the U.S. is the NCAA and there is speculation they may also change the rule in the same manner as the NFHS.

Obviously as you pointed out, FIFA also needs to adopt a similar rule, and many of these "fake" injuries will be avoided.

Thank you for this observation.

Hi Peter
Thanks for the question.

Over recent years I have noticed a slackening of enforcement of Law 15 at Pro level with referees allowing questionable throw in mechanics. I now regularly see this flick of the ball from the top of the head to a team mate who is beside the thrower.

Here is an example
https://youtu.be/4GwuhMwYyis?si=UVcRNWkUL-Q5WaF1

Notice though how the Blue opponents were not bothered by the throw in action. At grassroots this would attract shouts of Foul Throw and personally I am calling that with a turnover.

My own take on how the Law on restarts was framed I believe it as to keep players away from the taker and to prevent crowding. A properly taken throw in will keep players a distance from the throw.

My take is that an ugly throw in might not be illegal and if it looks like it is okay then play on. Spiking the ball, drópping the ball, raising a leg, being over the touchline, from the wrong place are all reasons for an incorrectly taken throw in.
If a referee does not like a questionable throwing action then make a call either to allow it from then on or turn it over. A turnover will always prevent a repeat of the action.

HI Petr,
a throw in was supposed to be a quick restart for why a ball went into touch and not a goal or corner kick using the foot as it is at either end of the FOP.

Now adaptations have been introduced and there is even a law change requiring a minimum distance the opposition must be from the designated throw-in. Yet the exact spot the ball exits we tend to be generalized which then complicates the defenders reasoning especially if we permit the thrower to walk the ball up the line as I see so often.

I think they should eliminate the procedures in place and put four caveats in place! (1) the ball is tossed in by hand and is in play the moment the ball touches the boundary line and the hands can not be on the ball when it is released back into play (2) it cannot be tossed into the PA area or Keeper gets a DB. (3) the defenders must be 3 yards away from the point of the exit & (4) strict adherence to the exit point. You can use two or one hand you can deliver under hand or over hand.

As it is currently written and interpreted we are pretty liberal with the release point and how because the exact blade of grass point is rather lenient (yard or two) and the fact we tend to allow a run up dragging the toe. Then there are the myths of spin (it has no bearing) how far (nothing is ever said we must put the ball in play in terms of yards away when a mere trickle finger flick places the ball right on the touchline and the fact both hands being used (do not require equal force)

My colleagues comments on the Giggs throw in state it was taken incorrectly I think it was taken sloppily perhaps poorly even minimally be it doubtful or trifling, the need to intervene is simply not there! What was so wrong? The LOTG are often vague when it comes to specifics of behind and over the head? No completely, no, rest it on the neck, no, ensure the ball is leaving the hands on the follow through, no reach out hold and let the ball roll down the back??

I watch toe drags where the foot bobbles up off the ground. I see a foot lifted prior to the ball being released . I see feet on the touchline incorrectly awarded to the other team . I see throws from far away where the ball exited that should not be permitted . I see balls delivered that make contact or break the boundary line plane called never in and allowed to be retaken?

Personally unless its a grenade hand lob with the back turned I do not get terribly upset as loss of possession. My #1 priority the throw -in is taken from -WHERE IT EXITED- a few general no no's for me? (a)No opponent is with 2 meters. (b)The ball is NOT spiked
Cheers

Hi Petr
Thanks fir the follow up

The laws allows for B, C and D. B and C are expressly stated in the Laws while D is tacit knowledge as it is not possible to take a throw in or a corner kick without being off the field to do so. It is seen as a playing action.

A and E are not part if the Laws except for an injury while off through momentum. Sure a player could simply walk off and cite A and E to avoid a caution.

As Referee Grove mentions a referee needs to know what is happening in the game. Permission would always be given in A and E yet return would be tightly controlled so that a player could not return into the middle of active play unbeknownst to opponents. That would be patently unfair.

The only true source of the Laws of the Game is the IFAB website. Many former publications have been discarded as as the US ATR as it was not approved by IFAB.

Hi Petr,
I'm wondering what you mean by "the Czech version of the rules." The IFAB does not allow different national associations to come up with their own versions of the Laws of the Game, and while they have started publishing different language versions of the laws on their website, Czech is not one of them. So I'm wondering who publishes this set of laws and where?

