I must be stupid.

[Therealcjhill]

I’m clearly missing something when reading these but I can’t understand the difference, yet totally different outcomes.

 

[socal lurker]

Not sure what the confusion is.

Play is not stopped for an extra body on the field unless there is interference.

If, however, a goal is scored and the extra person was from the team that scored (sub/team official), then the goal is disallowed, even if there was not interference.

In other words, play is not stopped, but a goal cannot be scored.

At the same time, as we saw yesterday, it is possible for that to be considered trifling. (The language in Law 3 was not intended to disallow a goal for a technical infraction.)

 

[Therealcjhill]

Not sure what the confusion is.

Play is not stopped for an extra body on the field unless there is interference.

If, however, a goal is scored and the extra person was from the team that scored (sub/team official), then the goal is disallowed, even if there was not interference.

In other words, play is not stopped, but a goal cannot be scored.

At the same time, as we saw yesterday, it is possible for that to be considered trifling. (The language in Law 3 was not intended to disallow a goal for a technical infraction.)

That’s the reason I was asking and wondering what I had missed. Like I said, I knew I was being stupid .

 

[NOVARef]

Not sure what the confusion is.

Play is not stopped for an extra body on the field unless there is interference.

If, however, a goal is scored and the extra person was from the team that scored (sub/team official), then the goal is disallowed, even if there was not interference.

In other words, play is not stopped, but a goal cannot be scored.

At the same time, as we saw yesterday, it is possible for that to be considered trifling. (The language in Law 3 was not intended to disallow a goal for a technical infraction.)

The confusion is...Section 7 says that goal IS awarded. ???

 

[one]

The confusion is...Section 7 says that goal IS awarded. ???

"Unless interference was by the attacking team"

So ball goes into goal and interference is by defending team, or outside agent (no impact to defending team) then you allow the goal. But if interference by attacking team, you disallow.

 

[NOVARef]

"Unless interference was by the attacking team"

So ball goes into goal and interference is by defending team, or outside agent (no impact to defending team) then you allow the goal. But if interference by attacking team, you disallow.

Geez. Of course. I read that wrong. Thank you!

 

[Townie]

Not sure what the confusion is.

Play is not stopped for an extra body on the field unless there is interference.

If, however, a goal is scored and the extra person was from the team that scored (sub/team official), then the goal is disallowed, even if there was not interference.

In other words, play is not stopped, but a goal cannot be scored.

At the same time, as we saw yesterday, it is possible for that to be considered trifling. (The language in Law 3 was not intended to disallow a goal for a technical infraction.)

so messi's 2nd goal vs france should've have counted as subs were on the pitch ?

 

[socal lurker]

so messi's 2nd goal vs france should've have counted as subs were on the pitch ?

By the literal words of the Law, that is correct. But I don’t think you’ll find one ref in 1,000 who thinks the words are meant to be applied literally and that the goal should have been disallowed. That isn‘t what it was intended for. The violation was trifling and should be ignored. (I think it is unfortunate that IFAB removed the old language inthe magic book expressly stating that trifling offenses are not meant to be punished.)

 

[Redster]

By the literal words of the Law, that is correct. But I don’t think you’ll find one ref in 1,000 who thinks the words are meant to be applied literally and that the goal should have been disallowed. That isn‘t what it was intended for. The violation was trifling and should be ignored. (I think it is unfortunate that IFAB removed the old language inthe magic book expressly stating that trifling offenses are not meant to be punished.)

I know this is the position of many, and I concur that the effect on the opposition was trifling, but in my view the offence in itself is not trifling.
The subs were, minimum, 10 yards from where they were supposed to be. Everyone and their dogs know that the touchline delineates the field of play, and those same people and dogs know that subs are not to be on the field of play.

You could call it a technical offence, but not a trifling one.

 

[Peter Grove]

You could call it a technical offence, but not a trifling one.

You could call it trifling, and in fact I would. The main reason being that for me, it has not the slightest impact on the scoring of the goal.

Secondly I'm not sure saying the subs were "10 yards from where they were supposed to be" is really relevant when we're talking about whether the offence was trifling. In terms of disallowing a goal the only place they're not allowed to be is on the pitch and as the images show, they were only a couple of steps onto the pitch. So again, relatively trifling in terms of distance (as well as completely trifling in terms of impact).

And, as the response from the IFAB about such a situation said:

The referee must judge the exact nature /reason for the extra person being on the field of play and if there was no impact at all then the goal could be allowed.