The Ref Stop

Goal Scored with Extra player on the field

one

one

RefChat Addict
So... following from another thread, I decided to write to IFAB about what I think is a BIG gap in the laws. Make your own interpretation of the answer. My interpretation of it, they now realise there is a gap. And the answer is, until we fix the gap, if there is no goal, wait until next stoppage to caution. If there is a goal, find something to call for interference and disallow the goal due to interference.


Question(s):
1. A substitute or a player temporary off the field of play enters the field of play without the referee’s permission while the ball is in play. This is an offence punishable by a by a FK and a caution.
2. The player/Substitute does not interfere with play. The referee does not stop play according to laws 3.7 or 3.8
3. A team-mate of the Payer/Substitute who committed offence then scores a goal.

· Law 3.9 “Goal scored with an extra person on the field of play” doesn’t seem to cover this scenario directly. One interpretation can be the goal must be allowed
· Law 10.1 indicates a goal is only scored provided an offence has not been committed by the team scoring the goal.

a. Is the goal allowed?
b. What is the restart if the goal is not allowed?
c. Is the player/Substitute cautioned (in either case)?

Answer by IFAB:
The referee must decide if the presence of the player had an impact by distracting the opponent(s) and thus impacting play by affecting the positioning of the opponent(s), if they adjusted to the position of the ‘extra’ player.
 
The Ref Stop
I don’t think it’s a gap. I think it’s what they wanted. And it’s probably viable at the professional level, which is what they think about most, as at that level it should usually be possible to tell the wrong player on the field and whether that player was involved. At grassroots, it can be a lot harder. I think the practical application is that if a player sub is just getting excited and obviously not engaged, the answer is the goal stands. But if the player/sub has come in enough to be part of the game, then the goal doesn’t stand—and I, for one, will err on the side of calling the violation.
 
socal lurker said:
I don’t think it’s a gap. I think it’s what they wanted. And it’s probably viable at the professional level, which is what they think about most, as at that level it should usually be possible to tell the wrong player on the field and whether that player was involved. At grassroots, it can be a lot harder. I think the practical application is that if a player sub is just getting excited and obviously not engaged, the answer is the goal stands. But if the player/sub has come in enough to be part of the game, then the goal doesn’t stand—and I, for one, will err on the side of calling the violation.
Click to expand...
It's not so much a gap, more contrary.

1 section of law says no goal if team commit offence.

1 section says allow goal, despite offence being committed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I believe law 3.9 is deliberately written this way so that a referee is not required to disallow a goal for a team member simply straying onto the pitch for whatever reason. As even 1 step straying onto the touchline could otherwise prevent a team from having their goal counted which would often be considered manifestly unfair. Law 3.9 is a specific provision that I would say disapplies the general provision in Law 10.1.
 
Last edited:
CaptainsPlease said:
I believe law 3.9 is deliberately written this way so that a referee is not required to disallow a goal for a team member simply straying onto the pitch for whatever reason. As even 1 step straying onto the touchline could otherwise prevent a team from having their goal counted which would often be considered manifestly unfair. Law 3.9 is a specific provision that I would say disapplies the general provision in Law 10.1.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That was IFAB’s explanation for the language change—the explanation is in the app for the 23/24 Laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top