Anyway, setting that aside, as my colleague ref McHugh alludes to, scenarios b, c and d are all fairly standard and more or less covered by the laws (you could for instance, class taking a restart as a normal playing action). Scenarios a and e are a little more problematic however. I don't see anything in the laws that would cover these, either explicitly or implicitly. For me, a player should require permission from the referee to leave the field for injury or to change their equipment.

Now, I would say those would be pretty much automatically granted by any referee so I don't see any reason why a player wouldn't ask (or almost just notify) the referee of such an action - but the referee does need to be aware of what's going on. You can't just have players wandering off the field when they feel like it, without the referee being informed. And they definitely need the referee's permission to return.

HI Petr,
Merry Christmas.
Basically it is a bad idea that might get overlooked/ ignored only if trifling! However it can not be a hidden jump out to surprise an opponent or win the ball from a concealed position off the FOP. Players are expected to remain on the FOP during play. You are aware you can exit and come in as part of the natural playing movement be it momentum or trying to avoid a collision. If a player exited to tie or put on a boot or fix a shin guard and came back quickly likely no one squawks. It gets a bit dicey if you actually leave the confines to grab a drink or get a dose of magic spray for a wonky knee or sore ankle as -injury- requires a referee's permission to reenter. It is not a big deal to just be at the touchlines and reach across quickly to get sprayed or a gulp of water! The issues that could arise are offside determinations and you are indeed supposed to receive permission to leave. Now a referee CAN de-facto give permission after the fact to not make a big deal of an unnecessary caution. But once off you require a signal to reenter!
Cheers

Hi Petr
It is not correct to say that a player can leave the field of play voluntarily without permission to correct equipment. The player must ask permission from the referee to do so.

In the rare occasion that a player gets injured off the field of play through momentum and cannot return immediately there is no offence there. The player must wait though for the referee’s permission to return which can be given during play with the exception of a blood injury which must be checked at a stoppage in play.

At the higher levels players will not cross the touchline for treatment or to correct equipment and you will see these player coming to a line but never over it. A player cannot return from over the goal line and must do so from a touchline.

At lower levels of the game it is less picky with a higher degree of latitude given yet it is still an offence to leave the field of play to correct equipment, to get treatment without the referees permission except where it is allowed in the law such as a playing movement, showing no offside involvement or as already mentioned where a player cannot return due to injury after momentum brings the player off the FOP.

In all instances of return a player must get the referee’s permission to do so which can be given during play. A referee should not allow a player to enter into the middle of active play yet wait until play goes away from that area.

Law 4 states ** A player who enters without permission must be cautioned, and if play is stopped to issue the caution, an indirect free kick is awarded from the position of the ball when play was stopped, unless there was interference, in which case a direct free kick (or penalty kick) is awarded from the position of the interference.**

Law 11 tells us ** An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player will be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage must be cautioned..**

Hi Richard
Thanks for the question.

Very simple answer. The team does NOT play short as it was not players that were sent off. The team just has fewer substitutes to chose from.
A team only plays short if a player is dismissed from the field of play during the game.

It not expressly stated in the Law yet wordings like the following allude to it.
“A named substitute who is sent off before or after the kick-off may not be replaced.”
“A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.”

So essentially players, substitutes and substituted players can be treated differently under the Law depending on the situation.

Another unusual situation is where a player is sent off before kick off. That dismissed player is replaced by a named substitute and again the team does not play short. The substitute cannot be replaced so the team has a substitute less to choose from. That is set out in Law
“” A player who is sent off........... after being named on the team list and before kick-off may be replaced by a named substitute, who cannot be replaced the number of substitutions the team can make is not reduced”

If a player is sent off during the half time interval the team does play short in the second half.

Hi Petr,
it usually is the dude standing over the ball as he places it on the spot! As a referee we generally ask who is taking it, then hand them the ball to them, watching to ensure it is spotted correctly on the pk spot but if he says, No it ain't me and say a teammate or the coach has yelled out, "Let Danny take it!", once identified to the referee as the kicker, then Danny is the boy who puts the foot through the ball.

Remember a referee must signal the pk to go ahead and they can not do so until everyone is where they are supposed to be and no non-kicker player from either team can be closer than the ten yards (that includes being inside the D penalty arc)
The Pk taker who has been previously designated & identified can be outside the PK area to start a run up, but would be the only one able to close within the ten yards.
Plus any foolish antics if deemed inappropriate could get him cautioned.
Cheers

Hi Peter,
The Laws of the Game do not specify exactly how the penalty taker is to be identified but as my colleague ref Dawson states, the most common way would be simply to ask the players who is going to take it.

