Substitute interference before a goal

[one]

Here is a scenario I am not sure how the new laws will handle.

There is a shot on goal and the ball is on its way to the bottom right corner. The keeper dives and has a good chance of saving it with an outstretched arm. Just before the ball is saved (or goes in) a defending substitute who was warming up nearby, slides in with an attempt to save but deflects the ball past the goal keeper and into goal. What is the decision?

 

[richard ramjane]

i think the goal stands and the substitute receives a caution ?

 

[ASM]

Under the new laws, it is a penalty and a caution to the offending substitute. The goal cannot be allowed to stand (despite the element of natural justice) as the sub's interference has prevented the goalkeeper from playing the ball.

It's all on page 36 of the LOTG.

 

[one]

Under the new laws, it is a penalty and a caution to the offending substitute. The goal cannot be allowed to stand (despite the element of natural justice) as the sub's interference has prevented the goalkeeper from playing the ball.

It's all on page 36 of the LOTG.

Thanks @ASM. The explanation given by IFAB for this change on page 36 included that "This ‘fair play’ change means the referee can apply the advantage principle". So why can't we play advantage in this instance? It fits perfectly withing the definition of 'advantage'.

 

[lincs22]

Thanks @ASM. The explanation given by IFAB for this change on page 36 included that "This ‘fair play’ change means the referee can apply the advantage principle". So why can't we play advantage in this instance? It fits perfectly withing the definition of 'advantage'.

Specific excluded by the points above on page 36:

If a team official, substitute, substituted or sent off player or outside agent enters the field of play the referee must:
• only stop play if there is interference with play
• have the person removed when play stops
• take appropriate disciplinary action

Therefore the referee has to stop play, in the same way as if the ball leaves the FOP even though it comes back to the advantage of the attacking team.

 

[ASM]

@one I can understand where you're coming from but in addition to what @lincs22 says above, it's excluded specifically by the element of allowing the goal regardless of the intereference is ruled out as the qualifying element on that paragraph is that no defensive player has been prevented from playing the ball by the interference, which isn't the case here.

If a ball is going into the goal and the interference does not prevent a defending player playing the ball, the goal is awarded if the ball enters the goal (even if contact was made with the ball) unless the ball enters the opponents’ goal.

 

[jofusref]

why would the subs be warming up anywhere near the goal area anyway

 

[J-K]

I would like to give a goal, red card and a penalty

 

[mikedn]

Disallow goal, award penalty, caution offending sub...............

 

[JamesL]

A question on a similar subject - say the goal isn't scored. Do we call this DOGSO - whenever I do those tests the answer is always caution - but they've committed an offence, that offence Denied a goal scoring opp - so should we not issue a red in that circumstance?

And in answer to above, if a goal is scored against the offending side I'm playing advantage and cautioning the offender or extraordinary report if other team official. If it's not the physio I'd probably be looking at having him removed for the remainder of the game as well (rightly or wrongly!)

 

[one]

@lincs22 unless I misunderstood your post I would have to disagree with it. “Only stops play” is different to what you have said which is “has to stop play”. If we use your logic then even if the goal keeper wasn’t there the goal would have to be disallowed which not the spirit and the wording of this new law.


@ASM I am pointing out the contradiction between the wording of the new law and its intention in the OP scenario. The intention points out advantage and fair play which apply to the OP scenario but the wording excludes the OP scenario because a defender was possibly interfered with. This contradiction is sure to lead to some confusion and inconsistent decisions.

 

[ASM]

@one I understand that. Whilst it does seem a little inconsistent, the correct decision according to the LOTG is explained within Law 3.

 

[lincs22]

@one - the way the law is worded could be better. Yes, it would be better if worded as to "has to stop play", rather that must only stop play" but my reading of the LOTG is that the referee has no discretion and MUST STOP PLAY in this instance.

@James Long - dealing with your query, the law is clear only a player can be guilty of a DOGSO. So penalty & caution is the only decision that can be made.

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity

 

[GraemeS]

@one - the way the law is worded could be better. Yes, it would be better if worded as to "has to stop play", rather that must only stop play" but my reading of the LOTG is that the referee has no discretion and MUST STOP PLAY in this instance.

I disagree.

I think the wording exists so that the referee is only allowed to stop play for this if the substitute interferes ie. he MUST NOT stop play simply because the substitute has entered the FOP, but only when he makes a difference. If the substitute does go on to interfere, the decision if to stop play at that point or not is then at the referee's discretion - with the ball continuing directly into the goal being pretty much the only situation I can think of that a referee would sensibly not blow his whistle.

 

[one]

@one - the way the law is worded could be better. Yes, it would be better if worded as to "has to stop play", rather that must only stop play" but my reading of the LOTG is that the referee has no discretion and MUST STOP PLAY in this instance.

@James Long - dealing with your query, the law is clear only a player can be guilty of a DOGSO. So penalty & caution is the only decision that can be made.

@GraemeS pretty much got the first point (although you can play 'advantage anytime unless a defender has been interfered).

On your second point, the law clearly states also substitutes and substituted players can be guilty of DOGSO.

 

[Lasherlogi]

On that, the 16/17 LOTG have removed the old tripartite matrix for fouls. (player, on field, in play)
This previously prevented a sub from committing DOGSO.

Thus, and this is my own interpretation of the laws, a sub could commit a DOGSO foul.

That being said, the LOTG only mention players when talking about DOGSO.

 

[AlexF]

On that, the 16/17 LOTG have removed the old tripartite matrix for fouls. (player, on field, in play)
This previously prevented a sub from committing DOGSO.

Except for the line that stated that substitutes could be dismissed for such...