LOTG Exam Question

[vali1234]

Minute 35, player NO.19 receives a second YC, referee forgets he has another YC and fails to send him off. 5 minutes later, he scores an own goal. The captain of NO.19 team tells the referee about his mistake. What decision should the referee take as he figures out his mistake?
A) Goal not given, RC to NO.19, IFK for the other team
B)Goal given , RC to NO.19, reports the incident to authorities in the match report
C) Goal not given , RC to NO.19, dropped ball , reports the incident to authorities in the match report
D)Goal not given, RC to NO.19, goal kick, reports the incident to authorities in the match report.

 

[RefereeX]

I'll be honest, I'm not 100% certain on this, however my thoughts are as follows...

Edit to add, I initially didn't realise it was an own goal he scored... so the following would be if it was a normal goal...

Firstly, in what scenario would the captain of No. 19s team tell the referee his own player should have been sent off after he's just scored a goal?
Secondly, even if it was the opposition, in what scenario would they wait for the player to score a goal before telling the referee he should have been sent off?

But in an utterly bizarre world where this actually happened, I would suggest the outcome would be to issue a red card but as the player had not been dismissed before the goal was scored, the goal would stand. Report to the authorities. (B)

Then... knowing it's an own goal it kind of then makes sense that his captain might inform the referee of his mistake in an attempt to eradicate the OG... but I'd still say the outcome is the same. Goal stands, report to authorities.

 

[Samuel]

I was reading through the LOTG trying to see what trick they had up the sleeve and of course it look like they do for this.

In Law 3: 9. Goal with an extra player on the field of play
If, after a goal is scored, the referee realises, before play restarts, that an extra person was on the field of play when the goal was scored, and that person interfered with play:
The referee must allow the goal if the extra player was:
A player, substitute, substituted player, sent off player or team official of the team that conceded the goal.

But it doesn't specify anything if it is an OG

 

[RefereeX]

I was reading through the LOTG trying to see what trick they had up the sleeve and of course it look like they do for this.

In Law 3: 9. Goal with an extra player on the field of play
If, after a goal is scored, the referee realises, before play restarts, that an extra person was on the field of play when the goal was scored, and that person interfered with play:
The referee must allow the goal if the extra player was:
A player, substitute, substituted player, sent off player or team official of the team that conceded the goal.

But it doesn't specify anything if it is an OG

Technically that means they're the team that conceded the goal so allow it, but equally I'm not sure that's relevant because the player wasn't sent off.

 

[Samuel]

That is a very valid point that I hadn't thought of. I was looking at it from an extra player point of view instead of the missed red card mistake. If this is from an exam that the OP has to complete, the creators clearly aren't being nice to them

 

[Gabriel]

Surely the most appropriate answer is B (allow, send off, report). If we realise we missed a penalty 5 mins ago we can't go back and give it (assuming play restarted in that 5 mins) so why could we disallow a goal based on a mistake made 5 mins ago?

 

[socal lurker]

It’s a poor question aimed not at understanding the Laws but at reading comprehension and noticing that it was an own goal rather than scoring a goal for his team. Once you see that, it is a very easy question, as of course the goal isn’t going to be wiped because the player who scored against his own team should already have been sent off. Questions that test test-taking skills may have some merit in academia, but they don’t belong on referee exams.

I suppose there is some relief on that point, as I do think the answer remains the same (though not as clear) if he scored a goal for his own team. I don’t see a basis in Law to call him a sent off player if he wasn’t sent off, so I don’t see the basis in Law for wiping out the goal. Of course, this creates a pretty clear protestable event.

 

[one]

This is not the first time we have had a 'lotg question' which follows the pattern of 'what do you do based on lotg, if you did something that was against the lotg earlier in the game which impacted the new decision. Lotg is not generally written for what to do in cases like this.

Another example is a team scores a goal (but ball runs through the net). The referee gives a goal kick and ignores the protest. From the quickly and legally taken goal kick and a few passes later, the other team scores. The AR on the other side now informs the referee he is sure the earlier incident was a goal. After investigation and finding the hole in the net, and goal keeper confession, it is clear it was a goal. What now?

I can give many more examples

There is no real lotg answer to the OP, only game management, common sense, or best practice answers. I would send the said player off (he is now, and only now, a sent off player / extra person). Allow the goal, report it to the league and let them deal with it.

For my example, allow the second goal only. Report to league and let them deal with it.

 

[JamesL]

@vali1234

Might be 1 to throw at lawenquiries@theifab.com to get their view on it.

Would also be great if you shared their response here.

 

[vali1234]

@vali1234

Might be 1 to throw at lawenquiries@theifab.com to get their view on it.

Would also be great if you shared their response here.

Just sent it to them, but I also think that the correct answer is B. There is no clear instruction on what to do based on LOTG, BUT I do think that not giving the goal would create a lot of confusion for the crowd, officials and everyone. Therefore, I think that the best way to act in this situation is to try to not create more confusion.

 

[JamesL]

Yes. Agree. For sure option b would be the right answer. It's the only one with goal but be interested what they say without the multiple choice.