The player taking the penalty can start their run-up from wherever they like. There is no approved or banned area for start of the run-up.

Usually the player starts their run-up from inside the penalty area (so in an area where no other players are allowed to be) but that is not mandatory. I remember there was a penalty taker back in the 1960's and 70’s from my team, Middlesbrough, who used to start his run-up from well outside the penalty area, even further back than the players on the edge of the D.

See video below, starting at 1m 28s.

https://youtu.be/VHCFpcNc3NM?si=4BuJ7Cy3zj2UEoKM

Hi Petr
I remember seeing a video of I think a game in South America where a player placed the ball for a penalty and then went outside the penalty area into a group of players including a team mate. The team mate ran forward and took the penalty.
That straight away should have been a red flag for a referee as the kicker must be identified. Generally that is the player with the ball that places it. In the absence of uncertainty a referee should ask who is taking the penalty kick. That can happen by not allowing the kick with a whistle as the kick cannot happen until after the signal has been given.

As to the distance of the run up taken that is not defined and it is left to the player to decide. Most players would not like to get involved with opponents and I suppose it is why the penalty arc is there to give a taker 10 yards of unrestricted space.

Anyway it is not going to concern most referees as the accepted practice is for the kicker to take the ball and place it before the run up. Anyone else coming forward to take the kick is encroachment for which the player is cautioned and the restart is an indirect free kick at the location of encroachment whether a goal is scored or not.

Hi Lee
Thanks for the question.

The answer is unlikely as it will not be part of the competition rules. The more likely outcome is a caution or a dismissal.
The philosophy is that an *instant punishment* of a sin bin can have a significant and immediate positive influence on the behaviour of the offending player and, potentially, the player’s team.
In KFTPM the playing part is over so a caution or dismissal is all that is required to deal with any misconduct. The offending player after the completed penalty goes back to the centre circle so will only get involved again after every other player has taken a penalty. Continued misconduct may result in a dismissal.


So it is two different situations and somewhat poorly written by IFAB
In Law 5 section three the reference is mainly for yellow cards and red cards before and after the game. Its relates to cards being shown before the game, during extra time and penalties.
Where a competition organiser decides to include temporary dismissal in the Kicks from the Penalty Mark sin bin use is allowed yet it must be clearly made part of the competition rules. It also gets complicated as the opponents would be entitled to reduce to equate numbers taking kicks.
So it is unlikely that sin bins would be used by any competition organisers in KFTPM due to the fact that it is makes little sense in a playing context.

When it is not part of the competition rules the default position is that Sin Bins are not used in penalties just the regular red and yellow cards. So any cautions are reported and two cautions or a straight red card in KFTPM will result in a dismissal.
If a player is in the Sin Bin at the end of extra time the player has fully served his temporary expulsion at the end of the game and can take part in penalties.

Cautions issued during the game do not carry in to KFTPM

HI Lee,
no there is no reason to apply such to KFTPM!
If an action is USB it a yellow card do it twice then red card if it is VC it a red card you are removed and the opposition could reduce to equate. In these hypothetical issues one might have an ROC(competition authorities) do something goofy but no serious competition would or should attempt to include the sin bins to decided an outcome. The sinbin time penalties end when the match ends. KFTPM are COMPLETELY separate they are designed ONLY to determine a winner.
Cheers

Hi Peter,
the restart for outside interference is a DB . If the spitter was on the FOP or if the player exited the FOP to spit, it is also an indfk from the point he exited to commit the VC . The DB is ONLY if a outside agent was on the FOP and affecting play for interference as that technically would STOP the play before the spit occurs. If the outside agent had already interfered and the whistle had sounded, -THEN -the spit occur it is even conceivable the team that had their player spit could receive the DB if they had ball possession at the time of the whistle . ONE key element in the LOTG if there is a restart already present ALL actions taken are misconduct only they do not affect the restart.

If the opposition was the target, during live play be it a player, substitute substituted player or technical crew the restart is a DFK or PK .
cheers

Hi Peter
Thanks for the follow up.

In the scenario where a player stays on the field of play and spits at someone on the match card off the field of play the restart is a direct free kick from the boundary line where the offence took place.

This is line with Law 12 where in the case of violent conduct where an object has been thrown, if the position of the contact is off the field of play, the free kick is taken on the nearest point on the boundary line.

In the situation involving a spectator being on or off the field of play does not change the fact that the spectator is still an outside agent so it is a drópped ball from where the ball was located when play was stopped. A free kick cannot be awarded because this offence was not committed against someone on the team lists or a match official.
The DB restart is taken in line with Law 9 which might have an unfair outcome with the offenders team getting the ball.

