Open Goal Distraction.

SLI39 said:

Thank you!
Ah, that's interesting. For some reason I always took 'offence punishable by a free kick' to mean that even a substitute/injured player would have to come onto the pitch AND commit further misconduct, but you persuade me otherwise.
Does this also mean that if you enter without permission and then commit dissent it's only a caution for the more serious offence of dissent?

Click to expand...

We are expressly told we can hold the whistle on a player who enters without permission until either the ball goes out of play, or they interfere with play. We then caution them for entering without permission.

If they interfered however, and this interference was by an act of Dissent, the Laws would clearly allow us to punish both the EWOP and Dissent with separate yellow cards...ie, show 2 yellows (and then a red). if this feels like overkill, then we also would have the option of not cautioning for the Dissent. We do not have the option of ignoring the card for EWOP as this is a "must caution" in the Laws.

SLI39 said:

Thank you!
Ah, that's interesting. For some reason I always took 'offence punishable by a free kick' to mean that even a substitute/injured player would have to come onto the pitch AND commit further misconduct, but you persuade me otherwise.
Does this also mean that if you enter without permission and then commit dissent it's only a caution for the more serious offence of dissent?
EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

Click to expand...

Not quite as they would be, imo, sequential offences. I should have been clearer in that the referee punishes the more serious offence where simultaneous offences take place, in your scenario interfering whilst ewop and dogso happen at the same time, where as the player enters and then dissents.

Basically anything with dogso is pretty much a simultaneous offence as an offence is committed and at that exact same time dogso occurs which has a more severesanction and is the one that should be punished.

My two cents worth on the concept of simultaneous offences which is often misunderstood. It is extremely rare for two different acts occur at exactly the same time (even if a fraction of a second apart) so if each of those acts creates an offence, they are not simultaneous. A good example is entering without permission and then interfering with play. Two different acts for two different offences committed sequentially (non-simultaneous).

Simultaneous offences happen when the same act by the same player creates two or more different offences. For example, a second touch after a restart that is a DOGSO. There is no sanction for second touch but we should sanction for the more severe offence of DOGSO. The restart for the second touch is IFK but if it was done by a deliberate handball of a field player then there is a third simultaneous offence of deliberate handball. So the restart will be a DFK or PK which is the more severe punishment.

I must add the referee may choose to ignore the ‘same act rule’ in some cases. For example if two opposing players challenge for the same ball carelessly/recklessly and the offences are close enough in time, the referee can choose to deal with them as simultaneous offences for fairness and/or match control purposes.

Ganajin said:

We should also point out here another loophole closed by new Laws. There was once a problem if a player temporarily off the field for an injury, ran on without getting the referee's permission and booted the ball away as it rolled towards an empty net. The problem? Well the only actual OFFENCE committed was in entering the pitch, the kicking of the ball was in no way illegal: you could disallow the goal, give an IFK where the player entered, but DOGSO could not apply since the actual free kick was not for an offence that prevented a goal (though a caution would be given for illegal entry). Now however entering without permission is one offence and then interfering with play is a separate DIRECT free kick offence of itself, and so DOGSO becomes a possibility. This is true if the ball is played outside the PA: remember though, that if the illegal player kicks away the ball in the PA, it is now a PK...and since the offence was caused by a genuine attempt to play the ball, it's only a YC anyway!

Click to expand...

Interesting scenario which is specifically covered by LOTG.

Regardless of the type of interference, if its DOGSO then its a send-off.