 

[vali1234]

On the same exam, the following question was given: "Minute 60, NO.19 receives a second YC but ref forgets that he has another one , so he fails to sent him off. No 19's coach figures out the ref's mistake and he substitutes no.19 with no.15. 5 minutes later, no.15 scores a goal. Game is restarted and the ref figures out his mistake 5 minutes later, his decision is:
A) Red card to no.19, dropped ball for the team that had possesion, report to the authorities.
B) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, dropped ball, goal not given, report to the authorities.
C) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, dropped ball, goal not given, report to the authorities.
D) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, IFK , goal not given, report to the authorities.

 

[RefereeX]

Yes. Agree. For sure option b would be the right answer. It's the only one with goal but be interested what they say without the multiple choice.

There is a small part of me that wonders whether, if play has restarted and we realise the error, whether we could still show a red card without a 3rd cautionable offence. In most other scenarios, once play has restarted, errors can't be rectified. Something tells me this would be different though

 

[vali1234]

There is a small part of me that wonders whether, if play has restarted and we realise the error, whether we could still show a red card without a 3rd cautionable offence. In most other scenarios, once play has restarted, errors can't be rectified. Something tells me this would be different though

Law 5 states that after replay, refeeres cannot change decision regarding play: e.g. penalty given, goal being scored. But this one is different. A player has 2 YC so he is still committing an offence. Therefore, the referee can still take action.

 

[one]

What if in the same scenario, but there is no substitution. The player with 2yc scores.

The answer for all of these is the same. Do not make such critical mistakes.

 

[one]

There is a small part of me that wonders whether, if play has restarted and we realise the error, whether we could still show a red card without a 3rd cautionable offence. In most other scenarios, once play has restarted, errors can't be rectified. Something tells me this would be different though

For me, sending him off is not changing a decision. Its enforcing a decision already made (at the time of 2yc) which we failed to enforce earlier.

Similar to if a team starts with 12 players and we only realise 5min into the game, we are not going to let them have 12 for the rest of the game

Allowing Or disallowing A goal scored is a different scenario.

 

[RefereeX]

On the same exam, the following question was given: "Minute 60, NO.19 receives a second YC but ref forgets that he has another one , so he fails to sent him off. No 19's coach figures out the ref's mistake and he substitutes no.19 with no.15. 5 minutes later, no.15 scores a goal. Game is restarted and the ref figures out his mistake 5 minutes later, his decision is:
A) Red card to no.19, dropped ball for the team that had possesion, report to the authorities.
B) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, dropped ball, goal not given, report to the authorities.
C) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, dropped ball, goal not given, report to the authorities.
D) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, IFK , goal not given, report to the authorities.

Would suggest the answer here is A.

Pretty sure if you realise a player should have been sent off after they've been substituted and play has been restarted, you can't retrospectively reduce a team to 10.

Assuming the B C and D are meant to say no. 15 can substitute another player on the pitch? Understand the logic behind saying that, but then what happens if the club say they don't want to do that and wouldn't have bought 15 on if they'd known their player was sent off, are we sending him back to the bench and they're able to bring him on later? makes no sense.

 

[socal lurker]

This is not the first time we have had a 'lotg question' which follows the pattern of 'what do you do based on lotg, if you did something that was against the lotg earlier in the game which impacted the new decision. Lotg is not generally written for what to do in cases like this.

Another example is a team scores a goal (but ball runs through the net). The referee gives a goal kick and ignores the protest. From the quickly and legally taken goal kick and a few passes later, the other team scores. The AR on the other side now informs the referee he is sure the earlier incident was a goal. After investigation and finding the hole in the net, and goal keeper confession, it is clear it was a goal. What now?

I can give many more examples

There is no real lotg answer to the OP, only game management, common sense, or best practice answers. I would send the said player off (he is now, and only now, a sent off player / extra person). Allow the goal, report it to the league and let them deal with it.

For my example, allow the second goal only. Report to league and let them deal with it.

Your Q does have an answer in Law. Once the goal was given and the match restarted, the R cannot change the erroneous decision and the goal stands.
a
And I actually think there is an answer for the OP in Law and is easy—the goal stands because there is no basis in Law whatsoever to disallow a goal because the scored upon team had a player who hadn’t been shown the red after the second yellow.

and even if you change it to scoring for his own team, the Laws don’t provide a reason to cancel the goal, so the player is sent off but the goal stands. But that diesn’t undo the fact the R made a protestable error. Disallowing the goal just means there have now been two protestable errors made, and either team can protest.

 

[socal lurker]

On the same exam, the following question was given: "Minute 60, NO.19 receives a second YC but ref forgets that he has another one , so he fails to sent him off. No 19's coach figures out the ref's mistake and he substitutes no.19 with no.15. 5 minutes later, no.15 scores a goal. Game is restarted and the ref figures out his mistake 5 minutes later, his decision is:
A) Red card to no.19, dropped ball for the team that had possesion, report to the authorities.
B) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, dropped ball, goal not given, report to the authorities.
C) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, dropped ball, goal not given, report to the authorities.
D) RC to no.19, his team will play in 10 players, no.19 can substitute another player currently on the pitch, IFK , goal not given, report to the authorities.

I assume either B or C was goal given?

 

[vali1234]

I assume either B or C was goal given?

yes, B and C was goal given, it was a mistake made by me.