In reality a referee may opine that the player may have been slightly off the field of play and restart with the IDFK on the boundary line. Very few if any is going to challenge an IDFK free kick on a boundary line after a red card is shown. It is probably the best start in the circumstances as most will expect a free kick against the offender unlike the situation where an outside agent has come on to the field to interfere with play and there is an altercation resulting in a card.

Hi Brian
Thanks for the more specific question.

A referee can take action after the final whistle and the match has ended.
Cards continue to be shown on the field of play while off the field say on the way to the changing rooms the players are informed that they are being sanctioned for misconduct. Sometimes cards in those off the field situations may be the best approach.

Now it is up to a referee to decide if the conduct merits sanction. Trash talk, low level taunting might not get to the level of a caution. The test for me is whether the same action on the field during play would result in cards.
Many times the best decision can be to leave it to the team officials, the calmer players to sort out unless it gets into the realms of violent conduct, offensive insulting and abusive including racist comments or the comments / behaviour is directed at the referee with hostility.

There can be many times when a referee is not aware of misconduct as the referee has already left and gone to the changing room and it is up to the teams to sort out any shenanigans between players.

So it is very much left to the referee to decide. I know many referees who simply make for the changing rooms after say difficult games and leave it to others to sort out any mis behaviour.
I have been to games where there has been verbals between sides with no action taken by referees. I have also seen plenty of red and yellow cards after the game has ended for violent conduct, offensive, insulting and abusive conduct including dissent.

Hi Steve
When it states that a substitute comes on to the FOP to interfere with play it also states that a referee should only stop play if there is actual interference with play.

So yes playing the ball is interference which is punished by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

If play is stopped and there is no interference the restart is an indirect free kick from where the ball was located when play was stopped.

I recall a few season ago when I was on the line in a game as an assistant. Just after half time a ball was clearly going out of play for a throw in. A late returning coach to the technical area stopped the ball for the throw in on the line. The problem was he did so before the ball had fully left the field of play. I went with the throw in flag. There was no intent or malice just a desire to help the restart. There was no complaint about the call.
Have a look at this video
https://youtu.be/EYw4rn_6Rzs?si=0s_1rch5-Pf0iXOn
The restart was a penalty kick after the substitute touched the ball on the field of play which was considered interfering with play
It was a matter of fact and as per the Law it had to be a caution and a penalty kick.
Now I get why this Law was introduced which was to deal with egregious behaviour by substitutes or technical staff stopping goals or goal scoring opportunities yet was this deserving of the full rigour of the Law? At this level yes as it had VAR and played as a Pro game to the letter of the Law.

Compare it to this situation
https://youtu.be/afhWQumYO24?si=CmIl6inASqoq3RMx
There would be no complaint that the technical staff member should be dismissed and the restart should be a penalty kick. The same would apply to a substitute committing the same offence.

I’m around long enough with many others to recall when it was a dropped ball restart. Even today it is rare for interference except for the extra ball on to the field which does not require the game being halted except where there i interference . The law makers made the required changes yet the saying of exceptions make poor law applies here.
When a law is created in response to a specific exception or unusual circumstances, it may not properly address the complexities of the broader issue. This can lead to unintended consequences and unfair outcomes for situations that fall outside of the exception.

Hi Steve,
Just because any offence that involves contact results in a direct free kick that does not mean that all direct free kick offences must involve contact. That's what's known as a non sequitur fallacy.

In fact there are other direct free kick offences that do not have to involve contact. For example, attempts to kick, strike or trip an opponent may be done without contact, but are direct free kick offences nonetheless.

So there is no conflict between awarding a direct free kick for a substitute interfering with play and the statement in Law 12 that all offences involving contact result in a direct free kick.

Hi Steve,

Since your are a referee for under 19 games, you most likely also refereeing high school games where the penalties often differ from those in the Soccer Laws. Such is the case with non-players entering the field.

As indicated in NFHS Rule 13-2-1j, A Direct Free Kick is awarded and taken from the point of interference if a player, coach, or bench personnel enters the field and interferes with play.

However, NFHS Rule 13-3a states an Indirect Free Kick is taken from where the ball was when the referee stops play if a player, coach, or bench personnel enters enters or leaves the field of play without the permission of the official and does not interfere with play.

Thus, if no interference occurs, the penalty in high school play is an indirect not a direct kick.