The Ref Stop

Is this decision in the spirit of the game?

The Ref Stop
No more so than the unsporting behaviour of the substitute. Shows a lack of respect for the game IMO. Hence the caution.
Ball still in play and the interference was by a substitute of the defending team in their penalty area. Extra person on the FOP therefore, restart is DFK or PK. Referee did nothing wrong in my opinion, his decisions looked correct.
 
Yampy is correct - i.e. the referee was completely correct in law. I have extracted the relevant sections of the LOTG below showing the referees correct thinking process.

I'm not quite sure of the question though - "is this in the spirit of the game?". I don't see what other option the referee had? The only option that comes to mind is to be completely wrong in law by not penalising the offending player (and thus team), and not awarding a penalty to the offended team....

Step 1 - Outside Interference by Substitute (

Page 36 of the LOTG - Law 3 - The Players:

"If a team official, substitute, substituted, or sent off player, or outside agent, enters the field of play the referee must: (1) only stop play if there is interference with play; (2) have the person removed when play stops; (3) take appropriate disciplinary action"

"If play is stopped, and the interference was by: a team official, substitute, substituted, or sent off player, play restarts with a direct free kick of penalty kick"

Step 2 - Misconduct

Page 85 of the LOTD - Law 12 - Folus and Misconduct:

"A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if guilty of: entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee's permission"
 
Point here is "spirit of the game" is something we can rely on when the law is not explicit. In this case the law is crystal clear. Well done ref.
 
WilliamD said:
Point here is "spirit of the game" is something we can rely on when the law is not explicit. In this case the law is crystal clear. Well done ref.
Click to expand...
Yet the three examples given in the LOTG for application of spirit of the game are all in cases where the law is very clear.

@drahc , The question is not if the referee is correct in law. Page 121 explains why the law 3 section was changed. The point is this scenario does not fit that situation.

Perhaps if I asked the question a different way. Does the punishment fit the crime?
 
one said:
Yet the three examples given in the LOTG for application of spirit of the game are all in cases where the law is very clear.

@drahc , The question is not if the referee is correct in law. Page 121 explains why the law 3 section was changed. The point is this scenario does not fit that situation.

Perhaps if I asked the question a different way. Does the punishment fit the crime?
Click to expand...

Yes, the punishment fits the crime.

Irrespective of law: if you do not caution him - the offended team are going to be angry, the offending team will be happy. If you send him off - the offended team are going to be happy, the offending team will be angry. If you yellow card him - both teams are content.

Luckily law is there for us we don't have to decide. It's a caution. No ifs or buts. It's been a caution before the law changes. It remains a caution after the law changes.
 
believe it or not I had one of these in a youth final but without the penalty. There was a very sheepish 14 year old when he received the caution,
 
drahc said:
Yes, the punishment fits the crime.

Irrespective of law: if you do not caution him - the offended team are going to be angry, the offending team will be happy. If you send him off - the offended team are going to be happy, the offending team will be angry. If you yellow card him - both teams are content.

Luckily law is there for us we don't have to decide. It's a caution. No ifs or buts. It's been a caution before the law changes. It remains a caution after the law changes.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree any more with the caution for either entering without permission or lack of respect (or sheer stupidity which I sometimes wish it were included in the list of cautionable offences).

What I have an issue with in terms of 'fairness' is awarding of a penalty kick, the goal and any result consequences for the team. Prior to the 2017 changes this would have been an IFK which in my opinion would have been a much fairer outcome. Awarding a penalty does not fit the 'fairness' reasoning of the 2017 change (spirit of it).

Explanation:
There is a growing problem of substitutes/team officials entering the field to interfere with play or an opponent, e.g. stopping a goal. This is clearly ‘unfair’ and a direct free kick (or penalty kick if in own penalty area) is more appropriate.
Click to expand...

To make my point clear, lets say in a similar scenario, a physio is attending an injured defender in the same spot as the substitute in the clip (just behind the goal line). As the ball comes in, the physio punches it away to prevent it from hitting the injured player but the ball is still in play. The technical correct decision here is a Penalty Kick restart which is not in the spirit of the game.
 
Yes, that would also be in the spirit of the game, because that is what the law requires us to do.

The punishment has to be severe in order to dissuade people from doing this. The offending team in the above clip will make sure no one on their team does the same thing for a long time.
 
I think we all know that this particular provision was brought in to stop the growing problem of substitutes or team officials coming on to the field deliberately to stop a goal being scored and the fact that a penalty was the only way to restore the lost goal-scoring opportunity. The FAQ to law 3 clearly says this, as follows:
There is a growing problem of interference with play or an opponent by substitutes warming up behind the goal line or team officials and this must be discouraged. A direct free kick (and a penalty if in their own half) is a strong sanction - this is especially important if a substitute or team officials enters the penalty area and stops a goal. ‘Fair play’ says that awarding a penalty kick restores the lost chance to score.
Click to expand...
However that is clearly not the scenario here. Since no goal-scoring chance was lost, the penalty does seem like a somewhat harsh remedy. Unfortunately, the law does not give the referee much option in this case. I suppose this is because to do it any other way would have made it too messy and complicated, so they've gone for the simple "interference with play by an 'extra person' associated with a team is a DFK or penalty" approach.
 
The ref was clearly confident that the first attempt to control the ball with his feet was inside the field of play, thus his actions were entirely correct

Would have been interesting to see the linos positioning to see how much help he could have given him.

If the ball was out of play then goal kick and a request that the subs move away from behind the goal . In the U.K you would hope that subs behind goal would have been picked up sooner
 
I had this last Thursday, little bit different in that it was in a 7 a side fixture, where the subs at this particular league have to stay behind the goal line where there is no barrier (something I don't agree with, they should be at the side but that's by the by). Ball was going out for a corner, and the sub who was behind the goal stepped onto the pitch in the penalty area and kicked the ball to the keeper before it had gone out. I had no choice but to award the penalty and show him a blue card (small sided equivalent to the yellow as most of you should know, just meaning he couldn't sub on for the next 5 minutes). The best thing about being, every other player on the pitch knew that that was right and not one person moaned! Was very surprised :angel:
 
Paul March said:
If the ball was out of play then goal kick and a request that the subs move away from behind the goal . In the U.K you would hope that subs behind goal would have been picked up sooner
Click to expand...
Some fields are, unfortunately, limited as to where subs can warm up.

If forced to have them behind the goals, if the field is wide enough, they are limited to staying outside of the penalty area, but behind the lines. That's fairly rare, so what was being done in the game here (no closer than the edge of the goal area, and that's pushing it) is sometimes the best we can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top